That's right on the money 589. Most of the more experienced shooters that may lead those types of courses have their hands full with the running of the club, maintaining the props and equipment, organizing matches and competing themselves. We want to provide more opportunity for others to get involved, but something has to give while the course is designed and taught, and the range is occupied during the course as well, so you might as well just run the BB for the members. Designing a different course is kind of a solution to a problem we don't have if you see what I'm getting at...
Holster Course
- Thread starter DT741
- Start date
That's right on the money 589. Most of the more experienced shooters that may lead those types of courses have their hands full with the running of the club, maintaining the props and equipment, organizing matches and competing themselves. We want to provide more opportunity for others to get involved, but something has to give while the course is designed and taught, and the range is occupied during the course as well, so you might as well just run the BB for the members. Designing a different course is kind of a solution to a problem we don't have if you see what I'm getting at...
Folks who have participated in the running of a club will have a very different perspective than those who have only been a member at a club. As I've pointed-out to some of our members, action-pistol skills are very perishable - it makes an in-house holster course more of a program than a course. This means it needs ongoing tracking of members and periodic re-qualification which means more administrative volunteer hours. We tend to think about scenarios where the least competent member of the club is using the action ranges without supervision.
The nice thing about the IPSC BB (and I think IDPA as well) is the requirement for yearly participation in a competition. This forces ongoing competency to a degree - something we'd find hard to do at the club level without a lot of additional infrastructure (processes, people and perhaps technology).
That's my view but I know that others won't necessarily agree, which is why I'd be interested in hearing what others on this forum think.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Well, first off there are no commercial or recreational requirements for holster use, and nothing in Canadian law requires or regulates the use of holsters. There it makes sense that we are all over the map. Keep in mind that with all the Safety Suzies and Donnie Don'ts out there, gun owners included, if there was a bona fide issue with holster use it would have been legislated to death by now.
Despite what some people like me will tell you (holster training for adults is about as important as scissor training, sure there are some things to teach but most will do just fine on their own), there is clearly a demand for professional instruction on holster use.
Some sports require holsters, and those sports do a pretty good job of running courses that covers what you need to know for those sports. If you are uninterested in competing in those sports, those courses offer little for you. Why would they not be interested in taking an action shooting course? Why would a sky diver take a hang gliding course? Why would an ATV enthusiast take a snowmobile course? Maybe the interests overlap enough to be attractive, but quote often the sport isnt what they are interested in, and subsequently that course holds little interest. Why would someone who wants to simply learn how to safely holster a gun for walking around the range give a damn about IPSC Scoring and time penalties?
There is a variety of reasons and applications for holster use, and subsequently there will always be demand for a variety of training options. To each their own.
"if you want to join the pack of holster wearing mag dropping jockeys then demonstrate commitment?" Seriously? read that back to yourself. Some people aren't joiners. Not everyone has a big ego and something to prove. Some people see no need to demonstrate commitment to something they are uninterested in to people they don't know just so they can use a holster and shoot on their own.
And those sports have ongoing requirements to maintain your qual that someone may know they have zero appetite for. Please be a little more open minded in considering why someone might be interested in formal sport oriented courses. TO be Clearly, Black Badge is not a holster course. It is a learn how to compete in IPSC course.
As for the qualifications of people offering less formal training, usually it is the gospel according to them and their experience. THere are lots of different professional organizations that require holster use. Anyone who has been involved in teaching those skills institutionally should be more than competent to teach anyone else how to use a holster, or more accurately, run a dynamic range practice course. Using a holster, and running around the range and doing mag dumps seems to be what most of these courses focus on, and its certainly a lot of fun and no doubt there is high demand for it. But strictly speaking, that is not a holster course.
As for liability, thats what waivers are for.
But can your club justify a rule or policy that requires those courses in order to shoot from a holster?
Honestly if all we are talking about is learning to use a holster, you can cover the theory portion in about 10 minutes tops, and that is really sucking eggs, 15 minutes of practice and a five minute proficiency exam.
