Should New Shooters Start Small or Go Big?

I truly enjoy introducing people to firearms; it is something I do as often as I can. Luckily, I have had many recent opportunities to take people to the range for their first time.

My Current Methodology

My methods rarely change from person to person: I start off with a discussion of safety and weapons handling, then explain and demonstrate grip and trigger manipulation. Once we've covered that, I have them dry fire a pistol, then shoot .22LR. They can shoot .22 for as long as they'd like before I step them up to 9mm. Should 9mm prove to be the most they'd like to handle, I provide them with as much 9mm as they can take, or go back down to .22LR if necessary.

Some want to rapidly progress up the recoil ladder. If they've demonstrated an ability to properly shoot the lower recoiling firearms, I'll bring out the .40s and .45s. They soon learn that the methods required to control and properly fire each handgun are really not that different, and rarely show signs of flinching with the "big guns."

An Alternate Viewpoint

A commenter on the blog recently suggested that I try the opposite: starting with the big guns and working our way down. I am hesitant to try this, for two reasons - first, because the method I use produces good results, and second, because I think that starting big would not be conducive to avoiding the development of trigger "snatch" or flinch.

Recently, though, I met Leila, a young woman who stands just over 5 feet tall. She's also quite slim, and doesn't work in a field that relates to firearms. What sets her apart from other women her size and age is that she carries an HK USP Compact in .45 ACP.

We went to the range, where she promptly bested me in a 25 yard bullseye shooting competition with a rented Ruger MkI. Humbled, I was only able to salvage a small amount of pride by keeping tighter groups during rapid fire with a 9mm 1911. Still, I had to scratch my head and wonder how anyone was able to beat me (after all, I'm perfect).

She was of the opinion that it was unnecessary to learn to shoot with smaller caliber firearms - that the recoil of a .45 caliber pistol was not bad at all, and that progressing up to it only built up unnecessary anticipation. This was remarkably similar to the opinion previously expressed by the Belgian commenter.

Leila did relate a story from her youth, when she was about to fire a 12 gauge shotgun - a Mossberg 500. She was told that it would be loaded with light recoiling target loads, but the male relatives involved loaded it instead with a Magnum slug. She received significant physical bruises from the encounter, but hasn't let it affect her long term. Our discussion led me to believe that she thought being honest about whatever the shooter was about to encounter was more important than the actual properties of the weapon or ammunition.

Treating Men and Women Differently

Last night, I took some male friends shooting. One, Gabriel, had never fired a weapon before, so I used my standard methods in order to introduce him to the sport. After one of the most brief intros I've ever given, he proceeded to put every round of .22LR he fired at 7 yards through the same hole, and kept every shot of 9mm from the 1911 in the 10 ring at that same distance.

However, I noticed that I was treating him a little differently than the last few women I have taken shooting. Most importantly, I did not first ask if I could touch him, then put gentle finger pressure on hips or shoulders (to correct posture), as I would with a woman. Instead, I would tap or even punch his shoulder and say simply, "Lean into it, dude." Am I likely to punch a woman's shoulder - ever? Not really.

Even the methods by which I approach a shooter at the range who appears to be having problems differ by gender (and age). Guys my age will hear me say, "Hey dude, need some help with...?" Women of all ages and older men might hear, "Excuse me, would you like some help with...?"

I also allowed Gabriel to progress much further and faster up the "recoil ladder" than I normally would with a new female shooter. He certainly was capable of firing the bigger stuff - after proving himself with the Kahr CW40, he still wanted something bigger. The range we were using had a rental Colt SMG and Desert Eagle .50AE. He kept every round from every full auto mag dump with the SMG on the silhouette, and the shot he fired from the Desert Eagle was straight through the point at which he'd aimed.

There was a female shooter on the next lane over, testing out a new Glock 26 with her husband; after helping them with some general shooting tips, I loaned them my Glock 19 with Advantage Arms .22LR  conversion. They enjoyed it and seemed more confident with the Glock 26 afterwards.

I can't say that I would have suggested that any new female shooter try the .50AE, although the 9mm Colt SMG was easy enough to control that I think most new female shooters would have found it both safe and enjoyable. Both the woman and her husband declined to try the Desert Eagle, though the husband did sample the SMG.

That Vuurwapen Guy is a Big Fat Sexist Jerk

Is the way I approach men and women differently when teaching shooting an indicator of some underlying sexism on my part? I am hesitant to say yes. I don't value men and women differently, but I learned during my (incomplete) postgraduate studies in secondary education that there are many ways to reach various age, gender, and racial groups. A "one-size-fits-all" approach, in my opinion, might sound more "fair" from an abstract sense, but has a low overall success rate.

While I'm open to new thoughts on which caliber to use when teaching new shooters, I doubt I'll be changing how I treat men and women any time soon.