Join GulfCoastGunForum For Free

Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    50 CAL CESwartz07's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    1,043

    YNG Global Tactical Pistol 1 AAR

    YNG Global, Instructor Scott Yingling, Tactical Pistol 1 class
    After Action Review by Charles Swartz.

    Class dates/times:
    Friday September 6th 1700-2000 Saturday September 7th 1000-1600

    Number of students:
    Friday: 5 (2 LE, 3 Armed security) Saturday: 8 (same plus 3 civilians)

    Locations:
    Friday – DeepWater Martial Arts, 440 E Heinberg St, Pensacola, FL 32502 Saturday – Escambia River Gun Club, Range 7, 4020 Rocky Branch Rd, Cantonment, FL 32533



    Classroom presentation:
    I liked the classroom introduction and presentation. Classroom was small and oddly shaped, not conducive for a classroom environment. Safety, the class outline, and training goals were discussed.



    Gym dry fire: I though this element if the class was an excellent idea. Dry practice is normally not emphasized nearly enough, much less actually practiced in a class. The use of blue-guns with dropping magazines and SIRT pistols greatly enhanced this. Use of cover and entries were well taught.



    Range: ERGC is a great local range. The target stands and props used by the instruction company though were sub-par. A little more money or time spent would increase the usability. I would recommend a metal target stand with the 1 x2” sticks able to be spaced 18-24” apart, such as those sold by target barn, action targets, or any number of other vendors, or locally sourced/built using a similar design. Although there was 8 students plus the instructor demoing, only 7 stands were available. Even though the line was ran with only 4-7 shooters at a time, this lead to targets being shared, which makes it harder to judge each student’s hits. The paper used as a backer also was a sub-par replacement for heavy cardboard. A variety of assorted paper targets, many of which were more expensive splatter targets, were used, but not changed often, making hits impossible to see. This could be easily remedied by using cheaper cardboard or paper targets on cardboard backers, and replacing them more often. I believe this is essential for the instructor and student to be able to read their targets to address faults. Also the method of attaching the targets to the backer with binder clips was ineffective, and should be replaced with staplers or spray glue. I know it seems like I’m speaking a lot on the topic of targets alone, but it makes a big difference to how the class runs and how professional the environment is.


    A decent pre-live fire safety briefing was given, with medical gear locations and job roles outlined. During the class, I saw one instance where safety was jeopardized by a student, but at no fault of the instructor and it was quickly remedied. Generally speaking though, there were some minor safety violations noted that were committed by the instructor, such as dry demos done behind the firing line with a loaded gun, and multiple instances of demos being completed by the instructor and turning up-range towards the class to continue the lesson before the loaded firearm was fully holstered. I never felt endangered and no one was ever flagged by a muzzle, but it is something of note that can be easily improved upon with more conscious effort. Not trying to sound like a “Nancy”, but I expect the instructor in a civilian class to set the example of how to safely handle a firearm in front of students.


    A “pre-test” on slow fire accuracy and then accuracy at speed was completed, and as far as I can recall, this was the only time marksmanship fundamentals was discussed during live-fire and practiced until the same final test to measure gains. Although I know the class is a “tactical” class vs. a “Fundamentals of marksmanship” class, I feel like with how it is considered an entry-level class that much more time should have been spent on the topic. I also could not help but notice the instructor’s lack of marksmanship during nearly all the demos, even when demonstrating fundamental skills. I know we are all imperfect humans and every instructor regardless of skill is going to drop a round or two on some of the demos, but I observed it to be a reoccurring theme. I do not say this to question the instructor’s skill, but it is something that needs addressed because it does not go unnoticed by students.


    The initial firing was done mostly from a high compressed ready. I liked the breakdown of the 4 step draw and how it was taught step by step, aka the “1,1+2,1+2+3” method. One lesson I appreciated was the reminder to inhale during the draw and exhale during the presentation to the target to employ breath control in pistol marksmanship. Loading and reloading the pistol in the workspace, including press checks was taught well. Stoppages and malfunctions were briefly discussed, but no live fire drills were completed. Same for one-handed emergency handling; it was discussed and demoed in dry fire but not practiced at all. Missing was any instruction on WHO/SHO shooting. Check, scan, and assess was also well taught.


    At first, all drills had specific magazine load-outs, and weapons were staged all together on a table and retrieved while moving to the line. I understand this methodology with a beginner’s level fundamentals class, but it seemed out of place in a tactical class. We did progress from that point to buddy clearing guns and re-holstering empty, but again it seemed out of place for the type and level of instruction. Eventually we did start running as a continually semi-hot range.