If we are talking about a dynamic move and shoot tactical/defensive course, than what I just described would be the first of probably 10 lessons.
As for re-certification, I would tell everyone every three years if you are using the skills regularly, and immediately if its been more than a year since last practice. Just for a quick refresher. Most industrial and professional certificates are set at every three years whether you are using it or not, and if its a critical life saving skill, it tends to be closer to annually. But in the commercial/retail/service training world, its really whatever you think your market will bear.
Most are members of the CAF:
-Small Arm Instructor
-CQB Instructor
-Use of Force Instructor from the MPs, QPP and QC City Police
-ERT Instructors from some Corps as well
Our Club is an Army Base Club. We run 3guns, CQB, Service Rifle, Long Range match and IPSC. This course/qualification/certification wouldnt be a mandatory one, but more of a skill honing/doing things right class. A lot of our members don't want to take BB and do IPSC but they want to get some supervised pistol training. Having someone coaching you, observing what you are doing and giving you feedback about your skills.
We might be getting into semantics here but for my and my club's purposes it's less about holster use and more about use of the action ranges. I agree with you regarding simple holster use but add on time pressure, move and shoot and the occasional heckle from the cheap-seats, in an unsupervised environment - unless some behaviors like reload-trigger-discipline or never-past-90 are drilled pretty deep, I easily foresee scary risk scenarios. At my club, holster qualification means we trust you to use the action ranges unsupervised. I think we'd agree that "10 minutes tops, and that is really sucking eggs, 15 minutes of practice and a five minute proficiency exam" would be inadequate.
My experience is that relying on people to consistently incur inconvenience (i.e. a refresher) when they know that they are not being tracked/reminded of the re-qualification period, is doomed to failure over time. Many will comply voluntarily but many others will let it slide out of neglect or "orneriness". Seeing others allowed to slide gradually deteriorates compliance until it becomes an empty rule. You may have other experience but I would never allow purely voluntary measures on the ranges over which I have responsibility.
- Location
- West Quebec
I'd like that if it could be run at one of the West Quebec (CFPTO) ranges or EOSC in Ontario
Chris Caron
Member
- Location
- Sudbury, Ontario
I had considered offering a "club-level" holster course for members who did not want to shoot IPSC but wanted to use a holster for Steel Challenge matches or for reasons of their own.
I felt that IPSC or IDPA should not have a monopoly on "qualifying" grown-men to use a simple holster.
After searching the web I found a very good curriculum produced by the Nippising Rod and Rifle Club. Here is the link to the pdf download for anyone who is interested.
www.nrrclub.ca/?wpdmact=process&did=NDcuaG90bGluaw==
After some reflection I decided NOT to offer this training for the following reasons.
1. I do not have time for it after other volunteer duties such as IPSC MD, RO, club executive, competing etc.
2. I did not want to be exposed to any liability even if waivers are signed.
3. I do not want to dilute the pool of potential BB candidates since I am an IPSC shooter and I want to promote IPSC.
4. I have noticed that folks who have taken the BB course are much more safe and competent with pistols compared to those who have not taken the BB course.
So although I don't want to stop anyone from using a holster, I also don't want to reinvent the wheel.
my $0.02
I felt that IPSC or IDPA should not have a monopoly on "qualifying" grown-men to use a simple holster.
After searching the web I found a very good curriculum produced by the Nippising Rod and Rifle Club. Here is the link to the pdf download for anyone who is interested.
www.nrrclub.ca/?wpdmact=process&did=NDcuaG90bGluaw==
After some reflection I decided NOT to offer this training for the following reasons.
1. I do not have time for it after other volunteer duties such as IPSC MD, RO, club executive, competing etc.
2. I did not want to be exposed to any liability even if waivers are signed.
3. I do not want to dilute the pool of potential BB candidates since I am an IPSC shooter and I want to promote IPSC.
4. I have noticed that folks who have taken the BB course are much more safe and competent with pistols compared to those who have not taken the BB course.
