wings or no wings [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : wings or no wings


fkizdi
08-24-2010, 15:43
Ghost ring sights....

Wings on the front or rear or not?
What are some of your opinions?
Pros and Cons

Go....

aippi
08-24-2010, 20:16
Not a GR fan, but anything on top of the receiver is a hinderance to your ability to rapidly aquire a target. This is why the Wilson Track II and the Trijicons do not have that feature. They get in the way. They may provide protection for the rear apperature for a heavy duty use weapon that is expected to get banged around a lot but that is just not the case for most of the weapons out there.

MD357
08-24-2010, 23:39
Not a GR fan, but anything on top of the receiver is a hinderance to your ability to rapidly aquire a target.

I dunno about that.... :cool:


http://www.tdsatulsa.com/gallery_videos.php?Video=shotgun_sameholes#video

Oh and I've seen him use GRs too. Just sayin, if you train correctly...

aippi
08-25-2010, 00:12
Mad Dog - Not going to start a GR -v- anything else here. He asked about the protective wings and and that is what I am talking about, they can be a distraction and that is why they are not on the Wilson Track II's which also come on the 870P models or the Trijicon GR sights. This leads me to believe that Wilson Combat, Scattergun Tech, Remington and the fine folks at Trijicon also agree they are a hinderence. My answer addressed his question.

Your video has nothing to do with what the OP asked. Do you have anything to add to his post?

MrMurphy
08-25-2010, 00:20
Front? Yes. Rear? No.

They can frame the target and protect the front sight blade just like on a rifle. The rear protective wings just seem to get in the way, and the barrel tends to take more dings than the receiver in use.

MD357
08-25-2010, 08:44
Mad Dog - Not going to start a GR -v- anything else here. He asked about the protective wings and and that is what I am talking about, they can be a distraction and that is why they are not on the Wilson Track II's which also come on the 870P models or the Trijicon GR sights. This leads me to believe that Wilson Combat, Scattergun Tech, Remington and the fine folks at Trijicon also agree they are a hinderence. My answer addressed his question.

Your video has nothing to do with what the OP asked. Do you have anything to add to his post?

I'm not starting a "what's better war either." You incorrectly stated that ANYTHING on top of the reciever was a hinderance. Now if you mispoke then that's fine, if not I disagree and showed why, or rather showed someone that has shown me different. That someone can train to work fast, with things on top of the reciever.

Going to second the front is fine opinion.

aippi
08-25-2010, 10:49
Did not misspeak, just gave my knowledgeable opinion which is shared by guys like Clint Smith and others. I am thinking that Wilson, Remington, Trijicon might know something about GR sights that we don't and that is why they design them like that or use that rear sight design without wings. But like Murphy said the front may not be a big an issue as the the Remington barrel with Front GR sight has protective wings but the Wilson Track II rear sight Remington uses does not.

I have no use for GR. I try to talk clients out of them but if not I take their $140 to sell and install them on their custom build. Good money as I get dealer cost on them and I can install them in less then 30 minutes. So anyone wanting them on their AI&P Tactical can get them. But I use Wilson and Trijicon which are the same sight.

And yes proficient shooters who get mega trigger time can become proficient with most any sighting system. These Tactical Instructors who do this for a living are on the range most every day and some of them push this sight. But the average guy buying an HD is not and should stick with a more basic sight. So, I do not recommend these for HD or even duty. I get calls on a regular basis from a guy stating he is new to shotguns and then starts wanting GR's, Rails, VFG and all kind of mess. I refer him to the statement on my web site to keep it "Basic". If an advanced shooter or 3 gun shooter calls and understand the weapon he needs then heck yes, GR's it is.

What some people miss on these type web sites is this. They have advanced knowledge and skills. Yet, a guy posting a very basic question most often does not and you can tell that by the question he posted. Yet, guys start giving him advice and do not take in account his skill level or knowledge he has of these weapons. I am a professional in this business and build these weapons for clients based on need and I try to answer the questions based on this.

I give basic advise to a guy asking a basic question. Others start giving them advanced information that most likely is of no benifit to the person. It tooK you years to get to the skill level you are at and obtain the knowledge about this subject you have and to think a new guy, asking the most basic of questions is going to benifit from some of the response he gets is unrealilistic.

Even if GR's are the greatest sighting system in the world a beginer should start learning a shotgun with a bead sight. Me, I say stay with it. However as that person advances and decides he or she can become proficient with a GR in a gun fight then they can make the change.

David Armstrong
08-25-2010, 12:06
I dunno about that....
Just think how much faster he might be without the junk on top of the receiver!:supergrin:
FWIW, if the evidence to support a position is "look at how someone with more training and experience than 99% of the rest us can do it" is generally not real persuasive, IMO.

MD357
08-25-2010, 12:38
Did not misspeak, just gave my knowledgeable opinion which is shared by guys like Clint Smith and others. I am thinking that Wilson, Remington, Trijicon might know something about GR sights that we don't and that is why they design them like that or use that rear sight design without wings.

Sure ya did. You said ANYTHING on top of the reciever, not just GR sights. I'm not arguing the rest.

I have no use for GR. I try to talk clients out of them but if not I take their $140 to sell and install them on their custom build. Good money as I get dealer cost on them and I can install them in less then 30 minutes. So anyone wanting them on their AI&P Tactical can get them. But I use Wilson and Trijicon which are the same sight.

That's great but that has nothing to do with what I posted.

And yes proficient shooters who get mega trigger time can become proficient with most any sighting system.


And there we have it. Although, I can't speak for YOU, I'll say that I've taken shotgun courses where it didn't take "mega" trigger time to become proficient enough to defend yourself, using various sight platforms. Some work better for other and YMMV, just like with handguns, AR etc. However, one thing I just proved is that you can be fast and you don't have to be superman. :cool: :supergrin:

I give basic advise to a guy asking a basic question. Others start giving them advanced information

Nothing I said was advanced by any means. I showed potential but it's not like someone would be shooting for the stars. Anyone that is considering a shotgun for HD/SD etc should actually go out and shoot/practice with whatever setup they choose.

FWIW, if the evidence to support a position is "look at how someone with more training and experience than 99% of the rest us can do it" is generally not real persuasive, IMO.

There are some dated views out there that prohibit progressive thinking IMO, just like with any shooting platform. Funny how shooting has evolved over the years for promote more training. Either way, Someone that is considerably less fast than the individual in the video would probably be proficient enough for HD/competition etc. The point was to show that it's far from impossible.

David Armstrong
08-25-2010, 13:18
The point was to show that it's far from impossible.
But nobody said anything about it being impossible, so I'm not sure why you would even mention that point. The point was if it is a hindrance.

There are some dated views out there that prohibit progressive thinking IMO, just like with any shooting platform.
True. I happen to think one of the worst still hanging around is "it will work if you only train more."

fkizdi
08-25-2010, 13:45
everyone needs to calm down.
regardless of your opinion of GR sights i am putting them on my shotgun and i wanted to know opinions of wings.

I didnt ask whether people though GRs were the way to go or not.


Aippi, your argument about experts like Wilson and Clint Smith staying away from wings isn't very good. I think anyone can find examples of experts and the contrary. Like Ashley Emerson (XS Sights) offer wings as an option on their GRs. Nighthawk custom offers their shotguns with both rear and front wings(PSI/LPA ghost rings). As does the Mossberg 590a1. Benelli M4 that the navy contacted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quvm3F9XIxI&feature=related
video of gunsite trainer with wings.

