Tom Givens is an instructor from whom I’ve been interested in taking a class for some time. He runs the Rangemaster training school in Memphis, TN. The school is host to the annual Rangemaster Tactical Conference and Polite Society Match which brings in big-name trainers from around the country. People like Craig Douglas, John Farnam, Massad Ayoob, and many others come to the conference to teach and to learn from each other. Tom has also documented over 60 Rangemaster alumni who’ve been involved in shootings. Of those students, only 2 (I think) lost their fight. (Mr. Givens considers these two cases to be forfeits because the students were not carrying at the time.) Tom has put some of that information together in his Lessons from the Street video, which I found very informative. He’s also studied case reports and witness statements related to over 300 plain-clothes law enforcement shootings (DEA, FBI, etc). It is this study, the track record of his students, and his reputation as a trainer which motivated me to train with him.
The Basics
School: Rangemaster
Course: Advanced Pistol Skills
Date: June 28, 2014
Duration: 8 Hours
Location: Nappanee Conservation Club
Instructor: Tom Givens
Assistant Instructor: Lynn Givens
Students: 17 (16 men, 1 woman) including the following INGO members: Cedartop, Jackson, Jason, jblomenberg16, Tinman, VERT, wiuteke.
Cost: $250.00
Stated Objective: There was no official objective, but in Tom’s intro speech he indicated the class was about “getting hits quickly” and “learning how to work the trigger”.
Related Threads
Summary
I would call this class an in-depth treatment on the fundamentals of marksmanship with selected defensive topics. The class consisted of roughly 25% lecture and 75% range time. Around half of the lecture topics were speed or marksmanship related, with the other half covering the nature of armed citizen gun fights with tactics and techniques generally used to prevail. Through the course of the class there were four or five scored marksmanship tests, as well as several timed drills. The class was primarily about getting good hits in the prescribed amount of time, or faster.
Details
Classroom - Morning Lecture:
We kicked off the day in the classroom at 0900 with introductions by the instructors. Tom has 25 years of Law enforcement experience in one of the highest-crime cities in the country. He is also a successful IDPA and IPSC competitor, having been involved with both organizations almost from their inception. Tom brings both competitive and practical experience to the classroom and the influence from both can be seen in his lectures and his drills/tests. His wife, Lynn Givens, would be the assistant instructor for the day. She came to the defensive aspects of firearms in a very personal way, seeking training after threats from a stalker. Since then, I believe they said she has attended over a thousand hours of professional firearms training in addition to significant teaching and training experience with Rangemaster. She also heads the Rangemaster women’s training programs.
After introductions, Tom moved on to safety and the implications of carrying a gun. A brief PowerPoint presentation accompanied the safety lecture. “Safety is about living with a gun, it is not about range rules”, he said. It is a lifestyle and the rules apply everywhere. The four rules were discussed and demonstrated. Tom is not a fan of cold ranges, and the two absolutes of muzzle discipline and trigger finger discipline were thoroughly demonstrated.
Beyond safety, the primary topic of the morning lecture was marksmanship. The importance of fast and accurate marksmanship was explained. We must “hit quickly” and “hit with every shot”. Speed was the second theme for this lecture. Tom explained that “the most precious commodity in a gun fight is time”. He provided a thorough treatment of grip, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger control, and follow-through. Tom prefers a thumbs-high grip as opposed to the currently-popular thumbs-forward grip (which is so prevalent in practical pistol competition). He had a pretty well-thought reasoning for his preferences. He also explained the majority of combat-distance marksmanship issues are related to poor trigger management. Trigger control would be a major theme in this class.
Range - Marksmanship:
Around 1030 we all headed out to the range. The range for this course was set up in front of a small, covered shelter area with shooting benches. There was about 15-17 yards of total range distance from the shelter to the targets. The class would generally work as one, large relay for most drills. So all students were shooting at the same time. This made for relatively little down-time and kept the pace of the class fairly brisk.
We started off with some dry-fire exercises. The very first drill was the ol’ sit something (a piece of brass in this case) on top of the front site and see if you can dry fire 5 times in a row without it falling off. (For the striker-fired pistol shooters, a partner would replace the brass after each round so the student could reset the pistol. Two additional dry-fire drills involved watching the trigger and watching the sights.
