AAR for John Farnam's Defensive Pistol Course - August 2013

[GNCAaron]

This will be my AAR for John Farnam’s basic pistol course, which was held at the Monticello Sportsman’s Club on August 18-19 2013. Bottom line up front: I have trained with 10 different defensive pistol trainers over the past three years, (that may not sound like a lot to some, but I’m not a cop; I use my own time and money to do this stuff) and I recommend all of them over Farnam. As with all of my AARs, this is going to be a frank, no-nonsense review.

I’m going to start with the good, and don’t get me wrong, there was a lot of good. Farnam does a good job at telling us what to expect after a shooting, regarding how to interact with witnesses and police. We also spent time doing drills which taught us how to disengage from possible criminals, and he gave us a pretty good trick that works most of the time if you fully commit to the “act”. Only Southnarc did a better job of this during his course (who is one of the top two trainers I recommend to anybody who carries a gun).

Farnam also gave a good 30-minute lecture on combat medicine, and let us look at the contents of his personal blow out kit. Trauma care is often overlooked, both on the range, as well as in our everyday lives. On the range, the instructor MUST have a kit, but every student SHOULD have one as well. In our every day carry, we should have one close at hand as well. Farnam’s medical kit is concise and complete, and I don’t mind giving him a plug here...if you don’t have a gunshot kit, Farnam’s is a great one to go buy now. Google “Farnam gunshot kit” for price and where to buy.

Most of the shooting drills were done from three to fifteen yards. Farnam designed his own target, and it presents a challenging “A Zone”. The only acceptable place for hits on his target is a 2”x3” head shot, or a 4”x20” (approximately, based on memory) torso shot which runs from the upper chest down to the navel. I like this target, because it requires a far greater amount of concentration to get hits versus traditional humanoid targets which usually give a much larger hit zone.

I’ll detail two of the drills I’ll remember the longest, due to their difficulty (which is a good thing). The first took place at three yards, and was a hostage rescue drill. We were on line, and would pretend to see our target as a bad guy holding a good guy hostage. We then shouted a challenge, waited two seconds - with hopes that he would begin his response, and then we raised our gun and shot him in the nose as quickly as we could. This is a very realistic drill, and I appreciated it more than any other we did. Another challenging drill was the multiple target drill, with four targets at ranges from contact to about 20 yards. We would begin the drill by double tapping the target at contact distance, and then we moved laterally and engaged the other three targets in various order. Any multiple target drill is a good drill, because it represents a very possible circumstance should any of us ever be attacked.

We also did a good night shoot. Farnam showed us the common ways to hold a flashlight and a gun, and we shot the targets. Nothing too crazy there, but its always interesting to see the level of skill diminish along with the sunlight. I was the only student with a pistol-mounted light, and I can’t suggest strongly enough that if you can make it work on your CCW rig, do it. I still have to carry a regular light in my pocket though.

So, with all of this good stuff above, what was wrong? Well, two things. First, Farnam absolutely insists on an inefficient stance called the weaver. Most people who read this will know what that is, but for those who don’t, go to Google images and type in “weaver vs. isosceles stance”. To me, this is like using the “sling-shot” method to run the slide. I’ve trained mostly with cops, but have also taken training from former Delta. All of them, with the exception of Farnam, shoot from isosceles when the target is beyond two arms reach. This is not just for gun games. It is more productive, more intuitive, more consistent, and as a result, you can shoot faster and more accurately. Through the normal course of fire during the two days, as well as during the final test that was taken by both students and instructors alike, I literally proved it, and I challenge anyone who was there to say otherwise.

Farnam mentioned retention as a reason why he shoots in weaver. He said if someone grabs his gun, he has room in his natural presentation of the pistol to push the gun forward, and then retract it back into retention. This is true. However, through my personal experience in training with guns at contact distance, the last thing I will ever do if someone is trying to disarm me is push my gun away from my body. That will simply not happen. Conversely, whether the gun is pressed out to the arms’ natural limit of extension in an isosceles stance, or whether the gun is held somewhere up in front of the face in a weaver stance, I can pull it back into retention in the same manner from either position. Southnarc had us do it over and over and over again in his extreme close quarters concepts course.

Second, Farnam is obnoxious. For some reading this, they will call me a pansy. Whatever. Besides, he wasn’t obnoxious to me. There were two pretty girls in the class, and another one who was our waitress during dinner on Saturday evening, and some of the comments he made were simply not appropriate. Since this is subjective, I’ll move on. I’ll end this paragraph by stating I was unimpressed by his lack of professionalism regarding his demeanor, his attitude, and many of his comments.

So, do I recommend Farnam’s class? Yes, I do. I haven't yet come to regret any firearms training course I've taken. But if a friend asks me for a half-dozen defensive pistol course recommendations, it will go something like this:

1.Rick Largesse - Controlled Chaos Arms
2.Craig Douglass - Southnarc
3.Mike Pannone - CCT Solutions
4.Rob Pincus - Combat Focus Shooting
5.Jeff Mullenmeister - SPEAR, Combat Focus Shooting
6.James Yeager / Jay Gibson - Tactical Response

Since some of the training I’ve done is restricted to LE, and others aren’t conducting training at this time, at this point I’d add in Farnam at the bottom.

