Effective Instructor: "Combat" Experience Required?

[szorn]

Just to recap what I stated on the church security thread- https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng-security-team-after-hours-scenarios-2.html

No, it's not necessary and it doesn't automatically equal an effective instructor. It can be beneficial, especially if the instructor truly absorbed the lessons that their experience had to offer. However, those lessons are generally specific to the circumstances anyway. An effective instructor will take advantage of the opportunities that are available to learn from the experiences of others without having to risk life or limb to do so.

How do we know if something is usable in the real world? Through simple research and pressure-testing! Modern technology allows us access to information that we can easily use to verify whether or not something will work. If no usable data or info exists than there is probably a good reason, it likely doesn't work. However, simple pressure testing can easily confirm this and it can be performed in such a way that no one has to suffer serious injuries or death to find out.

Steve

 

[Jackson]

Is is "required" or absolutely needed? Of course not.

Is it preferred?

Yes, experience matters. Every piece of the game matters. People who don't have anything try to downplay this. There are a good amount people out there who have everything. Experience, training, performance and the teaching ability to demonstrate and get a wide variety of students to conceptualize in a way that excels the learning process. When you have people passing around info like"your body won't/will do this" etc etc, it's pretty important to know wether that person simply watched a bunch of go pro/dashcam footage and tries to find something sciency sounding to explain what he's seeing vs. someone who's in those videos.

So can you give us some specific examples? What are the differences I would see in a class with an real-world gun fight experienced instructor vs one who had no real-world gun fight experience but learned for training, research, and info from those who have? What will be the difference for me as the student between the two?

 

[Coach]

Experience in my mind is preferred in all other walks of life. If I have the chance I would prefer the person who has been there and done that no matter the application. However, that experience does not mean that the person can teach it. The people who excel at whatever activity often times cannot teach or coach. They cannot verbalize what they do in that situation that allows them to excel or win.

Plus they are many people who have been there and done that and did it all wrong and still prevailed. Maybe they got lucky or so over-matched the competition that it did not matter what they did they prevailed anyway.

As human beings we have a luxury that animals do not have. We can read and watch video and learn from other peoples experience. We can become competent before having been there and done that. Nearly every person to have ever sat in the White House lacked foreign relations experience, but most survived. Lincoln had very little military experience and knowledge and had to learn on the fly and from books. He won.

Experience sure is nice but it is not a requirement.

Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

 

[theblackknight]

So can you give us some specific examples? What are the differences I would see in a class with an real-world gun fight experienced instructor vs one who had no real-world gun fight experience but learned for training, research, and info from those who have? What will be the difference for me as the student between the two?

Because the non-experienced ones might have some info picked up from experienced people, that dosent mean that they got complete info that was put into the right context.

You don't see the value of being able to speak from experience?(THIS IS JUST A EXAMPLE) What if a student wants to know how much training it will take to be able to use the slide release with their thumb in a fight. What ever advice is given is based out of experience and knowledge. The guy lacking experience can only quote numbers at this point if even that. Yeah, he gathered and condensed the information, but that info is more valuable when tempered by "I know you can do-------, because I have. Here is how".

 

[David Rose]

Because the non-experienced ones might have some info picked up from experienced people, that dosent mean that they got complete info that was put into the right context.

You don't see the value of being able to speak from experience?(THIS IS JUST A EXAMPLE) What if a student wants to know how much training it will take to be able to use the slide release with their thumb in a fight. What ever advice is given is based out of experience and knowledge. The guy lacking experience can only quote numbers at this point if even that. Yeah, he gathered and condensed the information, but that info is more valuable when tempered by "I know you can do-------, because I have. Here is how".

This is a perfect example of the limits of this kind of belief. Any given experience is a data point.

How does this person know if they had more or less training, how that would have effected the outcome?

How does this person speak to other alternative techniques without first experiencing them in a fight?

How do they teach skills they didn't use in their fight? There would be a lot of one mag pistol classes in this model, because of the lack of credible instructors.

Ultimately even the most "experienced" instructor relies on something other than personal "did it in a gunfight" experience for most of what makes up a class.

Instructors need to honest, hungry for relevant knowledge, willing to change and admit when they are wrong, able to communicate/teach, and love helping others.

 

[jsharmon7]

I think it is more about teaching ability and effectiveness in transferring information to the student. Let's say you were trying to become a better basketball player. Would you rather have Phil Jackson tell you how to hold the ball, how to align your feet properly, and how to follow through? Or would you rather have Michael Jordan tell you "I don't know, just zip past the guy and dunk it." Being a "do'er" does not necessarily make you a good teacher.

