^ I know you wrote that partially in-jest, but actually, most of what I repeat come directly from vetted sources: from those whose peers have named them as a true Subject Matter Expert (SME).
The two individuals whose words are most applicable and which I've cited in this thread come from the following (and for handgun, for-instance, there's similar pictures of me in classes with noted SMEs - https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/type-of-holster-you-use-for-edc.172/page-2#post-5955 and https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/is-your-shooting-stance-wrong.146/#post-3819) ----->
This is me taking a class from John "Chappy" Chapman (https://www.bravocompanymfg.com/gunfighters/john_chapman.php) -
^ Chappy is a recognized SME in both CQB as well as lights/night-vision/optics. His CV includes the like of BE Meyers (https://www.breachbangclear.com/chappy-goes-mawling/), Sphur (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/15/spuhr-announces-forge-tactical-as-brand-ambassadors/) and being recruited by Panteo Productions for their CQB and NV segments (https://panteao.com/instructors/john-chapman/).
And here's Joe Weyer of the Alliance PD SRT (https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/who-is-joe-weyer/ and https://alliancepolicetraining.com/instructors/) critically assessing my lack of skill and offering sage words of correction as well as warm reassurance -
Ask anyone in the industry, and they'll tell you that the APD's shoothouse is Joe's house - and that this rabidly pro-2A instructor has taught countless military/police and American citizens alike.
What I try to advise others with is simply my way of "paying it forward," because I know that not everyone is able to get out to train (I found Claude Werner's recent blog entry to speak very much to my heart: https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/can-we-be-a-little-less-judgmental/). I take what folks like these have taught me and try to help others who are struggling with the same concepts/issues as I have.
For example, I up-front let folks know that I had a hard time with mechanical offset (https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/lets-see-your-ar-setups.258/page-2#post-3579). I had thought that I "got it," with the previous flat-range classes I'd taken (including shooting on moving targets), but my spring of 2016 virgin live-fire runs through the shoothouse showed me that when the pressure is on and the tiny pea that I call my brain reached overload, I started no longer be able to hold to the exacting "eyebox" metric for head-shots. This then led me to pursue several fundamental/basic AR classes that summer so that I could remediate.
Similarly, the difficulties I encountered with the interaction of my astigmatism and near-sightedness versus my RDS (Aimpoint T1) during my first real AR class where I could push distance caused me to pursue this matter more, again seeking advice as well as instruction from SMEs with both the carbine and optics (https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/sights.354/#post-5092 and https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/lets-see-your-ar-setups.258/page-4#post-4222). This led to more self-guided range-time and classes, to vet these concepts for myself and to again remediate and ingrain proper technique.
It's not just about believing blindly everything that I read or see. There's a tremendous amount of misinformed, wrong, and even outright dangerously problematic instruction out there on the internet today - and it is particularly in response to this type of bad advice that I try and counterbalance.
It's about knowing who the information came from, and being able to prove (or disprove) the validity of their assertions and advice for myself: and even moreso specifically in the context of how I will employ these weapons, gear, and technique in my life.
Only then can I properly pass-on the knowledge: knowing not just that it's the correct thing that someone else has said/instructed, but WHY that bit of advice is actually correct and applicable.
So, yes, I may have read it or seen it on the internet (and heck, doesn't our writing and interactions here, by their very nature, also fall to this same skepticism?
) - but good information is good information. Just because I saw on the internet that 2+2=4 doesn't take away the fundamental truth behind that reality. I guaranty anyone reading my posts that should you pursue the issues that I've written, you'll find that the sources I cited will meet the highest vetting requirements, and that the skill and techniques I quoted from them will play out for you with just as much validity as any other student they have taught.
Last edited:
