Marksmanship vs. Combat: minimum standards for instructors

[theblackknight]

What do you look for in each little area of the fighting arts with a instructor in relation to their service if any, quals, schools, actual experience,ability to teach etc etc?

I generally find that the better instructors will be very forth coming with said information, even to the point of offering full documentation of sensitive mil records, and posted video of them shooting their own standards and others. Other's are very vague, expecting the customer to figure out if "Army 11B" means 10year career with x deployments in sustained ground combat operations, or discharged from the N.G. for medical reasons with almost no training.

Also please be sure to differentiate what skill you are referring to ie CCW, structure clearing(home defense), integrated combatives, BJJ etc.

 

[HICKMAN]

I'm not longer in the Army, so I'm not training for a deployment, I'm training for self-defense. Different set of rules, situations and requirements. I can't call in air support, artillery or even a squad mate, most likely it will just be me.

I could care less if the instructor has ever been in combat or even been shot at as an LEO.

 

[theblackknight]

Well then, wouldnt it be best to tell us what you do train for, and what you look for in trainers that teach it?

 

[the1kidd03]

In the same context; would it be more pertinent for a civilian to heed the words of an instructor who's been attacked or had to use their firearms than one who has only been taught what he was teaches?

If the idea that someone has military combat experience makes them the better person to learn from wouldn't someone with "civilian combat experience" be more accurate to what a civilian would come across, than someone from military combat experience?

The whole highly heeded advise from RP on OC debate comes to mind for example.

 

[HICKMAN]

Well then, wouldnt it be best to tell us what you do train for, and what you look for in trainers that teach it?

That's what this section is for, read the AARs and comments from students that have gone before you.

The average joe could look at the resume of an instructor and not have a clue about those he trained under.

 

[HICKMAN]

In the same context; would it be more pertinent for a civilian to heed the words of an instructor who's been attacked or had to use their firearms than one who has only been taught what he was teaches?

I would say it would be helpful, not required when one is learning the basics. There weren't many vietnam vets still around training the young ones prior to Iraq/A-stan starting, as many of that generation had retired. Those they taught were the ones teaching new recruits, yet they all went in and did their jobs from day one.

 

[Rob377]

I look for instructors that write for a gun rag or have a youtube channel. If they do/did those things, I can safely assume they are awesome. No actual shooting or teaching accomplishments needed. In fact, those accomplishments are probably in a completely different context that is wholly inapplicable to my special and unique as a snowflake situation, so if anything, I prefer them to be accomplishment free.

 

[the1kidd03]

 

[the1kidd03]

I would say it would be helpful, not required when one is learning the basics. There weren't many vietnam vets still around training the young ones prior to Iraq/A-stan starting, as many of that generation had retired. Those they taught were the ones teaching new recruits, yet they all went in and did their jobs from day one.

I agree with your point. I was just trying to play devil's advocate a bit and poke a bit of fun at some of the perspectives we often see here, LOL. But just as you pointed out, that is entirely different context due to their support capabilities. A civilian on the street doesn't have entire teams behind them and supporting them. So, it's a bit of a moot comparison is it not?

Sticking with the RP example where he likes to harp on the negatives of OC. How does he know what he's expelling is truth? Because it's what he was taught? Neither of which have experienced a personal situation of violent confrontation requiring the use of a gun as a civilian, and likely neither of which has probably ever given the concept they oppose a fair trial.

I'm just sort of thinking out loud here, but realistically would it not be more prudent to have an instructor teach what he knows has worked for him, and not what worked for someone else in different contexts? Especially when we well know that people don't often interpret information all that accurately in those circumstances. So, essentially what they tell people in interviews may not actually be what contributed to their success.

I'm in a devil's advocate mood today....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I look for instructors that write for a gun rag or have a youtube channel. If they do/did those things, I can safely assume they are awesome. No actual shooting or teaching accomplishments needed. In fact, those accomplishments are probably in a completely different context that is wholly inapplicable to my special and unique as a snowflake situation, so if anything, I prefer them to be accomplishment free.

Not fair, I already repped you for another post.

 

[rhino]

1. Do they know something I want to learn?
2. Are they effective at teaching it?
3. Are they able to do so safely?
4. Are they not an obvious a**h***?
5. Will it fit into my schedule?

 

[the1kidd03]

Are they not an obvious a**h***?

Man...you're demanding