The second set of drills were slow-fire bullseye shooting. These were done on what I believe is an NRA 50 foot bullseye competition target. We started out around 4 yards with the goal of keeping every round in the very center circle. We were instructed to focus on trigger management. I didn’t specifically note it, but I believe this was the first of our scored tests. It appeared one purpose for doing this was to allow Tom to see what he was working with on the line. After the slow-fire we changed over to FBI QIT targets to work on shooting speed (splits). Tom gave a short on-range lecture on shooting cadence and rhythm and how the sound might help diagnose your shooting issues. We fired various strings working the split times down with each set.
Range – Reloads:
Around 1145 we pulled back to the shelter for a short discussion on reloading methods. Tom talked to us about speed reloads, emergency reloads, and tactical reloads, describing the methods he prefers. We were encouraged to reload whenever we could in a real situation. Tom is not a fan of the tactical reload, and gave us several good reasons why as he explained its history.
Back on the range we were met with a target displaying five circles 3-4 inches in diameter. With this target each circle had its own drill. Dots one through three were involved various shooting from the ready and also from the holster. This would be the first holster work of the day. Dots four and five were reloading drills. We worked both “speed” and “emergency” reloads. After the reloading drills we took a 40 minute lunch break.
Range – Tests:
When we got back to the range after lunch it was test time. We conducted two scored drills back-to-back. Both of the drills were performed on a B8, 25 yard pistol bullseye target. The first drill, which I believe he called the “1,2,3 drill” started around four yards and progressed back to around 15 yards. There were 25 rounds fired for a maximum score of 250. The second drill started back at the 15ish yard line and progressed forward to the 4 yard line. This drill was 30 rounds and had some time limits to get all of the shots on the target. The final string also included one reload. The maximum score was 300.
Classroom – Afternoon Lecture:
Around 1400 we moved to the classroom for 40 minute discussion about Tom’s research and Rangemaster student’s experiences with real gunfights. In addition to the 60+ Rangemaster students who have been in concealed carry fights, he has also pulled together over 300 reports of plain-clothes law enforcement (DEA, FBI, etc) shootings that were substantially similar to confrontations the average citizen might have. Many of these LE shootings were not necessarily in the line of duty. He talked about a few instances where agents were carjacked on a stakeout or robbed coming off shift. The main difference between these LE shootings and those of the average citizen is, even after it is determined to be justifiable, the LE shootings are still thoroughly investigated, tracked, and reported. So there is a larger body of data from which to draw conclusions. Tom explained many of those conclusion in this lecture.
One of the first things he told us was not to confuse “typical” with “average” when discussing gunfight data. Averages don’t mean much when discussing shootings. If you have two shootings, one involving 3 shots at 3 yards, and the other involving 27 shots at 27 yards, the average (15 shots at 15 yards) doesn’t tell us much about those situations. However, after some study, Tom has pulled together some common things that are typically seen in these type of situations. Some of those he discussed include typical engagement distances, probability of multiple attackers, likely locations to be attacked, typical motivations and scenarios of attackers, etc.
After discussing some of those findings, students were given a glimpse in to the “typical” life of a career criminal and how their path in life (and therefore, their mindset) likely differs significantly from that of the law-abiding, armed citizen. Tom told us about some interesting justice department statistics that indicate the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime is much greater than most people would expect. We should expect it to happen and not be surprised when it does. Make up our minds to be ready, and just do what needs to be done.
To conclude this lecture, Tom relayed the experiences of one Rangemaster student who was involved in three armed robberies as a convenience store clerk (one involving armed resistance). Along with the story were still photos from the security camera which Tom used to reinforce his conclusion from the situation. The student prevailed by staying calm, moving off the line of force, and applying quick and effective marksmanship to the situation. Those lessons would be the impetus for the range session following the lecture.
Range:
The first drills conducted after we returned to the range involved side-stepping off the line of force, drawing, and shooting the target. We started off just stepping, added drawing and shooting, then added reloads (moving when we weren’t shooting). After incorporating the simple movement we progressed to one-handed shooting. Tom took the class aside to demonstrate his preferred method and stance for one-handed shooting. He also demonstrated his preferred method for transitioning the gun between hands. These exercises lead us in to the next scored test. This test was performed on the Rangemaster Q target and involved moving off the line, drawing and shooting the target at various distances between 4 and 15 yards. This test also included strong-hand and weak-hand-only shooting at the 4ish yard distance. The test was 30 rounds. The highest possible score was 150 points.