    Two drills that I did not like whatsoever:
    One where we continually swung the gun at low speed from far left to far right of the target and back, while attempting to break a shot as we crossed over the center of the target. The context was some sort of target transition, but the drill to me was useless and out of context. I felt like we’d be trying to curve bullets next like in the movie “Wanted”. Again, I’m not sure what lesson was attempting to be taught here. To me a target transition would best be taught with two individual targets. Engage the first target with two or more rounds, then move first your eyes to the next target, followed by snapping the gun over to the next target and engaging with two or more rounds (not “tank turret-ing”). Shot cadence could also be practiced, with the ideal being no pause between targets compared to the cadence of fire on the individual targets.

    The other is the lateral moving and shooting drill using the center axis relock style. I see no civilian or domestic law enforcement context to shooting without much accountability while running at a 90* perpendicular to your threat. If moving and shooting at any angle less than nearly 90* (aka down range towards the threat), a standard grip and shooting style can be used. If having to make a nearly 90* movement to cover, then I would teach to shoot, sprint to the new position, and then post up and shoot again, same as you would do if making any movement to cover at an angle greater than 90*, aka up range/retreat/increasing distance. Any kind of suppressive fire, including the demoed only running up range while firing behind you, is out of context for civilians/domestic law enforcement, and in my opinion a dangerous and irresponsible thing to teach to those student types, considering the huge liability involved in its real world application. Accountability for each round fired should be stressed, including those that are shot on the range over the berm.


    Movement up-range was discussed, but only one method was taught and encouraged, which is turning into the gun and moving with it over your shoulder. While I agree this is A method, I don’t think it is THE method for every situation. For example, if forced to employ only methods that keep the muzzle down range, I believe it is also acceptable to turn away from the gun and run with it held low on the strong side and to the rear of the hip, upside down, facing behind you. This is especially applicable to movement to between the 6 and 9 o’clock position. Both of these methods are inferior to either “safety circle/SUL” or “temple index”, but I realize these are not often allowed at conventional ranges since the gun is no longer facing the berm during the up-range movement and is instead facing the ground near the student or in the air. The methods taught are more applicable to square range competition like USPSA/IDPA/3gun/etc than real world scenarios.


    I really liked the teaching of the pectoral index, not just during the draw stroke but also for retention shooting. While not a new concept for me, I appreciated seeing it taught in a local civilian class, considering my general distain for the old school hip shooting as the go to retention shooting position for even current law enforcement qualifications in Florida. Building on this thought, I think the instructor, given his martial arts instructor background and gym ownership, has the opportunity to create and teach an “entangled gunfight” class, such as those taught by Shivworks/Craig Douglas. I would defiantly be interested in a local opportunity to take a class like that designed for people such as myself with a very limited prior history of martial arts. Much of this could be done in the gym setting with SIRT guns or with masks and airsoft/Simunitions.


    While the above may seem highly critical, I am focusing more on how the class can be improved versus what was already being done well. This is also coming from someone with extensive advanced civilian and LE training and competition experience. I believe part of this is due to the instructor being new to civilian instruction despite his military instruction experience. I think the instructor would be benefited by continuing his own education as all instructors must, and to do so outside of the Military and NRA civilian world as well (aka a Tom Given Rangemaster class, etc). Overall, I enjoyed the class, and with some relatively minor adjustments to the curriculum, I would recommend this class to local civilians. I know the instructor is attempting to market to the armed security and law enforcement training market as well, but I did not see anything offered that couldn’t be instructed at our agency with our on-staff instructors currently.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  2. 3 Like CESwartz07's Post:


  3. #2
    45 ACP Bowhntr6pt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    368
    Thanks for taking the time to document a thorough AAR... while some might not like the critical feedback, it's an absolute must for individual instructor improvement. I've made several changes to my classes based on shooter feedback.

    I also agree 100% with the continued education... I love Tom Givens and wish I could take more of his classes.
    Signal-0 Productions Firearms Training... for the working man. Member American Snipers Assoc.; National Tactical Officers Assoc., Florida SWAT Assoc., International Assoc of LE Firearms Instructors., and the NRA.

  4. Likes Bowhntr6pt's Post:


  5. #3
    50 CAL CESwartz07's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Bowhntr6pt View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to document a thorough AAR... while some might not like the critical feedback, it's an absolute must for individual instructor improvement. I've made several changes to my classes based on shooter feedback.

    I also agree 100% with the continued education... I love Tom Givens and wish I could take more of his classes.
    I’m still very interested in taking a class with you as well!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •