Well, I'm assuming you meant this and aren't being sarcastic. If that's the case, I'm pretty much done here.
Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone who has their mind made up, I'm just asking how you guys can justify ragging on someone who you've never trained with.
But, I will tell you that Tactical Response has the most REALISTIC training I've ever had. Almost all other training has been far too static. Basically training you for what you DON'T do in a gunfight. Start moving around on the average range or operating around other people, doing 360 degree scans and the like and you'll probably be thrown off the range.
You can do a LOT of training without violating any of the 4 safety rules that most instructors will not let you do because they have some sort of other "range rules" restricting beneficial training.
Not bending over to pick something up on the firing line is a good example. Which of the 4 safety rules does this violate? What happens if you drop something in an actual gunfight--do you raise your hand and wait for the instructor fairy to show up?
Here's one that will cause you NRA-50-rounds-a-day-bullseye-"self-defense" instructors to go bezerk: Keep your weapon pointed down range. Where is down range in the real world? Where is downrange at the mall when you have a shooter on the loose? If you don't train to operate in a 360 degree environment safely, do you think you will just automatically perform this in an actual gunfight?
What about relying on an instructor to constantly tell you how many rounds to load in your weapon and how many to fire on the target at one time? That's a great idea. Condition guys to just fire 2 to the chest, 1 to the head and automatically return to the holster. If I had a dime for every time I had to break a student of that habit, Holland and Holland would have my measurements on file in their gun shop.
Going along with the above, is the "scan" that the average instructor teaches: a quick glance over each shoulder that accomplishes nothing. The average student is not practicing registering what he is seeing, he's just trying to hurry up and get back to the holster for the next drill.
As I progressed through training, I always had a problem with these things as being unrealistic but it wasn't until I found a school that addressed these issues and fixed them that I really started to grow as a student and instructor.
I also like the higher round count. And I'm not talking about just ballistic masturbation, I'm talking about building muscle memory and about really trying to get a technique down, not just doing a drill once or twice and then moving on.
I also like the fact that there is not an emphasis on gear, as long as the gear works. Function over form. Now, if you bring a $4,000 pistol and it doesn't make it to the end of the first day without breaking, be prepared to take some ribbing. All the students are thinking it, Yeager says it.
Add to the fact that lodging is free and you have a money back guarantee, how can you NOT think it's worth a shot to try it out?
But, frankly, the members of this forum's expertise is of no concern to me. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just answering the question.
I'm done with the thread. I was really hoping someone who didn't like him would have an opinion based on training with him. I have yet to hear from anyone that trained with them that did not think the training was exceptional.
(And I don't mean just the people on this forum. The opinions on this forum increasingly carry little weight as I see the pinnacle of intellectual discussion around here revolves around "Can I strap an AK on my back while I pick up some milk at Wal-Mart?")
Good luck, guys. Be safe. Shoot straight. You guys have beat me. I'm done with this forum.
Here ya go. Your'e welcome!: