TexasCHLforum.com

I was fortunate to attend a great training class Feb. 27-28 hosted by K R training. The instructor for the class was Claude Werner. He is an IDPA Master level shooter and been carrying a snubby since 1980. He was first a student at Rogers Shooting School later becoming the Chief Instructor there. For those who haven’t heard of the Rogers school, it’s probably the best pure shooting school available to civvies. http://www.rogersshootingschool.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He is one of only two instructors that I know of that teach a specific class for the snub nosed revolver. He has really put a lot of effort into organizing his years of experience and analysis into a very well structured class.

The first day we started with some lecture. We covered some background material, targets that we were going to be using, and some accuracy standards. Claude noted some characteristics for the Snubby as:

Advantages:
Small & light weight
The failure to fire malfunction drill is simple, pull the trigger again.
The manual of arms is easily taught to no dedicated personnel.
Functions fine with low powered ammo.
Better than autoloaders for pocket carry.
Can shoot through pocket if needed.
Dry fires well.

Disadvantages:
Sights are small.
Long trigger pull
Ammo capacity is low.
Difficult to reload.
Remedial action is complex, usually needed tools, bench, etc…

After the lecture & safety briefing we headed to the range.
Claude told us the drill we were to shoot and then demo’ed the drill for us. That was a great teaching method. Everyone had plenty of time to watch the drill and get the details down for the stance, grip, trigger press etc... We shot the DEA dot targets dry fire first then we loaded up and shot 1 dot with 1 round, spin the cylinder, 2 rounds, spin the cylinder and 2 rounds. ( known as ball & dummy drill) We completed this for 3 dots.

This is a great way to get immediate visual feedback, a very important learning tool. If you yanked the trigger you pulled the shot out of the dot or you saw the whole dot and heard a click
We reloaded using loose ammo in the pocket. It was good to practice this as sometimes loading devices may let go of their rounds in your pocket and you may be forced to reload with loose ammo. Claude emphasized not getting “task fixated” when loading the gun, meaning load one or two rounds look at the target, load 1, look at the target, etc.. until loaded.
We shot some more drills using photo targets, more dots, and finished our shooting with the Nevada CHL test. Everyone passed the test without a problem. We also shot our carry ammo for accuracy at 3 and 5 yards. This was valuable to test where our ammo shot in relation to our sights.
We finished up the day with lecture and discussion about different grips, holsters, sight modifications, carry ammo thoughts, lasers, maintenance, and dry fire routines.


The class was solidly rooted in performing the basics and progressed in a structured way throughout the day. Starting with two handed shooting aimed fire and progressing to presentation from the holster.

I'll add day two later.

Thanks for the review fm2.
This sounds much like the classes offered by Michael de Bethencourt.
Both are very dedicated "snubby" instructors.
I await your "day 2 review".

The second day we started with a very brief lecture and got on to the advanced shooting portion. We shot the DEA dot targets again. First we shot them dominant hand only. This really drove home the need to work the trigger smoothly and keep the sights aligned. We moved on to non-dominant hand shooting of the same drills. Some may think that may be a low priority, but Claude noted multiple examples of peoples dominant hand getting injured and using the non-dominant run the gun became extremely important.

Next we added drawstroke to the dominant hand and the non-dominant hand drills. We were taught a few ways to draw one handed using the non-dominant hand. Those methods will work for other pistols as well.

Then we got to apply those marksmanship skills to a more realistic situation. We shot a hostage taker target. That was set up with a photo target of a bad guy holding a gun and a photo target no shoot or hostage target shielding the bad guy. This left only a small amount (about ¼ ) of the bad guys chest and the head as available targets.
Next we had some fun shooting a scenario based on a real event. It was set up as a mirror image method. What that means is two people were on the firing line at the same time shooting targets downrange and each person had a proxy target (mirror of themselves).
On one end of the firing line the good guy had two bad guy targets to shoot (a photo target of bad guy holding a hostage and a steel knockdown target). The steel target was the proxy for the other shooter on the line. He had to shoot the paper first, then the steel target.
On the other end of the firing line the other shooter had one steel knockdown target (the good guys proxy) to shoot. The good guy got to start on the range officers command, the other shooter couldn’t start until he heard the good guy fire. This was an excellent scenario set up to run. It emphasized getting accurate hits quickly and an unknown time limit. The person who shot their steel target down first was judged to have survived.

