Picking a Trainer

JohnKSa

Administrator
Interesting comments by Kyle Lamb in the May 2017 issue of Guns and Ammo Magazine.

Lock, Stock & Barrel Column.
"What to look for in the right shooting instructor"

"Having a good resume does matter. What matters less is what is on that resume when it comes to life experiences. ... Having many notches cut into their pistol grips does not make them better shooting instructors. ... One doesn't have to have shot terrorists in the face to be a worthwhile instructor. ... Does combat experience count for something? Sure. But it isn't a prerequisite in the shooting instructor world."

There are some other good points made in the article, for example he feels that instructors should be skillful enough to demonstrate any techniques they teach at a high level of proficiency. He also feels that an instructor shouldn't teach students to rely heavily on gun modifications to augment their skill, nor should an instructor forbid gun modifications of any kind.

I just thought it was interesting to see a person who has obviously "been there done that" come flat out and a person can be a good shooting instructor without having ever killed people and without ever having gotten into a gunfight.
 

Mobuck

Moderator
OK. So I'm not the typical noobie gun owner that tries to stuff a magazine in backward(I haven't been a "noobie" for over 1/2 a century).
For me to "pick a trainer", I'd have to find someone with significantly more knowledge and experience than myself. Certainly, there are many who fit that criteria but most aren't selling their knowledge and experience.
Therefore, I "don't do trainers".
 

JohnKSa

Administrator
...I'd have to find someone with significantly more knowledge and experience than myself. Certainly, there are many who fit that criteria but most aren't selling their knowledge and experience.
Therefore, I "don't do trainers".
If you are more knowledgeable and experienced than most trainers out there, and can convince people of that fact (which shouldn't be hard for a very knowledgeable and experienced person) then there's significant money to be made. So that's a good thing--who wouldn't love to make a living doing something they love doing?

For what it's worth, I think it's a mistake for a person to forgo training on the basis of the belief that they are already more knowledgeable and experienced than most of the trainers out there. There is certainly a difference between the amount a noob can learn from a good trainer and the amount that an experienced and knowledgeable shooter will, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned.

For one thing, the variety of people's knowledge and experience tend to differ, even in people with similar overall levels. In other words, even if I have the same overall amount of experience and knowledge as a particular trainer, that doesn't mean we have the SAME knowledge and experience. The trainer probably knows things I don't and has experiences I don't and I probably have knowledge he doesn't and some experience he doesn't. In fact, even if I know a lot more than he does, he likely still has expertise in a particular area that I'm deficient in because it's extremely unlikely that two people could live different lives and still learn exactly the same things and have exactly the same experiences.

Second, it's quite common for people to have blind spots--areas of knowledge/experience deficit that they aren't really aware of. They don't know things and they are unaware of the knowledge/experience deficit. Self-assessing experience/knowledge/competence can be somewhat problematic.

I've been shooting for several decades, but I still learn at least one new thing from every class I take.

Finally, if a person isn't interested in picking a trainer and/or believes that they won't be able to find a trainer that can teach them anything they don't already know, then it follows that they wouldn't be especially interested in a discussion about picking a trainer. For example, I have zero interest in buying a unicycle and therefore, not surprisingly, I spend very little time thinking about which unicycle would be best for me and zero time reading/participating in reviews/discussions about selecting a unicycle for purchase.
 

TunnelRat

New member
Training over the last 5+ years has made a tremendous difference in my shooting. In addition it's given me something to work on outside of work and a reason to try and stay fit. It was life changing for me. Even after 21 courses I find value in the courses I take, if only for the opportunity to run drills that private clubs won't allow simply for liability reasons.

With that out of the way, I very much agree with Lamb. Being a door kicker is great, but it doesn't automatically make you a teacher. In all those courses I've taken I've often found for me personally that former law enforcement was better at training. They're often former training officers and have more experience at simply teaching. This includes teaching people of very different skill levels and degrees of motivation, which requires that as teachers that they have a variety of methods. I've found in life that just because someone is good at something doesn't make them a teacher, and in fact the naturally gifted often aren't great teachers. There is also the reality that my situation as a civilian isn't the same as a combat situation in terms of rules of engagement.

In terms of improving my speed I've found people with competition experience are invaluable. While there are limitations to competitions, there are often tips and tricks that make differences on the timer and while there is no timer "on the streets", delivering shots quickly and accurately will help you stay alive.

Now I have also had former military as trainers and there are certain tactics and techniques that are great, as well as general familiarity with the AR-15 pattern rifles. There's also something to be said for the guy on the range next to you who might offer some tips. Keep an open mind and, as Lamb says, don't judge everyone by their resumes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

PPGMD

New member
...there is no timer "on the streets", delivering shots quickly and accurately will help you stay alive.

There is a timer on the streets, it doesn't have a buzzer and you don't get the see the numbers just the pass/fail results.
 

