Some points by another blogger

Pdb has made several blog posts about Appleseed. He has, in his own way, made some brilliant observations. Two posts, in particular, got me to thinking. So I thought I'd jot it down here, and make a record of it.

Link 1
Link 2

Firearms Training BS Detection Checklist

Link 1 is about detecting BS is firearms training. Much of it would also be a good checklist for martial arts training. For the sake of this exercise, a "YES" means that AS does demonstrate some BS. A "NO" will mean that there is no BS detected. Here is what pdb asks:

Are They Selling Something Other Than Training? 

Be suspicious of sales pitches delivered during training for items conveniently sold in their ‘Pro shop’. Not all pitches are for tangible goods; are they selling you on training, or a dogma or lifestyle?

For AS:   NO

Although many instructors sell slings, and RWVA merchandise, there was no focus on this. Perhaps there have been at some AS events, but I have yet to hear of it. I'm going to rate this one "NO."

Cult Of Personality? 

Be honest, are you coming to hone your craft, or bask in a guru’s glow? If the head of the organization went under a bus, would you still train with them?
For AS:   YES

This is a difficult one. Few, if any in Appleseed are blind followers of "Fred" (Jack Dailey). However, there is a cult personality of Appleseeders as a group. Many of them have only trained with Appleseed, and therefore think that AS is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Their mentality lends to acting the same way. I'm going to rate this one a "YES" because of that sheep mentality, though it it not Fred they follow. 

What Rules? Dogma Or Results? 

If you ask them why something is done a certain way, they better have an answer other than “We’ve always done it this way.” or “That’s how the [Army, Marines, SEALs, FBI etc etc] do it.”

For AS:   YES

Again, another difficult one. AS will  never publicly claim they are the one true way. However, for the training they give, it is most certainly "the Appleseed Way or the Highway!" Particularly disturbing is there adherence to sling shooting, while giving up on other aspects of High Power or old Army shooting. Given the almost cult-like following of sling shooting, I will have to rate this one a "YES."

Lowest Common Denominator or All High Speed? 

Classes consist of a variety of skill and talent levels. Do they focus exclusively on one group or the other? Or can they tailor the attention given to each student so that everybody gets their dollars worth?
For AS:   YES

Again, another difficult one. Although they try to keep to the lowest common denominator, when they get to the AQT portions, it is sink or swim. Instruction and coaching drops off at that point. In fact, the speed is what causes folks to get left behind, so maybe it's not as difficult a decision as I once thought. Definite "YES."

Training For Me But Not For Thee?

Do they have a non-LEO credentialing policy, or Law Enforcement only classes? Personally, I think that’s bullshit and refuse to train with anyone who believes in two levels of citizens.
For AS:   NO

This is a definite "NO." But there is a caveat, they allow military to shoot for free, and have offered the same for LEO's in the past. However, the question from pdb is whether they are open to everyone, and they are. No BS here.

One True Gun, or Run Whatcha Brung? 

Making people run a Glock or SIG or Beretta like a 1911 is idiotic. Same thing goes for making G3, FAL, AK or Galil owners run their rifles like ARs. Good instructors can help their students get the most from any weapon. 

For AS:   NO

This one is pretty easy - "NO" on the BS meter. They claim they are a "run what ya brung" event - often to their own detriment. This is a point of contention, as they should only allow semi-autos, with certain exceptions for bolt or lever guns for those who have already shot well at a prior Appleseed.

Appleseed Response Summary

From Link 2, pdb explores some of the responses from Appleseeders:

"So in response to pointing out some problems with the Appleseed syllabus, here’s pretty much the answers I got:

“It’s an advanced course and really isn’t for the beginning shooter.”

“It’s a beginner’s course and doesn’t need to cover advanced subjects like cover and improvised positions.”

“It doesn’t matter that the instructors sometimes suck, they’re all volunteers.”

“It doesn’t matter that some shooters leave the program less confident, our intentions are good. Besides, we only ever hear back from the guys who liked the program, so what could possibly be wrong with it?”

“Shun the nonbeliever! Shun! ShunnnnnnnNN!“

So let's explore those responses:

“It’s an advanced course and really isn’t for the beginning shooter.”

Then why do Appleseeders insist on getting newer shooters to their events? Plus, I would argue that the course of fire is advanced, but the skills taught are fundamental. Herein lies the problem. The information they have is taught to Marines over a 2-week period of time. What is currently called Appleseed should be broken into two parts - a "part 1" and a "part 2."

“It’s a beginner’s course and doesn’t need to cover advanced subjects like cover and improvised positions.”

So which way do you want it?  Is it beginner level or advanced? On a more mundane note, to keep with AS's running theme of fundamental marksmanship, they should keep it mostly as-is, but add a correct sight-in portion from a rested position. 

If they were to do the right thing, and break the current training into "part 1" and "part 2" then they could allow bipods or other rests, and sighting in would be much more effective. 

Also, if they had parts, then they could include topics such as cover in a potential "part 3."

“It doesn’t matter that the instructors sometimes suck, they’re all volunteers.”
Kudos for people having the wherewithal to volunteer, but this statement is a cop-out.  Just because someone is nice enough to volunteer their time to teach, does not mean their teaching ability shouldn't be looked at critically. Moreover, because Appleseed insists on recruiting new shooters, they need to be hyper-critical about whom they permit to instruct.

“It doesn’t matter that some shooters leave the program less confident, our intentions are good."
I seem to recall a proverb about the road to a very hot place being paved with "good intentions." Again, because Appleseed insists on recruiting new shooters, they need to be extremely critical of persons they allow to instruct. Allowing shooters to leave less confident is a failure - for Appleseed, the instructors, and the gun community as a whole.

"Besides, we only ever hear back from the guys who liked the program, so what could possibly be wrong with it?”
This is a big issue. Any instructor, or head of a program should want to know more from people that didn't enjoy it, or had difficulty. Knowing the hows and whys of failure enables the plan for success.  Appleseed seeks to squash this information. Organizations that stand the test of time don't squash the information, but learn from it, instead.

"Shun the nonbeliever!"
This refers again to the problem above about not being able to handle criticism. As an organization, this is Appleseed's largest single weakness. Only by taking a look at oneself critically, can one objectively see faults, and hope to fix them!