I was more asking about your personal experiences with or without wings.

aippi
08-25-2010, 13:46
Good points Mad Dog. I agree with a lot of it. I just don't want a new guy to think he can buy a certain sighting system and shoot like that guy in the video. You did not post anything horribly incorrect and I only attempted to get back to the point of the OP's questions and the answer is "NO WINGS". The reason that is the answer is based mostly on my perception of fighting shotguns, sighting systems and trying to find a sight in the S**T. Having a peep sight mounted on top of a shotgun receiver is hard enough for a new guy, add two slabs of steel on each side of that peep sight and he is asking for some issues, untill of course like you said, he trains and gets good with them which means a lot of trigger time and lot of ammo. I should also mention the wings could interfer with your peripheral vision which is why the Wilson Track Locks don't come with them. Peripheral vision is very important in a fight and the wings may not affect everyone but for some it causes tunel vision and a shut down of peripheral vision, again not everyone and it is based on your vision.

fkizdi
08-25-2010, 13:56
That is a good point Aippi. However if you think about it. Most carbines have wings around its ghost rings. And novice shooters don't have another option than to step up to the learning curve fast. And they seem to manage with defensive and offensive use.

I guess i just really wanna know if the wings protective aspects outweigh their hindrances.

aippi
08-25-2010, 14:12
Fkidz- No one needs to calm down, this is how it is done. I answered your question. NO to WINGS. You asked a pretty basic question and got an answer. I wrongly assumed you had very little knowledge of the subject as the question is very basic, but I now see from your last post that you are very well informed and know more about it then I do and know more about the verious GR models then I do. I do know why wings are not on some of the leading brands out there. As for some of the models that are out there with Wings on the rear. A lot of those companies are revenue driven and are going to put any thing out there that will sell. If it causes a shooter to have peripheral issues and tunnel vision that is the shooters problem. I happen to think Wilson/Scattergun builds the best GR set on the Market. Tacti-fool is the trend and it is driving the market and these web sites. Some people get it and some don't. I would listen to Mr. Smith before I listened to these other guys. That is based on years of using these weapons, training with them and training others. I have as much knowledge of these weapons and how they are used then any of the people you quoted. I don't share some views of their and they would say mine are soaked in Dinosauer doo doo. They will say I am old school and wrong. The key word is old and plan to get older. Having a fighting shotgun will no tact-fool mess on it might just help me carry out that plan one day. You can also see GR's on my Police Elite model so I am not totally anti GR for everyone. Just anti Wings as those are Wilson Track II's.

MD357
08-25-2010, 14:37
True. I happen to think one of the worst still hanging around is "it will work if you only train more."

Eh, I prefer training more than trying to buy your way into proficiency with equipment like many do, then they just assume they're proficient enough to defend themselves. Using GR sights really doesn't take a "SEAL operator" to be quite honest. :cool:



Oh and for the record.... I'm not upset..... and I don't think anyone else is? Doesn't seem like it anyways. I actually agree with keep it simple stupid most of the time, and even agree with aippi's posts on this forum.(concerning the differences or lack thereof in a 870P) I just wanted to relay some different views on target aquisition.

aippi
08-25-2010, 15:37
MD - your post are very civil and point very well made. I think the OP just misread passion for temper. People need to be passionate about the things they believe in. A lot of what is wrong with us as a people is loss of passion. My Granpa was passionate about so many things and it rubbed off on me.

Your comment about buying ones way to profeciency is 100% dead on. No where can that be seen more then in the game of golf. Guys spend thouands on clubs thinking it will improve their game when the reality is that you got to hit a million plus balls to get good at that. I may break 80 one day when life slows down enough for me to get back to the range and work on hitting those million.

OP - you have your head on right and you understand the issue and what works best for you. Letting some old school fart like me tell you what to do is wrong head as only you know what is best for you. Unlike so many of my clients who are just getting into these weapons and are being pointed in the wrong direction by so called "Tactical Instructors" and post on web sites.