So although I don't want to stop anyone from using a holster, I also don't want to reinvent the wheel.
my $0.02
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Fair enough. Then don't call it a holster course. Be clear. IT's an action range course. Trigger discipline, regardless of other factors, should be reinforced on every course regardless the actual content. Jeff Cooper's 4 rules of gun safety are pretty much universally adopted, and every course would not be wasting time to spend the first and last five minutes of the day reviewing them.
Breaking 90 is a bit more controversial. For those of us with action jobs, there is no 90. The job could require you point in any direction, and you have be able to do so deliberately and conscientiously. THe 90 degree rule is a control measure in place on ranges so that people not engaged in shooting can know where not to stand, and people who are still developing their muzzle discipline and situational awareness can have a generous margin of error.
As to how deep that needs to be drilled, that depend on the individual. Some people are good to go being told something once only, and will never need to be told again. Others need to be told hundreds of times a day for the rest of their life, and frankly are probably unsuited to action sports. Because there is such a broad range of learning styles and innate competencies, clubs and other isntructors who are teaching for a general safety purpose and not specific to a regulated and judged competition need to be a little open minded in how they meet their intended requirements.
And yes, we do agree, as I said, that if your intent is to certify for dynamic range practice, 30 minutes covering just holsters is inadequate.
How do you define failure? I define failure as A) having a preventable accident, or B) discouraging people from doing what they would otherwise be legal and safe to do because of onerous requirements.
I am not suggesting you have option training requirements for your advanced facilities. I only talk about optional/recommended refresher in a general context of catering to the demand of people who want tactical/defensive firearms training.
If your intent is to require training as a prerequisite to permit use of use of Action Ranges, then of course your training would be mandatory. Its up to the club to police whatever process you put in place. If you require a course in order to use the range, then there is no reason why you cant also include a recurring fresher requirement to maintain privileges. Lots of clubs do this for a variety of applications.
I highly doubt that your action ranges actually require any particular training to use them, and its quite likely that whatever you come up with might need to be blessed by your CFO, who will then REQUIRE you to have some kind of training from that point onwards. I just don't see why you would do that to yourself.
Has your club had actual incidents with people using the action ranges before? Or is this just driven by some panicky pete's who saw something they didn't like?
"I have noticed that folks who have taken the BB course are much more safe and competent with pistols compared to those who have not taken the BB course."
I took the holster course and Black Badge in order to both improve my skills and to ensure that I am not a danger to myself or those around me. I don't as yet compete in IPSC, but have done Steel Challenge and enjoyed it imensely. Also practicing the course of fire for PPC, althought there is no organization locally.
Dave in Calgary, CDTSA member
I took the holster course and Black Badge in order to both improve my skills and to ensure that I am not a danger to myself or those around me. I don't as yet compete in IPSC, but have done Steel Challenge and enjoyed it imensely. Also practicing the course of fire for PPC, althought there is no organization locally.
Dave in Calgary, CDTSA member
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
At 25$ for the day I'd sign up for just about anything.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
No doubt that BB screens out some people who lack the motor skills to perform, and certain provides good knowledge to get people up to speed.
Have you done any research to compare those results with the results that NRRC is seeing with their course?
I don't think anyone would suggest that BB isn't GOOD training. The only real debate is whether or not it is the ONLY good training.
I am glad that you concede in point 3 that you are very interested in promoting the IPSC sport. Many people who promote BB as the AUTHORITY for holster training disingenuously refuse to acknowledge their bias in that regard.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
True, it would probably cost me more to stay at home for the day with the heat on
For $50 bucks I can bring the wife and distract her from online shopping and probably be saving hundreds...
