Effective Instructor: "Combat" Experience Required?

[Jackson]

Jackson, you are someone I would consider a "heavily experienced" training guy. You have taken a ton of classes.

I don't necessarily consider myself to be all that experienced. When I look at myself I see holes in my knowledge and gaps in my skill set.

If you don't mind me asking, what training have you taken? Why did you choose those classes over other opportunities?

Interestingly, after looking at your list of classes I noticed you aren't heavy on the SF/SEAL, etc. crowd. Any reason why? Do you have plans on taking any of the courses from those types?

Whether the instructor has an SF/Spec Ops background is not my biggest consideration in class selection. When I'm making training plans and prioritizing resources I tend to consider the follwing things first:

1. Course location. If I don't have to pay for travel and hotel, I can allocate those resources to additional training or practice. There are classes for which I've considered traveling, but the costs would have meant taking one class vs two in a given timeframe. Luckily, Indiana is host to many great training opportunities. I'll probably exhaust the local opportunities before I start traveling extensively.

2. Relevance. I generally try to focus on skills that are relevant to my life. If you look through my list of courses, you'll see a focus on interpersonal conflicts involving the pistol and various problems associated with it. I carry a pistol every day, so that gets the focus. I am more likely to take a low-light pistol course from a local instructor than to take a high-speed, low-drag carbine course from a well-known SF guy. I have no doubt the carbine course would have wonderful and unique things to offer, but the chances of me getting in to a firefight with a carbine in hand are very, very small. I generally try to take at least one pistol-focused class every year.

3. New/Unique information or new perspective. Keeping relevance in mind, I make an effort to seek out specific information. For example, I think low-light training is important. So I take advantage of every low-light opprotunity I can get. I took a partner tactics class because I'm commonly with other armed people and wanted to get some ideas on how to train and work together. I spend a significant amount of time in the car. I've taken a few vehicle tactics classes to focus on those things. Generally, after I've taken one class on a specific topic, I'll look for another, unrelated instructor teaching a similar class so I can get another perspective on it. So you'll see similar class topics repeated in my list (i.e.TDI Partner Tactics followed by Awerbuck 1 and 2 man tactics).

4. Force on Force. As many have explained in this thread, experience is important. I have never been in a gun fight. The next best thing I can do is FoF. I try to take a FoF class every year, or a class with FoF drills/elements to reinforce the topics.

Would I take a class with a well-known SF guy? I sure would. I'd love to, but I'd consider it in context of the above priorities when determing where to devote training resources. Some of the instructors I've been with have had significant military/combat experience. Some have had an SF background. Farnam has seen a lot of combat, but it was not recent. Jay Gibson of Tactical Response was in the Marine spec ops. Henk Iverson was involved in SoF type work in his military career and currently trains US SF guys. As Joe mentioned, some of the local guys have that in their resume as well. He doesn't bring it up on here much, but John (of ACT) has seen some combat from what I understand.

I've also been invited to a few classes for free or discounted rates. So some classes were attended due to invitation rather than selection.

Perhaps a better question would be this: Are you more apt to take classes from someone that has trained with the Mac, Defoor, Haley, Vickers, or take the classes from those individuals yourself?

If a guy has a system, I'd rather learn that from him than someone he certified. If a trainer has taken a whole bunch of classes from different people and developed his own system, and he interests me and has a good reputation, I'll consider his class.

For me it is hard to pay $300-$500 for the "nugget" from some classes. I cringe when I see someone got a "nugget" from a 2 day class. For that kind of scratch I would hope someone had an earth shattering kind of experience.

At a certain point its not so much about "earth shattering" revelations as gaining new perspective. When I get the opportunity to train with different instructors I get a different approach to the problem. They may emphasize different things, or come at the problem from a different angle. Through exposure to those different areas of emphasis or perspectives, I grow. I have no argument that growth is incremental rather than revolutionary. I'm okay with that. Its part of the process. This is also why I try to attend classes on specific topics (vehicle, low-light, partner tactics, active shooter, etc).

I do think it takes some experience to recognize those over-arching themes and identify where an instructor is placing emphasis. The instructor might not even realize it, or necessarily plan to emphasize those things. The class may have just developed in that direction based on his/her experience. I didn't recognize those differences until I had taken several classes. I didn't really see and understand it until I started taking good notes and writing detailed AARs. The process of analyzing the course to form an opinion and write the AAR synthesizes the information and lets the themes float to the top. At least that's how the process works for me. Someone who's a little quicker might recognize it all right off the bat.

 

[templar223]

Instructors,

Do you think you draw in more students that have little training experience or a heavily experienced student? Why do you think that is?