David Armstrong
08-25-2010, 15:40
from fkizdi:
everyone needs to calm down.
regardless of your opinion of GR sights i am putting them on my shotgun and i wanted to know opinions of wings.
And that is what you are getting, opinions of wings. That you are getting more than that you may consider a freebie.

from MD357:
Oh and for the record.... I'm not upset..... and I don't think anyone else is?
I'm certainly not. When folks come to the internet with questions opposing views should be expected.
Eh, I prefer training more than trying to buy your way into proficiency with equipment like many do, then they just assume they're proficient enough to defend themselves.
No disagreement. My main objection to the training aspect is the many trainers who use that as their rationale, "it will work if you just train more" while failing to realize that many shooters simply do not have the resources to "just train more."

aippi
08-25-2010, 16:19
Dave - you nailed another one - Client called a few weeks back about the SpecOps failing on his weapon. He said he only had about two boxes of shells through the weapon. He bought it about two years ago. This is more typical then you would think. People get one, shoot it, put it in the closet and feel safe now that they have an HD shotgun. Even if they are out there shooting other weapons they still need to practice with their dedicated HD if they truely believe they will call upon it to defend themselves or their family. They either don't have the resourse, time or just don't get it. Oh well, getting off topic so will go out to the shop now and work.

fkizdi
08-25-2010, 21:21
I'll let you guys know what i end up buying and installing. I'll post pictures when I can.

I just wanted to get some opinions since sights are pretty expensive and wanted to get some ideas before i dropped the $ on a set.

I have other shotguns with a bead and do quite well with them. However for the field of use this shotgun will be utilized in i am going with GRs. I appreciate everyone's comments. This is a great forum and u guys really know what your talking about.

MD357
08-25-2010, 21:56
My main objection to the training aspect is the many trainers who use that as their rationale, "it will work if you just train more" while failing to realize that many shooters simply do not have the resources to "just train more."


I think "many" can, they just find excuses NOT to, and or can't take the ego hit that they might learn something/have something to learn.

vafish
08-26-2010, 07:50
I don't like wings on a front sight be it on a rifle or a shotgun. I think they block too much field of view and are a distraction. Depending upon the design it is possible under stress to mistake one of the wings for a front sight and cause you to miss by a large margin.

A well constructed front sight is plenty durable without the wings.

Wings were put on front sights because target shooters wanted a fine front sight on a combat rifle for making 1,000 yard shots.

Shotguns aren't target rifles, a big thick front sight is not a detriment to accuracy when you maximum range is 100-200 yards.

David Armstrong
08-26-2010, 09:33
I think "many" can, they just find excuses NOT to, and or can't take the ego hit that they might learn something/have something to learn.
I've found that to be a distinct minority in my years as a trainer. Resources are finite, and determining the best use of those resources is a multi-faceted issue. Do you go shooting or go watch your kid at his Little League game? Do you buy a box of ammo or do you feed your family for a few days? Do you take the family to the beach for a vacation this summer or do you let them sit at home while you go the Thunder Ranch?
Most folks can train a bit more than they do, but not that many can train to the level most trainers would want them to.

GenoTac Ind.
08-26-2010, 14:34
Wings or no wings?

Why not just spend the money and buy both of them, together with a couple hundred shells, and take that boom stick out and shoot it until the f-ing wings fall off.

Personal preference, try them both out and see what YOU like. I've shot both, beads for my door kicking entry shotty, rifle sights with wings for my perimeter security shotty(but rather be using the AR).

MD357
08-28-2010, 00:51
I've found that to be a distinct minority in my years as a trainer. Resources are finite, and determining the best use of those resources is a multi-faceted issue. Do you go shooting or go watch your kid at his Little League game? Do you buy a box of ammo or do you feed your family for a few days? Do you take the family to the beach for a vacation this summer or do you let them sit at home while you go the Thunder Ranch?

I guess I just have different experiences, or rather realize that excuses are like....... you fill in the blank. :supergrin:

Either way, I dunno how you train, but it's been my experience nobody has to take out a second mortgage to learn how to use GR sights..... or various other platforms for that matter.