 

[Expatriated]

I think it is more about teaching ability and effectiveness in transferring information to the student. Let's say you were trying to become a better basketball player. Would you rather have Phil Jackson tell you how to hold the ball, how to align your feet properly, and how to follow through? Or would you rather have Michael Jordan tell you "I don't know, just zip past the guy and dunk it." Being a "do'er" does not necessarily make you a good teacher.

I agree with this. There are a LOT of coaches out there that have never and could never attain the skill and proficiency of the people they are training. Sports is a good example of this. Especially gymnastics. You see some 50 year old fat dude telling 14 year old 60 lb girls how to do flips and all that jazz. Somehow they are making them better but unable to perform anywhere near the level of their student.

I love to hear experienced guys tell what they've learned (Kyle Lamb's leadership seminar is a great recent example!), but I will not place experience over training always. What about the rookie cop that gets in a shooting his first year on the job and survives vs a 20 year instructor that has never been involved in a shooting, or even a stressful situation? Should I take training from the rookie cop who maybe really didn't even KNOW what he did right or wrong?

Should I learn martial arts from a guy who got jumped a couple of times and somehow scrapped his way out of it? Or should I learn from a master who's taught for decades but never got into an actual fight?

Experience counts. Just don't let it count too much.

 

[Streck-Fu]

No. My reasoning might seem a bit silly but here goes. Because civilian firearms instructors are not teaching people to go into combat. I understand the mindset discussion (and certainly a person that has been there and done that is arguably more qualified to lead such a discussion) but we are not waging war on each other.

While I agree that an instructor does not need combat experience to be a good firearms teacher, I do think that defending yourself or family from an active threat is very much combat.

I will add that I admit to preferring instructors with at least military and even more so, combat experience. Mostly because I am more confident in the vetting of the subject matter through that experience. Without experience, you are being taught the theory. Sure you can be taught to shoot, clear malfunctions, basic movements by any one competent enough to teach them. But there is an element beyond the skills that an experienced instructor can communicate.

In the few classes I've taken with prior military experiences, they are able to augment the drill with explanations of why certain things work or why others don't.; even giving examples of how they worked in one situations and not another, etc.

 

[David Rose]

In the few classes I've taken with prior military experiences, they are able to augment the drill with explanations of why certain things work or why others don't.; even giving examples of how they worked in one situations and not another, etc.

The idea that people who can explain why they are teaching what they are teaching are rare....sad but true. Fortunately critical thinking is not a skill imparted by any specific type of experience.

 

[theblackknight]

This is a perfect example of the limits of this kind of belief. Any given experience is a data point.

How does this person know if they had more or less training, how that would have effected the outcome?

How does this person speak to other alternative techniques without first experiencing them in a fight?

How do they teach skills they didn't use in their fight? There would be a lot of one mag pistol classes in this model, because of the lack of credible instructors.

Ultimately even the most "experienced" instructor relies on something other than personal "did it in a gunfight" experience for most of what makes up a class.

Instructors need to honest, hungry for relevant knowledge, willing to change and admit when they are wrong, able to communicate/teach, and love helping others.

It's only a limit when wrongly being criticized by someone without any kind of actual experience.

What are interviews about shootings,dash cam,"after action reports" but people getting experience the hard way? The instructor who has experience can share the same collective knowledge as the guy who dosent, but can also share his own. Demonstration and experience matter. A instructor with experience can be all those things you listed above, and having their experience is still ​going to be a asset.

 

[rhino]

I can understand military people preferring instructors with military experience. I find it amusing though, when Joe Average with no military service and zero experience with firearms (or dealing with hostile people) demands a cadre of former SEALs and Special Forces operators to teach them how to handle and shoot a pistol. It's their right to do so, but it's still funny.

 

[ModernGunner]

I'll say the same thing I always say. How does someone teach something they don't know?

Now, as a disclaimer (since this is INGO, LOL!) I am ONLY referring to 'combat training' classes. NOT general firearms handling or basic marksmanship or bulls-eye or IDPA (and similar).

Almost to a person, folks more or less agree that an actual gunfight, where real bullets are actually flying at YOU, by a bad guy rabidly intent on killing YOU is 'different'. It's not 'theory' at that point.

An Instructor that has successfully survived such an engagement knows that difference, and can incorporate those 'real world' experiences into their training methods, however they choose to do that. An Instructor that has never faced that scenario simply has no true way to incorporate it simply because they have no actual knowledge of it. Ya can't teach what you don't know.

ALL training is beneficial. Bulls-eye handgun training IS beneficial in learning to use a firearm for defending oneself. However, note that Instructors in bulls-eye are often (usually?) those that have 'real world' experience in bulls-eye shooting, maybe in competitions, maybe successful competitions. Same with IDPA, etc.

If YOU, as a student, had the choice, money not being a consideration, would YOU rather be trained by an Instructor that has a 'gazillion' bullseye' trophies, or had never been bullseye shooting? An IDPA (whatever) Instructor with a 'gazillion' wins, or one who has never been in a single match?

If you answered the former, then I'll ask WHERE are these 'experienced, top-level' combat Instructors getting their 'experience'? From another guy / gal that has no experience? By analyzing a past shooting (i.e. Miami FBI shootout) and trying to figure out where the good guy, now dead, 'made a mistake'? ALL we know from that is, doing what the good guys did got them killed, and we do NOT want to do that! If there's a choice, wouldn't it be preferable to learn from someone who SURVIVED?

Again, ALL training is beneficial to some level. But if a 'student' is going to seek out 'combat' training, just as with bullseye or IDPA or whatever else, it makes the MOST sense to seek training on how to survive a gunfight from a guy / gal that HAS survived a gunfight, not from someone who has 'theorized' about it.

As always, the student has the choice, of course.

 

[David Rose]

Because the non-experienced ones might have some info picked up from experienced people, that dosent mean that they got complete info that was put into the right context.

You don't see the value of being able to speak from experience?(THIS IS JUST A EXAMPLE) What if a student wants to know how much training it will take to be able to use the slide release with their thumb in a fight. What ever advice is given is based out of experience and knowledge. The guy lacking experience can only quote numbers at this point if even that. Yeah, he gathered and condensed the information, but that info is more valuable when tempered by "I know you can do-------, because I have. Here is how".

Let's try this again.

The question you pose can not be answered just based on personal combat experience of the instructor. The problem is too many people think "that's what I did in my fight" is an actual answer to that question.

 

[templar223]

This might be considered self-serving, but I don't believe that "combat" experience is necessary to be a good instructor.

The ability to effectively transfer usable information to the student is the most critical skill of teaching.

I'm with Shay. I have seen first-hand that “military” and “police” listed in someone’s credentials doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to what concealed carry licensees need to be taught. Your class shouldn't be like boot camp or police academy. What matters is instructors’ ability to communicate with everyday people, teaching and empowering them with the skill sets they need to avoid becoming a statistic.

Here in Illinois, we have gone from 42 instructors who had taught 25+ people in the previous 12 months in early 2013 to almost 3,000 today, all competing for business (that hasn't materialized as everyone expected, by the way).

There are a lot of guys trading on their military experience and I attribute it to "promote what you got" as they have no past record of success teaching self-defense gun classes. If you have zero practical experience with firearm training aside from your NRA instructor training and what you got in Basic Training and AIT, and have no real-world practical experience training people how to use their guns safely and effectively for self-defense, you gotta tout something, right?

I know of one who was a frickin' mechanic in his .mil days yet he tries to extrapolate his "former military serving in Iraq" as though he's high speed, low drag. He also pads his resume rather generously in other ways as well. Not surprisingly he's not one of Illinois' better instructors.

Then again, I know of another guy who mentions (as opposed to touts) his former .mil experience who is *very* good and I suspect he sees his *mentioning* his past service as combat infantry in the USMC to supplement his training history and pedigree, not to use it as the primary feature of his past experience with guns.

Another instructor, Nick Rabenau from over by Galesburg in Western IL was quoted in a newspaper denigrating instructors who were farmers or school teachers in their regular lives. I savaged him pretty good about that and he kinda sorta apologized for his poorly chosen words, especially after I pointed to a farmer and a retired school teacher who were outstanding instructors in their ability to teach the fundamentals to regular people well and effectively.

YMMV, of course.

I recommend to folks to to avoid people who talk up their prior .mil experience excessivly. Usually the HS/LD types are reluctant to advertise their roles in the service.



John

 

[VERT]

Who taught the guy that survived combat?

 

[cedartop]

Who taught the guy that survived combat?

That is my point in this. When I was in basic there were very few Drill Sergeant's who had combat experience. Were we, the soldiers they trained inferior because of it? When I was in the police academy most of my instructors had never been in a gunfight, yet they taught men and women who would later go on to need to use a weapon in a deadly force encounter. Here is a question. If I would have shot the two people I could have 20 years ago when I was on the PD, would I magically be a better instructor right now? Do I think someone with great teaching ability, a excellent knowledge and grasp of the material, and extensive experience is a great combination? Certainly. I got to spend the weekend learning from just such a person and it was great. Do I think it is a requirement to be a good instructor? No.

 

[Jackson]

I'll say the same thing I always say. How does someone teach something they don't know?