Not sure what it's like in Indiana, which has a bevy of good instructors from what I've heard and seen, but over the border to your west, here's what I've seen with GSL Defense Training in our entry level class.

Most of our students are fairly new to handguns, and probably (before this year with the passage of right-to-carry) 66% were there for the piece of paper needed to get a Florida carry license. That last third are wives or girlfriends (not both in the same class usually), or kids or other tag alongs.

There's always a few (maybe 10%) who have had previous training and in every class is usually a guy who could probably teach the class if he had the credentials.

In our intermediate class, 100% have had previous training as it's a pre-requisite, but for every intermediate student, we have 10-20 entry level students.

Since IL's carry law passed, 90% of people are there for the IL CCW piece of paper. The other 10% are spouses brought along who want to learn enough not to be afraid of their SOs gun.

Because our classes are a little more intensive (225-250 rounds fired, vs. the bare minimum of 30-round qual) and the price is a little higher than most ($225 per person when they come with a friend), we generally get people a little more interested in self-improvement and not curmudgeons who want to do the bare minimum at every turn to carry a gun.

We made the conscious decision not to price on the cheap end of the spectrum so as not to deal with people whining about why in the world they need to shoot more than 30 rounds in a 16-hour class.

Hope that helps.

John

 

[turnandshoot4]

Not sure what it's like in Indiana, which has a bevy of good instructors from what I've heard and seen, but over the border to your west, here's what I've seen with GSL Defense Training in our entry level class.

Most of our students are fairly new to handguns, and probably (before this year with the passage of right-to-carry) 66% were there for the piece of paper needed to get a Florida carry license. That last third are wives or girlfriends (not both in the same class usually), or kids or other tag alongs.

There's always a few (maybe 10%) who have had previous training and in every class is usually a guy who could probably teach the class if he had the credentials.

In our intermediate class, 100% have had previous training as it's a pre-requisite, but for every intermediate student, we have 10-20 entry level students.

Since IL's carry law passed, 90% of people are there for the IL CCW piece of paper. The other 10% are spouses brought along who want to learn enough not to be afraid of their SOs gun.

Because our classes are a little more intensive (225-250 rounds fired, vs. the bare minimum of 30-round qual) and the price is a little higher than most ($225 per person when they come with a friend), we generally get people a little more interested in self-improvement and not curmudgeons who want to do the bare minimum at every turn to carry a gun.

We made the conscious decision not to price on the cheap end of the spectrum so as not to deal with people whining about why in the world they need to shoot more than 30 rounds in a 16-hour class.

Hope that helps.

John

John,

Great post and that is exactly what I am looking for!

I am interested to see where some students turn the corner and seek a different style of training. The 20-1 ratio is an interesting one. I had considered it but there was no way I could quantify it without running my own training business.

I find the stages interesting. Many people own guns. Fewer people know how to use them. Even fewer seek out training. Even fewer seek out more intensive training. Even fewer continue that. I am interested to see where the market saturation begins with so many instructors and schools to choose from.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I don't necessarily consider myself to be all that experienced. When I look at myself I see holes in my knowledge and gaps in my skill set.

If you don't mind me asking, what training have you taken? Why did you choose those classes over other opportunities?

I don't know how to do the cool snippet quotes so I have to answer within your post.
I have taken classes with Pat Mac and Fortress Defense Consultants. I will be at Paul-a-palooza this year and I have purchased training (not selected a course yet) form Asymmetric solutions.

Both classes were recommendations from people here, I had the cash, and the time off. I knew nothing about either when I went.



Whether the instructor has an SF/Spec Ops background is not my biggest consideration in class selection. When I'm making training plans and prioritizing resources I tend to consider the follwing things first:

1. Course location. If I don't have to pay for travel and hotel, I can allocate those resources to additional training or practice. There are classes for which I've considered traveling, but the costs would have meant taking one class vs two in a given timeframe. Luckily, Indiana is host to many great training opportunities. I'll probably exhaust the local opportunities before I start traveling extensively.

Do you think you will exhaust the material soon?

2. Relevance. I generally try to focus on skills that are relevant to my life. If you look through my list of courses, you'll see a focus on interpersonal conflicts involving the pistol and various problems associated with it. I carry a pistol every day, so that gets the focus. I am more likely to take a low-light pistol course from a local instructor than to take a high-speed, low-drag carbine course from a well-known SF guy. I have no doubt the carbine course would have wonderful and unique things to offer, but the chances of me getting in to a firefight with a carbine in hand are very, very small. I generally try to take at least one pistol-focused class every year.

This is a very difficult question for me right now. The chances of any of us getting into any kind of armed confrontation are very slim. They are even more slim if we manage our interactions appropriately. This is why Josh Haines' class Managing Interactions is so interesting.