Regrettably as mentioned previously club executives have to train and regulate to the lowest common denominator, action ranges are typically less structured, have dynamic firing lines, or are otherwise unfamiliar to those who are either bench shooters, new shooters, or both. A course of any type provides an introduction to that environment, and also lends some jurisprudence to the club, demonstrating that some steps or vetting was done before shooters used that part of the facility. In larger clubs, pushing 500 members, there are bound to be some that probably aren't suited to the action range environment.
Further I'd add that communication is important in action shooting, shooters that have taken courses are familiar with the use of safety areas, understand the commands of the RO, and generally can predict and get along with other shooters as they are on the same page. Shooters without quals like IPSC or IDPA don't have this training and as such can be kind of a wonky wheel during the organized practice of a particular discipline, I'm not saying they are unsafe, just that they are unable to fall in step with the trained members. Most action sports share similar range commands, so participating in any organized discipline assists in this manner. Certainly a consideration if making an in house course is that it would include an introduction to the expected communication between shooters and ROs.
We require training as a prerequisite and admittedly it provides some exclusivity to the action ranges which doesn't sit well with some members. IMO if the club is going to restrict access to a range unless members take courses, then the club should do what's in its power to provide those courses, which is something we do our best to do.
In reality there are reasons for qualified individuals to NOT want to develop or teach a course as they are shooting themselves in the foot...the more qualified shooters the busier the place gets! To volunteer your own time to train other people that are just going to make it harder for you to use the facility is self-defeating...its not a very community minded attitude but its certainly a consideration for some.
Further I'd add that communication is important in action shooting, shooters that have taken courses are familiar with the use of safety areas, understand the commands of the RO, and generally can predict and get along with other shooters as they are on the same page. Shooters without quals like IPSC or IDPA don't have this training and as such can be kind of a wonky wheel during the organized practice of a particular discipline, I'm not saying they are unsafe, just that they are unable to fall in step with the trained members. Most action sports share similar range commands, so participating in any organized discipline assists in this manner. Certainly a consideration if making an in house course is that it would include an introduction to the expected communication between shooters and ROs.
We require training as a prerequisite and admittedly it provides some exclusivity to the action ranges which doesn't sit well with some members. IMO if the club is going to restrict access to a range unless members take courses, then the club should do what's in its power to provide those courses, which is something we do our best to do.
In reality there are reasons for qualified individuals to NOT want to develop or teach a course as they are shooting themselves in the foot...the more qualified shooters the busier the place gets! To volunteer your own time to train other people that are just going to make it harder for you to use the facility is self-defeating...its not a very community minded attitude but its certainly a consideration for some.
Last edited:
I think most of us on this forum understand, as I and others have pointed out that although some may call it a holster course, it's more than that at many ranges. So who made you the arbiter of what people can call things?
So why would this be relevant? Recreational ranges are not in the business of qualifying people for professional firearms use and no-one professes to do so. We train members for safety during recreation and sports and safe gun handling while others are on the range is essential. I think few reasonable people would find this controversial.
Sure...and IPSC and other sport shooting qualifications help do the weeding-out and the training. I don't think anyone said that IPSC, IDPA, etc. is the only way to train action sports shooters, they are just readily accessible and require no additional investment from club organizers/managers.
Well you are the one who seemed to suggested that a 3 year, voluntary refresher was Standard. What I said was that to get compliance to a refresher, the club would need to effectively track members and ensure that this happened. If this 3-year refresher didn't help avoid "having a preventable accident" why would organizations do this? Personally, I think 3 years is too long.
Some clubs do and some don't. The reason why some clubs don't and instead rely on IPSC or IDPA as has been endlessly repeated is that there are limited club resources to run an in-house qualification program. I don't understand why you continuously imply that the reasons are malice/stupidity and/or nanny-ism.
Why would you doubt that our action ranges "require" training? I thought we agreed that it would be prudent that users of action ranges be trained to use them safely. If this doesn't point to a necessary requirement I don't know what does. This is needlessly argumentative and I'm going to step out after this post since the thread is rapidly going off the rails.