After lunch we de-geared of all our live stuff, and did a few force on force scenarios. A hostage taker and a one like the live fire scenario. The wind played havoc with our paintball rounds' (code eagle) accuracy, but it was a great learning tool. I think any defensive class should have a force on force component.

We finished up the day with an outstanding lecture and PowerPoint presentation “American Gunfights”. I thought this was a very valuable lecture. I really liked how Claude started out with definitions of the vocabulary to be used for armed encounter, shooting, gunfight, and gun battle. Without definitive agreed upon terms we really end up with misrepresentations and misunderstood data and conjecture. You can hardly move a discussion forward much less analyze situations and progress with effective concepts to solve the situations using that kind of data.

to be continued.....

I really enjoyed the class. The shooting and gun handling really stressed the mastering the basic skills. The dots we shot were 3.5” on the DEA dot targets. http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=DEA+DOT These were shot from 3 and 5 yards. This offered enough difficulty that if you yanked on the trigger or disturbed the sight alignment you could easily put a shot out of the dot. Then when we shot the photo targets of the “bad dude” http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=Q-ANT-A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; from 5 and 7 yards we were able to keep our groups tight due to aiming at a spot on the target and not aiming at the whole bad dude. Claude put it as aim for something particular, the point of the V on the undershirt, the button, and that really makes a big difference in your performance. This concept translates to the real world where you may not have a full value target available.


The lectures and advice on gear, and training were extremely valuable as well. Claude draws on his database of 3000 shooting incidents, his experience carrying the snub concealed, shooting the snubby in many IDPA competitions and his teaching at Rogers to offer a lot of insight and hard won experience to the student.
It was a great training weekend the weather was fantastic and I learned much in the class. It was great to train with friends again at K R Training and make some new friends as well. Everyone contributed positively to the overall class.

I really am happy I was finally able to meet Claude in person. I have talked with him online for about 4 years and had no hesitation in signing up for the class. With a little work we may be able to get him to come back and teach this class or one of his other offerings. Anyone interested? I know I am.

This sounds like very high quality training with a category of weapon that people seldom practice with yet carry frequently. I wish I could have made it.

A couple questions:

What was everyone's comparative experiences/observations with shooting dominant hand only versus freestyle (two handed with dominant hand finger pulling the trigger)? Did people notice significant differences in their performance when using the two methods of shooting? I ask this because in my experience with my J-frame, I do not believe my support hand (as I try to use it) really contributes much to controlling the weapon. It feels as though there is only enough space/room to put one hand on it, while the other one is just along "for the ride". Or I could be just doing it wrong (it would not be the first time for this).

What, if anything, did Mr Werner have to say about simply placing a Big Dot sight on the front of a snubby revolver? Speaking for myself, I shudder at the thought of taking "hostage"-type, aim-small-miss-small shots with a short-barreled, coarsely-sighted weapon, though perhaps with additional practice I would be more confident in my skills at certain ranges.

Wish I'd had the money to make it to this class. Sounds like it was great.

Can you share the cost of this two day training? I looked on the Rogers Shooting School site you posted and couldn't find anything about snubby classes.

davidtx wrote:Can you share the cost of this two day training? I looked on the Rogers Shooting School site you posted and couldn't find anything about snubby classes.

Maybe fm2 can speak more authoritatively than I can on this, but Mr Werner could be offering this training as a "free agent", unsanctioned by Rogers Shooting School.

Perhaps contacting K R Training (http://www.krtraining.com/) can help muster enough support to bring him back again sometime.

dcphoto wrote:Wish I'd had the money to make it to this class. Sounds like it was great.