Now, I believe all four of the assistant instructors at Farnam’s class are members of this forum. Eric, I had a delightful conversation with you Saturday evening during dinner. Rolf, we too broke bread and shared stories Sunday afternoon over lunch. I would assume that both of you would describe me as quiet, polite, and relaxed. I was not there to cause trouble, nor is that my intention here now. I’ve written a few AARs here for other guys, and I was frank and honest there too. I invite you to search them out here in the review section. If you disagree with my assessment of the course, or of Farnam himself, I invite you to share your experiences with him here in this thread. If you wrote an AAR from the first time you ever met the man, all those years ago, dig it out and post it here. If he’s touched your life in a positive way, share your story.

I hope it’s obvious, but to squash the thought some may have, I am not affiliated with Farnam, or any other firearms trainer or company in any way. I am simply a student of the art. And Rolf, Eric, Bob and John, I’ve never participated in an IDPA, IPSC, or USPSA match. Not once. I shot the Glock match in summer 2012, and thought it was OK. (That said, I am going to try to make it to some of BPR's IPSC shoots this fall and winter, because it does look like fun.) The skill I’ve acquired has come solely from competent professionals who have been paid to carry a gun.


Edit: Spelling/Grammer

[rtk]

I have taken training from John, he is a good instructor (IMHO). I have taken training from others also, even a decorated Seal and they were good too. I take out of it what works for me and press on. thanks for your candid review!

[highwarden]

I have taken a few self defense courses over the years and seen a lot of different techniques praised as the best or the only right way. Sooner or later everyone of them was proven wrong. One of the best instructors I had said" There is no one true right way. There is only what works best for you."

The isosceles stance is a gamers stance. It works fine for a lot of types of competition. But it is a static stance. It is also not stable. You can easily be pushed over either forward or backward. It is slower to move from than a Weaver. I wasn't there so I don't know was taught but if this was supposed to be defensive pistol the first thing you should have been taught after the safety rules and proper draw would have been that if you are standing still you are dying. From what I have seen, read, and heard you are not likely to learn proper footwork in a pistol class. For that you need an empty hand martial arts class.

[CKM]

I am one of the two females in this class and from my point of view I can confirm Aaron's impressions are accurate; as a matter of fact, they were spot on. I have taken several classes, all instructed by men and I believe I have been then only woman in 95% of them and this is the first course that I have noticed it. When I take any class, in any arena, I don't show up as a 'woman', I come as a person that wants to learn and get better. Unfortunately, that was impossible in this situation. I was constantly reminded, in a crude way that I am in fact a woman and different than his typical student. Nearly every comment, criticism or compliment was accompanied by a crude comment as the instructor couldn't seem to get over the fact that there was a woman present in his class. It took me a while to tune his crudeness out but after I figured out his shortcomings I pressed on and did just fine. As a coach for over 10 years myself I would take it as a sign I need to improve on my delivery if my clients needed to tune me out to succeed -- after all, what's the point of paying to be instructed if you have to detach and ignore the instructor’s comments. I would never recommend this class to another woman. As a matter of fact, my son was also in this class and I can guarantee he would never recommend this class to another man -- it was an embarrassment that he had to witness this treatment and I am ashamed of how this instructor presented his character.

[Hmac]

Overall, not a very favorable AAR.

I've never taken an instructional firearms course where I didn't learn something, but instructor attitude always plays a role as to how much I enjoy the training, which in turn plays a role in whether I consider it to be a worthwhile expenditure of my money and my time. I think I can adjust my local "wish list" of instructors I'd like to train with.

[Erik_Pakieser]

I've known John Farnam for 18 years. I consider him a friend and mentor. When I first trained with him in 1995, he opened my eyes to some harsh realities about defensive shooting. By coincidence or fate, I used these techniques to save my life when I was assaulted on duty a few weeks later. I have no doubt that if I hadn't learned what I learned from John I would have been seriously injured or killed.

Another thing I like about John's style is that he is continually refining his techniques and willing to try new ideas. Every time I train with him, I learn something new that I can add to my toolbox.

I know he can be crude; he is who he is and that's not going to change. I feel that what he teaches is unique and practical and offsets his demeanor.

On a more broad note (not specific to John Farnam), I think there is a disconnect between the "old" gun culture and "Gun Culture 2.0". Many people still believe that it's safe to assume that if you are into shooting, you must also hold certain political or social ideas. The fact is, we are seeing more women, younger students, different races and orientations, and all walks of life in our classes.

In my own classes, I do my best to keep politics and social commentary aside and concentrate on shooting. As in instructor, in addition to teaching people how to shoot, I need to make them feel welcomed and included in our gun culture, where their support is desperately needed.