3. New/Unique information or new perspective. Keeping relevance in mind, I make an effort to seek out specific information. For example, I think low-light training is important. So I take advantage of every low-light opprotunity I can get. I took a partner tactics class because I'm commonly with other armed people and wanted to get some ideas on how to train and work together. I spend a significant amount of time in the car. I've taken a few vehicle tactics classes to focus on those things. Generally, after I've taken one class on a specific topic, I'll look for another, unrelated instructor teaching a similar class so I can get another perspective on it. So you'll see similar class topics repeated in my list (i.e.TDI Partner Tactics followed by Awerbuck 1 and 2 man tactics).

4. Force on Force. As many have explained in this thread, experience is important. I have never been in a gun fight. The next best thing I can do is FoF. I try to take a FoF class every year, or a class with FoF drills/elements to reinforce the topics.

Would I take a class with a well-known SF guy? I sure would. I'd love to, but I'd consider it in context of the above priorities when determing where to devote training resources. Some of the instructors I've been with have had significant military/combat experience. Some have had an SF background. Farnam has seen a lot of combat, but it was not recent. Jay Gibson of Tactical Response was in the Marine spec ops. Henk Iverson was involved in SoF type work in his military career and currently trains US SF guys. As Joe mentioned, some of the local guys have that in their resume as well. He doesn't bring it up on here much, but John (of ACT) has seen some combat from what I understand.

I've also been invited to a few classes for free or discounted rates. So some classes were attended due to invitation rather than selection.



If a guy has a system, I'd rather learn that from him than someone he certified. If a trainer has taken a whole bunch of classes from different people and developed his own system, and he interests me and has a good reputation, I'll consider his class.



At a certain point its not so much about "earth shattering" revelations as gaining new perspective. When I get the opportunity to train with different instructors I get a different approach to the problem. They may emphasize different things, or come at the problem from a different angle. Through exposure to those different areas of emphasis or perspectives, I grow. I have no argument that growth is incremental rather than revolutionary. I'm okay with that. Its part of the process. This is also why I try to attend classes on specific topics (vehicle, low-light, partner tactics, active shooter, etc).

I do think it takes some experience to recognize those over-arching themes and identify where an instructor is placing emphasis. The instructor might not even realize it, or necessarily plan to emphasize those things. The class may have just developed in that direction based on his/her experience. I didn't recognize those differences until I had taken several classes. I didn't really see and understand it until I started taking good notes and writing detailed AARs. The process of analyzing the course to form an opinion and write the AAR synthesizes the information and lets the themes float to the top. At least that's how the process works for me. Someone who's a little quicker might recognize it all right off the bat.

I have to ask, are we making this more difficult than it has to be? Isn't the whole point to be fast and accurate? Be able to shoot on the move? Is there really much outside of that?

I had a friend out recently and we did some "training." He hadn't shot in a while and has never shot from anything but a bench. We set out for what Pat Mac calls "discovery learning."
10. Slow is fast. Fast is in inaccurate. Inaccurate is dead.
9. Only me and old guys are carrying 1911s.
8. Reason number 9 is important. Running out of bullets in a gun fight is not good.
7. Stack the deck. Winning is winning. Every advantage is important this includes more bullets than the other guy.
6. Make the abnormal, normal. A predictable target is an easy target. Don't be easy, ****ing move.
5. When forced with the decision to shoot on the move shoot when as stable as possible. What is done at 25 yards is exponentially more accurate at 5.
4. Practice makes perfect. So practice.
3. The center is the center no matter how big the circle. Don't get caught up in the size of the circle but merely find the center.
2. Win at all costs.
1. Shoot with your buddy because it is always more fun!

For someone who really doesn't run in this "circle" I was impressed with what he picked up.

Jackson, do you have a private range to practice? This alone has given me the ability to apply what I have learned and hone it. Also, everything gets videoed and timed so it can be analyzed during and later.

 

[Jackson]

Will I exhaust the local material? Probably not any time soon. There are a lot of people who travel through. I'm finding my main motivation to travel is to get the specific topics I want. I will very probably train with TDI in Ohio again. I'll probably train with Tactical Response again. And yes, I'll probably train with some of these SF guys when they are near.

I have to ask, are we making this more difficult than it has to be? Isn't the whole point to be fast and accurate? Be able to shoot on the move? Is there really much outside of that?

Yes, we probably are. Watching the Tom Givens / Rangemaster Lessons from the Street video illustrated that point. Most of their student's gunfights were won by keeping calm, moving off the line, and accurately placing bullets on the threat. This is generally all that's required. I take most of the classes because I enjoy them. Its a hobby like competition shooting or golf.