The nice thing about this class is that people could take the level 1 class (Sat. only) and get a lot of great training.

davidtx wrote:Can you share the cost of this two day training? I looked on the Rogers Shooting School site you posted and couldn't find anything about snubby classes.

Yes, it was $200 for level 1, Sat. class or $400 for level 1 & 2. This is a pretty good value considering what other traveling trainers are getting. People had the option of taking level 1 or both level 1 & 2.

yerasimos, is correct this is not a "Rogers" class. Here's the link to Claude's website. http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/w/cwerner1/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a good article on U S Concealed carry called Using IDPA Competition to Build Your Concealed Carry Skills written by Claude & Mike Benedict http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/143.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yerasimos wrote:What was everyone's comparative experiences/observations with shooting dominant hand only versus freestyle (two handed with dominant hand finger pulling the trigger)? Did people notice significant differences in their performance when using the two methods of shooting? I ask this because in my experience with my J-frame, I do not believe my support hand (as I try to use it) really contributes much to controlling the weapon. It feels as though there is only enough space/room to put one hand on it, while the other one is just along "for the ride". Or I could be just doing it wrong (it would not be the first time for this).

I think that shooting the dots from low ready one-handed was more difficult than shooting the dots freestyle. Using both hands seemed to help to track the pistol more consistantly.
Some people had a lot of difficulty shooting with their non-dominate hand only and getting all their hits in the dot. They did better when they shot freestyle, non-dominate hand.

yerasimos wrote: What, if anything, did Mr Werner have to say about simply placing a Big Dot sight on the front of a snubby revolver? Speaking for myself, I shudder at the thought of taking "hostage"-type, aim-small-miss-small shots with a short-barreled, coarsely-sighted weapon, though perhaps with additional practice I would be more confident in my skills at certain ranges.

He didn't mention much about the Big Dot sights other than he wasn't a big fan of them. I think he also disliked the imprecision of the big dots. He did give some tips about improving regular sights and one of the students had used a brownells kit to add an insert to the factory front sight.
It was also mentioned by a student that some the nightguard series had a very tall front sight and could get in the way on the drawstroke.

fm2 wrote: He did give some tips about improving regular sights.........

Can you share some info regarding improving sights on the "snubby"?
Also, did he advocate chamfering the cylinder charge holes?
Again thanks for the review.

For the sights, he made a very positive comment about the guy's 442 that had the insert installed. Other than that he recommended painting, putting some bright tape on, or using a sharpie marker on them. I have done some of my sights and they turned out pretty well. Yes, he advocated chamfering the cylinder holes.

I think painting the front sight would be a good "class" to have at the forum day. I'm game to lead the class.

fm2 wrote: I think that shooting the dots from low ready one-handed was more difficult than shooting the dots freestyle. Using both hands seemed to help to track the pistol more consistantly.
Some people had a lot of difficulty shooting with their non-dominate hand only and getting all their hits in the dot. They did better when they shot freestyle, non-dominate hand.

Thanks for the feedback.

I did some more searching and (re)found a link to Jerry Miculek's tips on gripping revolvers, including the J-frame. Skippr found it first at http://www.shootingusa.com/PRO_TIPS/MIC ... ulek2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I will try Miculek's two-handed J-frame method the next time I go live-fire with a J-frame, and then I can make a better decision how I want to proceed.

What did Claude have to say in his class about gripping J-frames? I will want to try that as well.

fm2 wrote:He didn't mention much about the Big Dot sights other than he wasn't a big fan of them. I think he also disliked the imprecision of the big dots. He did give some tips about improving regular sights and one of the students had used a brownells kit to add an insert to the factory front sight.
It was also mentioned by a student that some the nightguard series had a very tall front sight and could get in the way on the drawstroke.

This is good to know. I will give greater consideration to normal-sized front sights and less to the Big Dot.

I found an AAR for the class from another student:
http://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/0 ... de-werner/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;