In terms of "actual incidents", if you call an incident someone getting killed - no, thank goodness. If an incident is an ND/AD, shot over a berm, into the range floor, trigger control issue, breaking 90 issue - well yes and more often than we'd like. Have to say I'm glad that we don't share a range.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
I am glad you were the one who first this was starting to get needlessly argumentative. IN re-reading the entire thread before reply, I think we may having a little bit of disagreement simply because we were at one point talking about two different things. TO be clear, SOME people seek out holster training simply to confident in their ability to shoot from a holster. SOME clubs require holster (and additional) training in order to shoot from a holster at that club. I get that you are pretty much talking about the club side. I was going back and forth a little and probably wasn't as clear as I could have been.
Both recreation clubs and professional organizations have the same goal in mind. Safety. Since we are both dealing with the same firearms, its mostly the same science and skills and rules at play.
I see your point about the effort the club would have to commit to monitoring and enforcing refresher training. I understand what that would entail, but then I am confused when you claim that 3 years is too long. Wouldn't doing it every year take MORE work? Even if you are planning to let IPSC or IDPA stand as the necessary qualification, do you not still need to track that people are current with THOSE organizations? and have your ROs enforcing the rule?
Why would clubs do this training and qualification if it didn't help avoid a preventable accident? Well, in general, life is filled with examples of people doing things believing that it will have an effect that it will not.
YOU paint this picture of a dichotomy between clubs who run their own courses, and clubs who don't. With respect, You presume that clubs that don't use IPSC etc as a stand in., but this is a false dichotomy. THere is a very viable third option that many clubs choose, and that is nothing at all. My club does not require any training or qualifications to shoot from a holster, to shoot on the move, etc. As far as any one can tell, our safety record is the same as 98% of other clubs. Zero reportable injuries. Every club is different, has different members, different demographics, different facility etc. Each club of course should decide for itself what is appropriate.
Why do I doubt your action clubs require training? Well, for starters I am going to assume, and please correct me, that your range is designed properly and approved by a CFO, and as such is a safe range suitable for discharging firearms. I am also going to assume that you have safety rules, that the vast majority of your membership follow the vast majority of the time.
Prudence is mitigating actual risk with policies and procedures that demonstrably reduce the likelihood or severity of an occurrence. IF you take a look at the actual records for accidents involving all firearms, in all places, under all circumstances, the rate of death and serious injury would lead one to conclude that while the consequences of error can certainly be disastrous, it is not even remotely common. WIth such a small sample size, its really hard to say with any degree of certainty what training is necessary, but it should be clear that gun owners write large are doing a pretty good job on the gun safety thing. Lastly, when you look at the known tragedies over the last few years, they are pretty evenly distributed among hunters, action sport enthusiasts, casual range goers, back 40 crown land users, and tinkerers at home, which is to say not more than one or two people in each category over the last ten years.
SO given that the vast majority of clubs seem to be doing fine without advanced holster/action sport training, and that most gun owners seem to be doing fine, and that even trained and experience action sport enthusiasts still have tragic accidents, you can make your own conclusion how necessary any club driven training needs to be.
I don't really see where I implied anything about malice or stupidity, but yes I will concede some clubs definitively are prone to some nannyism, but thats fine. Your club, your rules. Each member can vote with their feet as they see fit.
Your range has more muzzle sweeps, shots over the berms, trigger control issues, and floor pops than you'd like; tell me, is this happening on the action ranges, the other ranges, or both? If its not exclusive to the action ranges, perhaps you should consider making EVERYONE do a BB course, regardless of if they shoot action or not. How does your club handle the individuals who have incidents? DO you ever require them to go back and recomplete certain training?
I think you and I will agree that regardless of your skill sets or interests, the more good training you seek out and complete, the better. (please don't take that as an endorsement of mandatory training heaped on people that might not need it).
Finally, it seems we have a difference of opinion and experience on how to approach a safety issue, and your conclusion is to be glad we don't share a range? Ok man. What range? I will voluntarily put it on my do not call list.