[Ski_Doctor]

Farnam course AAR - Part III

It’s my turn to add to some to the well placed comments above. I too attended last weekend’s class and will echo the comments stated above (both good and constructive).
With that being said let me first state that any training is valuable training and regardless of the shortcomings of the instructor, some things can be learned. All persons who have a permit to carry, or are interested in firearms in general should seek qualified training anytime they can. As with any training class; “accept the best and ignore the rest”.

Being a fairly objective person let me speak to the course content in general, since the negatives have been well hashed out above. First of all, I want to thank Eric, Rolf and the other instructors for their critical eye and attention to detail. Everyone can use improvement and coaching, and I personally enjoyed their conversation, comments and points of view both on the firing line and off (lunch, dinner etc).

Farnam’s emphasis throughout the course was to constantly get off the X. If you've never heard that statement before, it simply means to move your butt and to never stand still except when firing. This is sage wisdom as anyone who’s ever had bullets whizzing past them will attest. Move, find cover, return fire, move… For most of us, we practice at square ranges and don’t have much opportunity to exercise the legs in addition to the arms and brain. As such, adapting to moving and firing is something that every shooter needs to master and more importantly, practice regularly.

Much of the first day was spent exercising the basics such as the draw stroke, holstering safely, stance, sight acquisition, trigger press, movement and so forth. For many this was little more than a refresher, but I can see the benefit if you've never done live drawing and firing from your holster. We did have some competent younger folks in the class which was very refreshing to see and they kept the pace along with everyone else. As with any class, start with the basics and see how the students grasp them and advance forward to build upon what you've learned. To be completely honest, I was a little disappointed that we didn't actually start shooting live rounds until the afternoon but that’s neither here nor there.

Aaron’s point above about Farnam’s target it well placed. The target ‘hit zone’ definitely makes you focus your accuracy and sight picture more than you think. The hostage drill was a great example of where you really have to concentrate hard to place your shots. Next time you go to the range, draw a 3”x2” rectangle, place the target out at 10’ or so and try putting two shots from a draw into the box as fast as you can (accurately). This brings me to point number two: Farnam emphasizes accuracy over speed which is refreshing. Speed without accuracy is worthless and getting shots ‘close enough’ under very controlled circumstances will only lead to missed shots when under extreme pressure. Time and time again, we were told to take all the time we needed to make the shots count, but not to waste time unnecessarily. It sounds like a contradiction, but there is validity to what was professed. Practice slowly then speed up without losing accuracy.

I won’t go into agonizing detail about all the drills we ran throughout the two days, but there were some very fun and engaging ones that I wish I could shoot on a weekly basis to keep my skills refreshed. Aaron already discussed them above, but the multi-distance drill required both close in and distance targets combined with aggressor and hostage targets. Movement, accuracy and speed were the keys without compromising hits. Many got the close-in targets, but missed when shooting from the longest distances. Another valuable exercise (to me) was getting the opportunity to essentially shoot everyone else’s gun. I've shot many of the different models before, but several had custom sights which were great to try out. I personally would have liked to re-shoot many of the guns simply to see which sights worked best for me.

The night shoot was also great practice and Aaron’s point about a pistol mounted light is well founded. I discovered that my multi-function light was woefully inadequate as it required multiple button presses to cycle through the functions in order to shut it off. There’s nothing good about wasting seconds trying to shut off your light before you move, or letting a trail of light give away your position. We ended up having somewhat limited time to shoot due to the range hours and our late dinner, but as one of the instructors stated, never pass up an opportunity to shoot at night or in low light. It forces you to pull together all of your skills and mental focus, with the added difficulty of managing a light.

Lastly the test at the end of day 2 was deceptively challenging for many and was the culmination of the weekend’s work. It required only 7 shots, but incorporated accuracy, malfunction drills, a mag change as well as constant unending movement. The drill had to be completed under a certain time standard, and since only 100% accuracy was considered a passing score, it required very intense concentration and forced you to slow down and make every shot count. To this end I need to give credit where credit is due. Aaron was utterly amazing throughout the weekend and his shooting is incredible by all standards! He rocked the test like no other, and even outshone all of the instructors. I must also credit the younger crew and even some others who showed dogged determination to ‘get it right’.

The bottom line – was it worth the cost? I suppose that answer depends on what you intended to gain from it. There are other training avenues that are less money, and possibly a better bang for the buck. Personally I gained value in some areas, but would have preferred to spend more time on the range and less in the 'classroom'. To that end, maybe due to the ammo shortages there was a conscious effort to reduce the round count, but I would have liked to fully shoot the 600 rounds that were expected.

I came away with knowledge that my skills are improved a little more, and I met some terrific people whom I hope to shoot with in the future. Take a look at Aaron’s list above and get some training ideas, but at the end of the day just get some training and keep building your skills.

Sorry for the long post.