David Armstrong
08-28-2010, 12:43
I guess I just have different experiences, or rather realize that excuses are like....... you fill in the blank.
that is where we would disagree. I don't find them to be excuses. Sure, everyone can practice more. But they can also practice driving more, or practice H2H more, or practice communication skills, or hundreds of other things. Suggesting that a person should devote their time to training based on an arbitrary and questionable standard strkes me as problematic. If I can learn to adequately use a slick-top shotgun within 25 yards in one hour, is it really worth it to learn to adequately us GR sights (or others) to expand my distance to 35 yards, but it now takes 16 hours? Everybody can run a marathon if they practice enough, but is that good use of your resources?

Either way, I dunno how you train, but it's been my experience nobody has to take out a second mortgage to learn how to use GR sights..... or various other platforms for that matter.
Might not be a second mortgage, but if I contend that you could use your platform better if you would just spend 40 hours a year and $4,000, is that a good use of resources if you can already address 99% of the problems you feel likely?
IMO, "you can do better if you just train more" isn't that much different than "you can do better if you will just buy more."

aippi
08-28-2010, 14:23
The rear ghost ring is a peep sight. The Armorers manual list them as "Peep site, apperture large (ghost Ring). Shortly after my 17th birthday I attend a resort in South Carolina. The guys there were great and they fed me, gave me nice green clothes to wear and they taught me how to lay in the sand and hit a man at 500 yards with an M-14 with a peep sight on it.

That was 40 years ago and in all time since I have yet to find any practical application for a peep sight on anything but a rifle ( or bow). There is no application for it on a shotgun, none. It sells for big money and adds big cost to any model shotgun. People have bought into it because they fell victem to effective marketing. Period. They are now being marketed to accept $400 heads up displays on shotguns.

If these dang things are so great why are they not on the top shotgunners of the worlds weapons? Anyone shoot Sporting Clays with Ghost Rings? If so and you are in the top rankings in this or any country then I will shut up. It would terrify me to know a guy who is proficient at Sporting clays or any of the trap or skeet sports was coming after me with a shotgun. Best gunners out there are those guys.

And no people don't come up with mess about it is different with buck shot and don't tell me GR's are more accurate with slugs then rifle sights as the design of the weapon makes you wrong there. These are shotguns for petes sake.

Oh yea, No to Wings.

OH yea, I am selling my Colt Commander as I am changing to the Agent. PM me for details. I wonder if they offer the Agent with Ghost Rings.

fkizdi
08-29-2010, 10:54
I guess you have never seen any three-gun competitions.
I mean alot of those guys use optical sights, rifle sights, and ghost rings....so i guess its not a very good argument for me

However this picture is from Robar's website. The person in the picture is Louis Awerbuck. If you dont know who he is, then you need educated.

He is clearly seen with ghost rings with wings. The picture isn't taken by Robar for their marketing or anything. Its the picture seen on the cover of Awerbuck's book.

David Armstrong
08-29-2010, 11:14
However this picture is from Robar's website. The person in the picture is Louis Awerbuck. If you dont know who he is, then you need educated.
Again, what some of the best in the business use (or can use) is not necessarily related to what is best for those with less training to use.

fkizdi
08-29-2010, 11:20
true.

i was just counterpointing aippi

aippi
08-29-2010, 12:09
Again, confusing target shooting with fighting. I stand corrected and change my statement. There is an application for Ghost Rings and that is on Recreational and Target shotguns. I even say that on my web site. I clear this up now by stating something else that is also on my web site. Ghost rings have no place on a fighting shotgun. This is the biggest problem when guys from different backgrounds discuss this issue. Many guys on here have used these weapons on duty and have a practical knowledge of how the would be used in a fight. Others have only range knowledge. We bump heads to much and I apoligize. I even offer GR's for those guys who want them on my custom builds. I tell them the issue, they decide. I would rather not make that extra $140 on the gun then lie to a guy and tell him this is a good sight for an HD or duty weapon. That is called integrity.