Will I be likely to use it? As you pointed out, I'm not likely to use any of it. However, as Paul Gomez was fond of saying, if I'm a citizen in a gun fight, I'm so far to one side of the statistical bell curve, there isn't enough data to say what my fight may be like based on averages.

But! There are plenty of fights I hear/read about that involve other skill sets. Zimmerman would have benefitted from some contact-distance training. There is a dash cam video of a police officer being killed after his primary hand was injured in a fight. He never even attempted to access his pistol with the left hand. Maybe some one-handed gun work would have saved his life. Even if its low-likelyhood stuff I find it worthwhile. As an interested student of the topic I just enjoy it.

Additionally, adding extra stuff to the problem like darkness, moving around a vehicle, or moving around a partner helps me develop the base skill sets to a higher degree. I like to do it in a context that might be useful, but anything that makes the problem more complicated in training seems like a good idea.

Jackson, do you have a private range to practice? This alone has given me the ability to apply what I have learned and hone it. Also, everything gets videoed and timed so it can be analyzed during and later.

I do not have a private range. I wish I did, though.

 

[iChokePeople]

I have to ask, are we making this more difficult than it has to be? Isn't the whole point to be fast and accurate? Be able to shoot on the move? Is there really much outside of that?

.

what f your problem isn't a gun problem, or doesn't NEED to be a gun problem? What if additional training would decrease the odds of finding yourself in a situation that calls for a gun? I'd much rather avoid a gunfight than win one.

 

[iChokePeople]

I do not have a private range. I wish I did, though.

we can work something out.

 

[turnandshoot4]

what f your problem isn't a gun problem, or doesn't NEED to be a gun problem? What if additional training would decrease the odds of finding yourself in a situation that calls for a gun? I'd much rather avoid a gunfight than win one.

Yep

we can work something out.

People helpin people. Just great.

 

[Streck-Fu]

I have to ask, are we making this more difficult than it has to be?

I have to say yes.

Isn't the whole point to be fast and accurate? Be able to shoot on the move? Is there really much outside of that?

None of that was a qualifier in the OP.

 

[Streck-Fu]

what f your problem isn't a gun problem, or doesn't NEED to be a gun problem? What if additional training would decrease the odds of finding yourself in a situation that calls for a gun? I'd much rather avoid a gunfight than win one.

Completely different discussion than asked in the OP.

 

[iChokePeople]

Completely different discussion than asked in the OP.

I didn't quote and reply to the op. But is it, really? I'm not so sure. Does a person's experience have bearing on how he'll react to a volatile situation, or how he'll train others? I think it does.

 

[theblackknight]

"If you make money your priority, or ego your priority, you’ve got a problem. And there’s lot of that, it’s become rampant in this game in the last ten years. To decide that you know everything about firearms and tactics is about the most pompous thing you can do. A doctor’s got to go to university, an auto mechanic is going to be out of work if he doesn’t get updated training on all this technology in cars today. A weapons instructor just says, Hi, I’m a weapons instructor and I know all about guns and training and tactics and strategy. You look at instructor resumes, and they’ve taken all the classes, but what have they done? They’ve taken everybody else’s lesson plans and put them into a program of their own and they’re teaching it like a parrot."

-Louis Awerbuck

OG in the game

 

[Streck-Fu]

OG in the game

Werd.

 

[rhino]

I know all about watching television and running my mouth. I have 49 years of real world experience.

 

[theblackknight]

I love the butthurt in this thread

 

[armedindy]

meh, a good instructor will tell you that improvisation and situational awareness are your best friends...doesnt matter if theyve shot someone before or not....a chemistry teacher can teach you how to make prozac, whether theyve done it before or not.......rounds on target matters second most, not having any targets matters THE most

 

[theblackknight]

meh, a good instructor will tell you that improvisation and situational awareness are your best friends...doesnt matter if theyve shot someone before or not....a chemistry teacher can teach you how to make prozac, whether theyve done it before or not.......rounds on target matters second most, not having any targets matters THE most

What you basically said was "avoid confrontation". This is a given.

 

[theblackknight]

I think this thread really started with the wrong question.

Of course experience isn't required. However, is it a asset? Yes. Is teaching ability required? No, as there are people out there teaching who don't have it. Is it preferred over experience? I hope so .The word required implies a absolute, lowest common demoninator type of thinking.

There are many things that make a good instructor. Some of those things matter more then others. When spending resources, why not find the person who has the technical ability,teaching ability, personality and experience in the ratio you find important?

Maybe the question we should be asking is: How much does experience matter and what do we gain from it?

 

[HICKMAN]

I have neither military nor law enforcement experience. I have never been in a gunfight. I have never been shot.

Stairs... stairs are his downfall...

 

[rhino]

Stairs... stairs are his downfall...

Literally!