After a quick break, we returned to the range to find a target with 6 shapes (two squares, two circles, and two triangles) with the numbers 1-6 in them. These targets were used to introduce some target recognition and thinking to the exercises. As you might expect, we did drills where the instructor called out numbers and students shot that number of rounds in to the shape with that number. If he called a shape, we shot those shapes, in numerical order, with the number of rounds in the shape. Tom incorporated a little competition in to these drills by pairing us up on the line so we’d have a partner to watch. The non-shooting partner was to pull the shooter off the line if they missed, were the last shooter to make a shot, or shot the targets out of order. The last shooter on the line was the winner. The second drill on these targets was the “casino drill”. For this drill we set up three magazines with 7 rounds each, 21 rounds total. We shot the shapes in numerical order putting 1 round in shape one, 2 rounds in two, and so on up to 6 rounds in shape six. The drill went through two reloads and had a maximum time of 21 seconds. Most students finished more quickly. Some did not finish in that timeframe.
The final topic of the day was malfunctions. Tom demonstrated a couple of malfunctions that could be caused by something blocking the slide from fully cycling. This demonstration also included an explanation of the primer manufacturing process and its construction. Apparently primers can be damaged or broken in to pieces due to rough handling or vibration (or even chambering the round several times). We worked type 1 (failure to fire) and type 2 (failure to eject) malfunctions with dummy rounds and fired brass. Tom demonstrated the remedial action for these malfunctions, which is the same technique for both types. He appears to prefer simple, non-diagnostic, and universally applicable techniques.
The final topic flowed in to the final drill which was scored by time. The drill was shot on the Rangemaster Q target at about 4 yards. It included a moving off the line, drawing from the holster, a malfunction clearance, and a reload. It was basically everything we’d done that day rolled in to one. The best time of the day was just over 7 seconds, shot by Tinman.
Thoughts and Conclusions
My first opinion on the class really depends on the definition of “advanced”. VERT and I have discussed this in the past, both on the board and off. We have differing opinions on what is considered advanced. I had initially attempted to define it, or to compare my opinion with VERT’s. However, that didn’t add much to the AAR and so it was removed. Perhaps he’ll jump in on the thread and we can hash it in the subsequent posts.
Based on my definition, I’m not sure I would have called the course “advanced”. It certainly wasn’t basic, but most of the speed and marksmanship drills/tests were not out of reach for me. I do not consider myself an “advanced” shooter. The line was fairly static and required gun handling not too demanding. It probably requires a similar level of skill as Coach’s Intermediate Pistol.
Even so, as Cedartop observed during Mike Pannone’s advanced pistol class, there are some students who don’t belong in any kind of “advanced” class. If you don’t have well-developed trigger finger and muzzle discipline, you don’t belong in an advanced pistol class. If you have to be reminded several times to keep your finger out of the trigger guard (especially while reholstering), you probably don’t belong in an “advanced” class. If you cannot put 9 of 10 shots in a three-inch circle at four or five yards when under no significant time pressure, you don’t belong in an “advanced” pistol class. If it’s likely you’ll accidentally touch one off when someone tells you just to pull the slack out of the trigger (on a glock) but not fire, you probably don’t belong in an advanced pistol class. If you don’t have a consistent and well-practice method of gripping the pistol, an “advanced” pistol class is not the place to come learn how. Yet all of these things were issues in this class.
Fortunately, this class did not place too great a demand on student’s safe gun handling. There was no moving around other students, or objects, or really much movement at all. Everything was done on a relatively static line. There was some holster work, but not as much as I expected. There were a few students on the line who I’d have been a bit concerned to see in other classes I’ve taken.
Would I recommend the class and the instructor? I sure would. This class was about learning to apply the fundamentals consistently, and under some time pressure. I think the course was well-suited to meet that objective. Tom’s lectures left students with a good understanding of the fundamentals and each of his drills had clear purpose that tied back to the course objectives. The marksmanship tests made it clear where you stood, and how you were progressing through the class.