I also don't need schooling on some tactical guru that you found on the internet or read a book he wrote. "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" so guys knowing nothing accept these people who know a little as Experts. Not impressed buy any of them. I am speaking in general and I am not saying the guy you mentioned fits this discription, I know nothing about him, never heard of him and would never say that. I am not a Tacti groupie and can't name many of these guys and I am in no postion to comment on any one of them specificlly except the very few I know of or have had dealing with. I would venture since he wrote a book and a publisher was impressed enough to publish it that the mans knows the subject. However, writing a book does mean the contect is correct.

Showing a picture of some guy using a GR means What? I don't undestand. Mike wore this kind of shoe and can hit 60 points a game. So you wear that shoe and can hit 60 points a game? Tiger plays Nike blades, so if you play those blades you can shot a 65. Really dude, you proved the effect of marketing by posting the picture.

You are clearly impressed and influenced by things other then having a practical HD shotgun and are welcomed to put what ever you want on it. Nothing wrong with that for you, just get as much trigger time as you can.

fkizdi
08-29-2010, 12:36
you asked why arent the top shotgunners in the world shooting with GRs. I was just showing you one of the most recognized shotgun instructors in the world using GRs.

I 'm not saying that GRs rule when it comes to defensive and offensive use. And i'm not saying that a bead is useless and everyone should have GRs. I think that GRs and beads have their place but i dont think its very wise to out right say that GRs dont have a place on a fighting shotgun.

Mike wore theses shoes and scored 60 points but people arent paying mike for his opinions and lessons. I am saying that this professional depicted in the picture uses GRs and instructors themselves would turn to this professional for his teachings. So dude, if part of his training is the utilization of GRs because he uses them then it is important, not a marketing scheme. It would be a marketing tactic if Awerbuck advocated for some GR brand and said it was better than another GR brand.

Shotguns with GRs and slugs are more accurate than with a bead and slugs. Thats a fact about the sight design. I mean its a shotgun for petes sake. They dont shoot slugs with beads at deer in NJ.

aippi
08-29-2010, 13:59
Very good points. Also, your post was about a Style of Ghost Rings and not about GR's over other sights so I was out of line even posting on this thread except the part about Wilson/Scatterngun not having wings as it just puts more stuff up there to get in the way and that they tend to tunnel vision people who see a certain way. So my appoligies and not more post on this thread from me.

David Armstrong
08-30-2010, 12:17
Shotguns with GRs and slugs are more accurate than with a bead and slugs. Thats a fact about the sight design. I mean its a shotgun for petes sake. They dont shoot slugs with beads at deer in NJ.
I think that goes back to aippi's "different backgrounds" issue. Shotguns are not more accurate with GRs. The shotgun has the same level of accuracy. For some people the GR provides them with a platform they can use to get more accuracy from their abilities, not the shotguns. I don't know about NJ, but when I was growiong up LOTS of deer were shot with slugs coming out of a bead-sight shotgun. The GR may increase the usable distance of the shotgun for some. The bead may improve the speed of use for some. They are different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Not "better." My $.02.

you asked why arent the top shotgunners in the world shooting with GRs. I was just showing you one of the most recognized shotgun instructors in the world using GRs.
A top trainer is not necessarily a top user. What one uses may have no relationship to what the other needs.

vafish
08-30-2010, 12:54
One other problem with claiming 3 gun shooters are using ghost ring sights.

Look at the way shotgun stages are set up at 3 gun matches. They are nothing more then a pistol stage shooting at static targets.

The purpose of a shotgun is to throw a pattern of shot and hit a moving target.

Put some clay targets flying in a 3 gun match and watch all those guys with their tactical ghost ring guns start missing.