Now, as a disclaimer (since this is INGO, LOL!) I am ONLY referring to 'combat training' classes. NOT general firearms handling or basic marksmanship or bulls-eye or IDPA (and similar).

Almost to a person, folks more or less agree that an actual gunfight, where real bullets are actually flying at YOU, by a bad guy rabidly intent on killing YOU is 'different'. It's not 'theory' at that point.

An Instructor that has successfully survived such an engagement knows that difference, and can incorporate those 'real world' experiences into their training methods, however they choose to do that. An Instructor that has never faced that scenario simply has no true way to incorporate it simply because they have no actual knowledge of it. Ya can't teach what you don't know.

ALL training is beneficial. Bulls-eye handgun training IS beneficial in learning to use a firearm for defending oneself. However, note that Instructors in bulls-eye are often (usually?) those that have 'real world' experience in bulls-eye shooting, maybe in competitions, maybe successful competitions. Same with IDPA, etc.

If YOU, as a student, had the choice, money not being a consideration, would YOU rather be trained by an Instructor that has a 'gazillion' bullseye' trophies, or had never been bullseye shooting? An IDPA (whatever) Instructor with a 'gazillion' wins, or one who has never been in a single match?

If you answered the former, then I'll ask WHERE are these 'experienced, top-level' combat Instructors getting their 'experience'? From another guy / gal that has no experience? By analyzing a past shooting (i.e. Miami FBI shootout) and trying to figure out where the good guy, now dead, 'made a mistake'? ALL we know from that is, doing what the good guys did got them killed, and we do NOT want to do that! If there's a choice, wouldn't it be preferable to learn from someone who SURVIVED?

Again, ALL training is beneficial to some level. But if a 'student' is going to seek out 'combat' training, just as with bullseye or IDPA or whatever else, it makes the MOST sense to seek training on how to survive a gunfight from a guy / gal that HAS survived a gunfight, not from someone who has 'theorized' about it.

As always, the student has the choice, of course.

So how is this experience likely to be manifest in the actual class? What will I see differently as a student in a class with someone who has that experience vs one that doesn't? If you don't know before hand and he/she doesn't say anything about it, can you tell the difference between an instructor who's experienced and one who is not by watching them instruct or knowing what they teach? If so, how?

I'm hearing a lot of "well, he's been there so he knows" kind of answers. But what will be different about what or how they teach? How will the experience be different for me as a student? What are they likely to do that will make me more prepared vs training with someone who doesn't have that experience but has learned from others who do?

 

[VERT]

Well I have been in classes where the instructor actually put metal on meat. I can tell you that I listened to their description of what they saw, psychological response and the investigation afterwards.

Cedartop, I would say that actually pointing a gun at another person is in and of itself experience/combat. I bet it has affected your perceptions about a few things.

I can share that many years ago I was involved in a situation where I thought I might have to shoot somebody. All I can say was I was lucky. But looking back on the whole event I now find the emotional response interesting

 

[Denny347]

Not required but a good instructor with combat experience is a plus. Quite a few of our range staff attended Paul Howe's CSAT class and he has been to our range teaching. I wished I was able to attend the class. Some of the things he has taught has made it to our rifle in services. I would put his experience in Delta and with the Blackhawk Down battle as invaluable when it come to teaching rifle and handgun combat.

 

[the1kidd03]

That is my point in this. When I was in basic there were very few Drill Sergeant's who had combat experience. Were we, the soldiers they trained inferior because of it? When I was in the police academy most of my instructors had never been in a gunfight, yet they taught men and women who would later go on to need to use a weapon in a deadly force encounter. Here is a question. If I would have shot the two people I could have 20 years ago when I was on the PD, would I magically be a better instructor right now? Do I think someone with great teaching ability, a excellent knowledge and grasp of the material, and extensive experience is a great combination? Certainly. I got to spend the weekend learning from just such a person and it was great. Do I think it is a requirement to be a good instructor? No.

Although I'm not familiar with Army processes, especially at your time (as I'm not sure when that was) but DIs were certainly not where the combat instruction took place. That part is handled by experienced combat veterans at the School of Infantry (for Marines). Many are highly decorated, some were SF (MARSOC, Recon, etc.), ALL are well experienced.

Not disagreeing with your points, but many people on this board seem to misperceive how military training is handled today so just clarifying.

On an additional note to all, FEW combat vets are good trainers for civilians after transitioning out. This I largely due to the rigid structure they are able to teach in combination with the culture and hierarchy which allows them to circumvent skills necessary for working with civilians. Also, the mindset that is born into them with that hierarchy is to respect the experience which leads most of them to value that above all else; thus giving them a false sense of skills (such as ability to teach well.)