Tom’s lectures about the nature of citizen-involved defensive shootings were very informative. It was interesting to listen to the combined experience of multiple defensive shootings that are completely applicable to my situation as a gun-carrying average guy. I wish there was more time in this class for him to expand on those topics.
It is very likely that I’ll be training with Tom again.
The Basics
School: Rangemaster
Course: Advanced Pistol Skills
Date: June 28, 2014
Duration: 8 Hours
Location: Nappanee Conservation Club
Instructor: Tom Givens
Assistant Instructor: Lynn Givens
Students: 17 (16 men, 1 woman) including the following INGO members: Cedartop, Jackson, Jason, jblomenberg16, Tinman, VERT, wiuteke.
Cost: $250.00
Stated Objective: There was no official objective, but in Tom’s intro speech he indicated the class was about “getting hits quickly” and “learning how to work the trigger”.
Related Threads
- Rangemaster - Advanced Pistol & Defensive Shotgun June 28/29 - Nappanee, IN
- Tom Givens - Advanced Pistol AAR - Nappanee Indiana
Summary
I would call this class an in-depth treatment on the fundamentals of marksmanship with selected defensive topics. The class consisted of roughly 25% lecture and 75% range time. Around half of the lecture topics were speed or marksmanship related, with the other half covering the nature of armed citizen gun fights with tactics and techniques generally used to prevail. Through the course of the class there were four or five scored marksmanship tests, as well as several timed drills. The class was primarily about getting good hits in the prescribed amount of time, or faster.
Details
Classroom - Morning Lecture:
We kicked off the day in the classroom at 0900 with introductions by the instructors. Tom has 25 years of Law enforcement experience in one of the highest-crime cities in the country. He is also a successful IDPA and IPSC competitor, having been involved with both organizations almost from their inception. Tom brings both competitive and practical experience to the classroom and the influence from both can be seen in his lectures and his drills/tests. His wife, Lynn Givens, would be the assistant instructor for the day. She came to the defensive aspects of firearms in a very personal way, seeking training after threats from a stalker. Since then, I believe they said she has attended over a thousand hours of professional firearms training in addition to significant teaching and training experience with Rangemaster. She also heads the Rangemaster women’s training programs.
After introductions, Tom moved on to safety and the implications of carrying a gun. A brief PowerPoint presentation accompanied the safety lecture. “Safety is about living with a gun, it is not about range rules”, he said. It is a lifestyle and the rules apply everywhere. The four rules were discussed and demonstrated. Tom is not a fan of cold ranges, and the two absolutes of muzzle discipline and trigger finger discipline were thoroughly demonstrated.
Beyond safety, the primary topic of the morning lecture was marksmanship. The importance of fast and accurate marksmanship was explained. We must “hit quickly” and “hit with every shot”. Speed was the second theme for this lecture. Tom explained that “the most precious commodity in a gun fight is time”. He provided a thorough treatment of grip, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger control, and follow-through. Tom prefers a thumbs-high grip as opposed to the currently-popular thumbs-forward grip (which is so prevalent in practical pistol competition). He had a pretty well-thought reasoning for his preferences. He also explained the majority of combat-distance marksmanship issues are related to poor trigger management. Trigger control would be a major theme in this class.
Range - Marksmanship:
Around 1030 we all headed out to the range. The range for this course was set up in front of a small, covered shelter area with shooting benches. There was about 15-17 yards of total range distance from the shelter to the targets. The class would generally work as one, large relay for most drills. So all students were shooting at the same time. This made for relatively little down-time and kept the pace of the class fairly brisk.
We started off with some dry-fire exercises. The very first drill was the ol’ sit something (a piece of brass in this case) on top of the front site and see if you can dry fire 5 times in a row without it falling off. (For the striker-fired pistol shooters, a partner would replace the brass after each round so the student could reset the pistol. Two additional dry-fire drills involved watching the trigger and watching the sights.
The second set of drills were slow-fire bullseye shooting. These were done on what I believe is an NRA 50 foot bullseye competition target. We started out around 4 yards with the goal of keeping every round in the very center circle. We were instructed to focus on trigger management. I didn’t specifically note it, but I believe this was the first of our scored tests. It appeared one purpose for doing this was to allow Tom to see what he was working with on the line. After the slow-fire we changed over to FBI QIT targets to work on shooting speed (splits). Tom gave a short on-range lecture on shooting cadence and rhythm and how the sound might help diagnose your shooting issues. We fired various strings working the split times down with each set.
Range – Reloads:
Around 1145 we pulled back to the shelter for a short discussion on reloading methods. Tom talked to us about speed reloads, emergency reloads, and tactical reloads, describing the methods he prefers. We were encouraged to reload whenever we could in a real situation. Tom is not a fan of the tactical reload, and gave us several good reasons why as he explained its history.
Back on the range we were met with a target displaying five circles 3-4 inches in diameter. With this target each circle had its own drill. Dots one through three were involved various shooting from the ready and also from the holster. This would be the first holster work of the day. Dots four and five were reloading drills. We worked both “speed” and “emergency” reloads. After the reloading drills we took a 40 minute lunch break.
Range – Tests:
When we got back to the range after lunch it was test time. We conducted two scored drills back-to-back. Both of the drills were performed on a B8, 25 yard pistol bullseye target. The first drill, which I believe he called the “1,2,3 drill” started around four yards and progressed back to around 15 yards. There were 25 rounds fired for a maximum score of 250. The second drill started back at the 15ish yard line and progressed forward to the 4 yard line. This drill was 30 rounds and had some time limits to get all of the shots on the target. The final string also included one reload. The maximum score was 300.
Classroom – Afternoon Lecture:
Around 1400 we moved to the classroom for 40 minute discussion about Tom’s research and Rangemaster student’s experiences with real gunfights. In addition to the 60+ Rangemaster students who have been in concealed carry fights, he has also pulled together over 300 reports of plain-clothes law enforcement (DEA, FBI, etc) shootings that were substantially similar to confrontations the average citizen might have. Many of these LE shootings were not necessarily in the line of duty. He talked about a few instances where agents were carjacked on a stakeout or robbed coming off shift. The main difference between these LE shootings and those of the average citizen is, even after it is determined to be justifiable, the LE shootings are still thoroughly investigated, tracked, and reported. So there is a larger body of data from which to draw conclusions. Tom explained many of those conclusion in this lecture.
One of the first things he told us was not to confuse “typical” with “average” when discussing gunfight data. Averages don’t mean much when discussing shootings. If you have two shootings, one involving 3 shots at 3 yards, and the other involving 27 shots at 27 yards, the average (15 shots at 15 yards) doesn’t tell us much about those situations. However, after some study, Tom has pulled together some common things that are typically seen in these type of situations. Some of those he discussed include typical engagement distances, probability of multiple attackers, likely locations to be attacked, typical motivations and scenarios of attackers, etc.
After discussing some of those findings, students were given a glimpse in to the “typical” life of a career criminal and how their path in life (and therefore, their mindset) likely differs significantly from that of the law-abiding, armed citizen. Tom told us about some interesting justice department statistics that indicate the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime is much greater than most people would expect. We should expect it to happen and not be surprised when it does. Make up our minds to be ready, and just do what needs to be done.
To conclude this lecture, Tom relayed the experiences of one Rangemaster student who was involved in three armed robberies as a convenience store clerk (one involving armed resistance). Along with the story were still photos from the security camera which Tom used to reinforce his conclusion from the situation. The student prevailed by staying calm, moving off the line of force, and applying quick and effective marksmanship to the situation. Those lessons would be the impetus for the range session following the lecture.
Range:
The first drills conducted after we returned to the range involved side-stepping off the line of force, drawing, and shooting the target. We started off just stepping, added drawing and shooting, then added reloads (moving when we weren’t shooting). After incorporating the simple movement we progressed to one-handed shooting. Tom took the class aside to demonstrate his preferred method and stance for one-handed shooting. He also demonstrated his preferred method for transitioning the gun between hands. These exercises lead us in to the next scored test. This test was performed on the Rangemaster Q target and involved moving off the line, drawing and shooting the target at various distances between 4 and 15 yards. This test also included strong-hand and weak-hand-only shooting at the 4ish yard distance. The test was 30 rounds. The highest possible score was 150 points.
After a quick break, we returned to the range to find a target with 6 shapes (two squares, two circles, and two triangles) with the numbers 1-6 in them. These targets were used to introduce some target recognition and thinking to the exercises. As you might expect, we did drills where the instructor called out numbers and students shot that number of rounds in to the shape with that number. If he called a shape, we shot those shapes, in numerical order, with the number of rounds in the shape. Tom incorporated a little competition in to these drills by pairing us up on the line so we’d have a partner to watch. The non-shooting partner was to pull the shooter off the line if they missed, were the last shooter to make a shot, or shot the targets out of order. The last shooter on the line was the winner. The second drill on these targets was the “casino drill”. For this drill we set up three magazines with 7 rounds each, 21 rounds total. We shot the shapes in numerical order putting 1 round in shape one, 2 rounds in two, and so on up to 6 rounds in shape six. The drill went through two reloads and had a maximum time of 21 seconds. Most students finished more quickly. Some did not finish in that timeframe.
The final topic of the day was malfunctions. Tom demonstrated a couple of malfunctions that could be caused by something blocking the slide from fully cycling. This demonstration also included an explanation of the primer manufacturing process and its construction. Apparently primers can be damaged or broken in to pieces due to rough handling or vibration (or even chambering the round several times). We worked type 1 (failure to fire) and type 2 (failure to eject) malfunctions with dummy rounds and fired brass. Tom demonstrated the remedial action for these malfunctions, which is the same technique for both types. He appears to prefer simple, non-diagnostic, and universally applicable techniques.
The final topic flowed in to the final drill which was scored by time. The drill was shot on the Rangemaster Q target at about 4 yards. It included a moving off the line, drawing from the holster, a malfunction clearance, and a reload. It was basically everything we’d done that day rolled in to one. The best time of the day was just over 7 seconds, shot by Tinman.
Thoughts and Conclusions
My first opinion on the class really depends on the definition of “advanced”. VERT and I have discussed this in the past, both on the board and off. We have differing opinions on what is considered advanced. I had initially attempted to define it, or to compare my opinion with VERT’s. However, that didn’t add much to the AAR and so it was removed. Perhaps he’ll jump in on the thread and we can hash it in the subsequent posts.
Based on my definition, I’m not sure I would have called the course “advanced”. It certainly wasn’t basic, but most of the speed and marksmanship drills/tests were not out of reach for me. I do not consider myself an “advanced” shooter. The line was fairly static and required gun handling not too demanding. It probably requires a similar level of skill as Coach’s Intermediate Pistol.
Even so, as Cedartop observed during Mike Pannone’s advanced pistol class, there are some students who don’t belong in any kind of “advanced” class. If you don’t have well-developed trigger finger and muzzle discipline, you don’t belong in an advanced pistol class. If you have to be reminded several times to keep your finger out of the trigger guard (especially while reholstering), you probably don’t belong in an “advanced” class. If you cannot put 9 of 10 shots in a three-inch circle at four or five yards when under no significant time pressure, you don’t belong in an “advanced” pistol class. If it’s likely you’ll accidentally touch one off when someone tells you just to pull the slack out of the trigger (on a glock) but not fire, you probably don’t belong in an advanced pistol class. If you don’t have a consistent and well-practice method of gripping the pistol, an “advanced” pistol class is not the place to come learn how. Yet all of these things were issues in this class.
Fortunately, this class did not place too great a demand on student’s safe gun handling. There was no moving around other students, or objects, or really much movement at all. Everything was done on a relatively static line. There was some holster work, but not as much as I expected. There were a few students on the line who I’d have been a bit concerned to see in other classes I’ve taken.
Would I recommend the class and the instructor? I sure would. This class was about learning to apply the fundamentals consistently, and under some time pressure. I think the course was well-suited to meet that objective. Tom’s lectures left students with a good understanding of the fundamentals and each of his drills had clear purpose that tied back to the course objectives. The marksmanship tests made it clear where you stood, and how you were progressing through the class.
Tom’s lectures about the nature of citizen-involved defensive shootings were very informative. It was interesting to listen to the combined experience of multiple defensive shootings that are completely applicable to my situation as a gun-carrying average guy. I wish there was more time in this class for him to expand on those topics.
It is very likely that I’ll be training with Tom again.
Last edited:
Ouch! Called out by Jackson. 
). I never knew about the issue you and Vert note above. I hope whoever that is get that sorted out quickly.