TunnelRat

New member
There is a timer on the streets, it doesn't have a buzzer and you don't get the see the numbers just the pass/fail results.
Taking that snippet out of context makes it seem like I'm saying speed isn't important, when I actually am saying it is important.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

Rangerrich99

New member
I've gotten a little lucky in the last few years and found two good trainers that have helped me make huge strides in my abilities with a handgun. I've probably learned more and improved my overall skills more in the last three years than I did in the previous 25 years of just trying to figure it out on my own, and that includes the countless books and videos that I bought and read.

Having a live expert right there next to you, critiquing/correcting your every move, mechanics, etc. cuts years off of your learning curve.

Of course, I always knew this; it's kind of like trying to teach yourself to play golf. It can be done, but it's going to be a long and frustrating decades-long process. Or you can take the shortcut and get a professional to teach you to play and you can be on the links in a couple weeks.
 

Mobuck

Moderator
"If you are more knowledgeable and experienced than most trainers out there, and can convince people of that fact (which shouldn't be hard for a very knowledgeable and experienced person) then there's significant money to be made. So that's a good thing--who wouldn't love to make a living doing something they love doing?"

Doing this would require considerable more patience than I can muster.
 

stephen426

New member
I think one thing that is often overlooked, is how good is the person at training. They may be a great shot or been there and done that, but being a good trainer requires certain skills. For example, do they have the patience to teach people who have less skill than themselves? Are they thorough and detailed in their training? Do they know how and when to push their students? Are they good at reading people?

As for people who have been there and done that versus those who haven't, I think having actually been there and done that lends credence for defensive type classes. It isn't just theory and it was proven on the streets or the battlefields. This is especially true for tactics.

For competition, I don't think it matters as long as the instructor helps you become a better shot. Technique can be honed and refined.

Thank God I've never been forced to shoot anyone and I hope I never have to. I'd like to think that I would be up to the task since I practice fairly regularly and am a decent shot. I do practice on a tactical range and feel adds a whole different level of training compared to slow fire at a stationary target from a stationary position. That kind of practice did give me a good foundation to build on. I am hoping that the ability to make good quick hits on a target will translate into the ability to defend myself and my family should the need ever arise.
 

Sharkbite

New member
I think one thing that is often overlooked, is how good is the person at training. They may be a great shot or been there and done that, but being a good trainer requires certain skills.

That is a GREAT point. Just because you can do something well, does NOT mean you can teach it. Ive seen guys with incredible resumes of operational experience fail miserably when trying to relay those skills to others

Conversely, ive seen instructors that have NEVER even heard a shot fired off the range TEACH superbly.

In looking for instructors to bring on staff, i cared less about real encounters then the ability to relate to a student that was struggling and lead that student to success.

That being said, all of the “tactical” classes were lead by guys with actual experience
 

kraigwy

New member
In my 40 years plus, as a firearms instructor I've been to many instructor development courses.

The BEST, without a doubt, wasnt a Fires Instructor Course. It was the FBI's Instructor Development Course.

In Alaska, this course was (is) a requirement before you could be certified to instruct any Law Enforcement Course, regardless of subject.

This couse taught (among other things) how to read the student. All people are different, we all have our hang ups. As an instructor you need to reconize these "hang ups" and work through them to get to the student.

As Gary Anderson says in his CMP Master Instructor Courses "There are no helpless shooters". I agree with that 100%, The FBI LE Instructor Development Course shows us how address Mr Anderson's Statement.

Make the students attack a unknown subject based on their life's experience.

For a good (non shooting) example. I was teaching the writing of (Military) operation orders to a group of Alaskan Native National Guardsmen. They had no concept of what I was talking about.

So one day I sent them home early. I told them, since they were all hunters (thats how they fed their village), I want them to go home, write a plan for a walrus hunt. Told them to start from the point they decided to go on the hunt, until the returned home and cared for their catch.

This they did, looking at each paper, I showed them where they actually have written an operation order, showed the compairson between the hunt and a militry operation. The class was a total sucess after that.

I credit my ability to accomplish the above task to the FBI Instructors Developement Class.

To test your instructor abilities, try teaching the Mil System to a group of natives, most of which havent finished the 8th Grade. Talk about a challange. Yup I've done it, several times in instructing the T&E in Machine Gun Schools.

My best accomplishment, if I may brag, in my 40+ years of firearm instruction I've never had an accident on the range or one of my classes.
 

T. O'Heir

New member
The right shooting instructor has nothing whatever to do with Law Enforcement, gunfights or, especially, how often he has killed, if you're wanting to learn bullseye or one of the shooting games(none of which have the slightest thing to do with gunfights or killing.).
The instructor's experience needs to apply to what you want to learn.
"...Alaskan Native National Guardsmen..." There such a thing as Non-Native Alaskan National Guardsmen too? Just curious.
 

labnoti

New member
In my area, the classes are overwhelmingly for the concealed carry permit. That seems to be the bread and butter. But the curriculum does not involve teaching skills. To qualify as an instructor in the state, one needs only an NRA certification with an instructor card for "personal defense outside the home."