Jeff Cooper is the one that started this whole ghost ring nonsense on shotguns. He was a Marine and a rifleman and he tried to make the shotgun fit his idea of a defensive gun. He tried to turn the shotgun into a rifle instead of learning to use the shotguns strengths.

vafish
08-30-2010, 12:59
.....
Shotguns with GRs and slugs are more accurate than with a bead and slugs. Thats a fact about the sight design. I mean its a shotgun for petes sake. They dont shoot slugs with beads at deer in NJ.

I don't know about NJ, but I have seen plenty of guys in the woods here in VA and in MN where I grew up with a bead sighted shotgun shooting slugs at deer. I've even done it myself.

With the Mossberg 500 there is a series of ridges in the top of the receiver. You can quickly and easily line the bead up in the ridges just like a rear sight if you choose to.

fkizdi
08-30-2010, 18:35
One other problem with claiming 3 gun shooters are using ghost ring sights.

Look at the way shotgun stages are set up at 3 gun matches. They are nothing more then a pistol stage shooting at static targets.

Put some clay targets flying in a 3 gun match and watch all those guys with their tactical ghost ring guns start missing.


They have clay targets in 3 gun matches. Sometimes if you hit a popper the fall of the steel throws, sometimes one ore two clays in the air.

David Armstrong
08-30-2010, 21:39
They have clay targets in 3 gun matches. Sometimes if you hit a popper the fall of the steel throws, sometimes one ore two clays in the air.
Yes, but that is the rare exception, not the norm. You do not find GR sights on shotguns used for hunting, shooting clays, speed shooting exhibitions, etc. You will find, almost exclusively, bead sights. There is a good reason for that...they are faster than anything else and provide an adequate level of accuracy.

vafish
08-31-2010, 10:45
They have clay targets in 3 gun matches. Sometimes if you hit a popper the fall of the steel throws, sometimes one ore two clays in the air.


If they are used they are the most missed targets of the match.

MD357
09-01-2010, 00:36
that is where we would disagree. I don't find them to be excuses.

That's great. We have different standards. I'm comfy with this. :supergrin:

Everybody can run a marathon if they practice enough, but is that good use of your resources?

I'd say it's MUCH better than sitting at home and making excuses of why you shouldn't. :cool: Lots of overweight people in America, just like there's many that assume they know how to shoot a shotgun.

Might not be a second mortgage, but if I contend that you could use your platform better if you would just spend 40 hours a year and $4,000, is that a good use of resources if you can already address 99% of the problems you feel likely?
IMO, "you can do better if you just train more" isn't that much different than "you can do better if you will just buy more."

Again, I dunno your training experiences but we differ here and I think you are polarizing/exaggerating the numbers for your point. GRs or not, many just go out and buy their platform and assume they could win a fight. It's REALLY not complicated to learn to use them. Either way, training and/or practice, regardless of your platform eliminates more variables. Assuming that you address 99% of problems in any situation is dangerous thinking where I come from.... but YMMV I guess.

David Armstrong
09-01-2010, 12:30
from MD357:
I'd say it's MUCH better than sitting at home and making excuses of why you shouldn't.
That may be true, but that is not the issue. It is not "do this or do nothing" it is do this or do something else. Again, if I can learn to use the bead sight and control of my area in an hour, how important is it to spend another 8 hours learning to use GR sights to make headshots at 50 yards? I can do that with more training, but maybe I'm better off learning something else.
It's REALLY not complicated to learn to use them.
I agree, but that has nothing to do with the "they just need more training" issue as it relates to resources. As an example, it is not complicated to learn to drive fast on a race track. But learning to drive on the race track probably isn't a good use of resources for someone who commutes to school in an old Ford Festiva and wants to get there sooner. It becomes a matter of good investment. Maybe by spending 40 hours at Bondurant they can cut 30 seconds off their daily commute through training. Or they can get up a minute earlier and use that 40 hours and the cost to do something else.