The next most common offerings are beginner skills classes intended to introduce people to handguns and teach the basics. A lot of the students lack coordination, aren't prepared to deal with recoil, have never worked on trigger control, don't understand the fundamentals of grip, stance or sight alignment, and they're missing a B27 target at 7 yards. There's a great need for trainers to help at this level, but most people skip it and go straight to the permit class because it's the only one required by law (to get the permit). It is harder for trainers to sell classes that aren't required.

Third, we have classes based on competitive shooting. Today, it's mostly IDPA and IPSC methods, but one could argue a lot of the two-handed, "modern method" that is taught in defensive classes originates out of Big Bear Lake pistol competitions and bullseye matches.

There are also "celebrity" trainers like Ayoob, Awerbuck, Cooper, Reitz, and Smith (some have passed). Similarly, there are traveling classes that bring expertise (not necessarily with the accompanying fame) to people rather than having them come to a resort like Gunsite and others that have reproduced the concept in places like Frontsight and Thunder Ranch.

I realize the topic of "training" can refer to training for competition, sport, hunting, personal defense, law enforcement, military and other activities, but I'm particularly interested in personal protection skills.

I'm new to handguns and could benefit a lot from training for personal protection, but I'm no longer served by a beginner's class. I'm not interested in sport or competitive shooting at all. I'm not attracted to a gun-vacation at a resort with zip-lines. When I look at some defensive handgun class videos, I see a wide line of people standing still, shooting IPSC targets. I don't see myself wasting my time traveling to a class like that.

I also notice that a lot of "defensive" classes at more advanced levels seem to feature aggressive offensive skills. I see "tactical" drills that might be appropriate for law enforcement but don't appear to have the same practicality for personal defense. I'm not opposed to civilians indulging in SWAT fantasies, but I can't help but think that the trainers simply found it easier to borrow from military and police tactical playbooks than to work out what is actually more practical for potential victims of crimes against persons.

It seems the military and police tactics and the competitive shooting foundation are also reflected in the type of weapons trained on, because, especially in the advanced classes, there are either explicit or practical requirements for issue or duty handguns in lieu of the type of guns that people are much more likely to use for EDC, personal protection.
 

stephen426

New member
labnoti said:
I also notice that a lot of "defensive" classes at more advanced levels seem to feature aggressive offensive skills. I see "tactical" drills that might be appropriate for law enforcement but don't appear to have the same practicality for personal defense. I'm not opposed to civilians indulging in SWAT fantasies, but I can't help but think that the trainers simply found it easier to borrow from military and police tactical playbooks than to work out what is actually more practical for potential victims of crimes against persons.

It seems the military and police tactics and the competitive shooting foundation are also reflected in the type of weapons trained on, because, especially in the advanced classes, there are either explicit or practical requirements for issue or duty handguns in lieu of the type of guns that people are much more likely to use for EDC, personal protection.

labnoti,
I'm not sure what you would consider "SWAT fantasies" and what you would consider practical training. I think one of the most important things about getting advanced training is the confidence it builds. Most ranges only allow slow fire at stationary targets, from a stationary position. How many gunfights actually involve people just standing there taking shots at each other? Most indoor ranges do not allow drawing from holsters, although a range near me has now created a "certification process" that allows those who pass (and pay) to shoot rapid fire and draw from the holster. How many people actually practice drawing their weapons from concealment? How often do they practice rapid target acquisition or engaging multiple targets? These are real life possibilities that you may face.

I used to think I was fairly well prepared because I could shoot neat, tiny little groups. I went to a range where there were some really thug looking characters who were shooting at the target "gangster hold" while holding up their pants with the other hand. Their shots were all over the place, but some of them hit the target. A "lucky" (unlucky) shot can still kill you, or at a minimum, make it much harder to fight back. If you don't practice getting your weapon out, learn when to engage immediately or when to seek cover, or practice getting multiple shots on target quickly, your chances of winning a gun fight go way down. As for "tacticool" stuff, a lot of it deals with identifying scenarios and acting before it is too late. Better to have the skills and not need them, than need them and not have them.
 

labnoti

New member
That's fine, but I criticized standing still on a firing line and shooting IPSC targets in the same post. I've never shot at a cold range that only allows slow fire at stationary targets or that won't allow drawing from a holster, and I can't imagine why I ever would. It would be a complete waste of time for me. I never practice that way. I can practice every day without those constraints, so I can't imagine training under them.

When I questioned the practicality of swat-style tactics, I didn't mean that personal protection trainees should somehow be more passive in their training -- quite the opposite.

I knew the old adage, "better to have and not need..." would be repeated to justify swat training for personal protection. I heard it in my head when I was typing my first post. I really don't care if people want to train clearing shoot houses, hostage rescue, sniper skills, breaching, and vehicle assaults, but I'm not going to buy such a course and start wearing 5.11 like some of the Youtube stars out there.

If I were to pick a trainer, they would have to be someone that had thought of something more relevant to me.
 

stephen426

New member
labnoti,

I'm not sure where you shoot, but I'm glad you have a range that allows more "tactical" style drills. Like I mentioned, most indoor ranges will not allow rapid fire and almost none allow drawing from the holster. While some IPSC takes things to extremes, I believe that those skills will translate into real world ability should the proverbial poop ever hit the fan.

I would have to agree that some of the items you listed are a bit far fetched for civilians. I imagine the classes would be lots of fun though.
 

TunnelRat

New member
I knew the old adage, "better to have and not need..." would be repeated to justify swat training for personal protection. I heard it in my head when I was typing my first post. I really don't care if people want to train clearing shoot houses, hostage rescue, sniper skills, breaching, and vehicle assaults, but I'm not going to buy such a course and start wearing 5.11 like some of the Youtube stars out there.

I don't know too many places that allow civilians to do hot breaches and vehicle assaults. Clearing a shoot house can be thought of as clearing your own house or any dwelling you might find yourself in, and learning to work doorways and corners is a useful skill. Hostage rescues are certainly a bit much, although scenarios where family members are near you or need to be reached certainly seem plausible for the civilian. I've never been much into long range shooting, but I respect those that are. If you want to consider what I just wrote as "justification for SWAT training" I imagine you're more than welcome to. While there are certainly courses that take things to the extreme, there are also a lot that try to take elements that would be useful for civilians and make them an option.

As stephen pointed out, not everyone has access to ranges that allow certain types of training. My range allows work from the holster and fast shooting, but movement isn't something that I can do. Frankly it's a big liability when you have people of very mixed skill levels. Some academies try to mitigate this by requiring a progression through courses to ensure a baseline of skill.

When I look at some defensive handgun class videos, I see a wide line of people standing still, shooting IPSC targets. I don't see myself wasting my time traveling to a class like that.

To your point about people standing in line shooting at IPSC targets, I feel like that's a bit contradictory with some of your other comments. You don't see the need for "SWAT" courses, but think static shooting is a waste of time. The reality is many training facilities aren't going to let you go from beginner level courses right to the most advanced courses. There are, and should be IMO, intermediate courses in between. Likely those will involve stages where you have students on a line shooting at stationary targets. That doesn't mean nothing of value can be gained from those courses and there is a lot that can actually be covered with limited movement. A course where you have 10-20 students all moving and shooting is a very high level course because of the potential risk. It also takes a long time to get all the students through all the scenarios as you can only do so many at a time. There is typically a lot of downtime for each student, which isn't always an ease sell. I'd also add that shooting while moving, while definitely useful at times and certainly cool looking, isn't always that likely. It takes a great deal of practice to do well. I know people on actual SWAT units that have expressed as much. One reason SWAT units move as much as they do is the goal is to get other team members into the fight by making room. That's less common for a concealed carrier. Often shooting and then moving, or the reverse, is more common.

These days there are a lot of places offering a lot of courses. My guess is you can find at least one that would offer something of value.

It seems the military and police tactics and the competitive shooting foundation are also reflected in the type of weapons trained on, because, especially in the advanced classes, there are either explicit or practical requirements for issue or duty handguns in lieu of the type of guns that people are much more likely to use for EDC, personal protection.

This is a fair point. However, I watched a man go through a two day reflexive shooting class with a SIG P238. He needed quite a few mags in order to stay on line with everyone else, but he did quite well and as you pointed out he was using what he'd actually carry. At some point the onus is on the student to take some responsibility for making the course valuable for him/her. Many courses have high rounds counts in order to get in so many repetitions (and some do it for bragging rights to be fair). If everyone was there with three 6 rd mags it would be a slow class.

A good instructor shouldn't have an issue with a student being realistic about what he/she is going to carry and it's likely worth asking ahead of time. At the same time the student should also give some pause as to the fact that if his/her mags keep running dry trying to get through a drill, maybe he/she might want to consider a different pistol. You might say that you personally have already gone through that thought process and are carrying what you know you are likely to carry repeatedly, and if so great. However, I've seen some students realize that with not a lot more effort they could carry something with more capacity and finish the class considering different gear.
 
Last edited:

FireForged

New member
There are people who have done things , people who parrot what people who have done things have said and then there are people who having neither done things or parroted people who have, will come up something completely on their own.

If a person has never carried a gun occupationally and has never had the occasion to have skin in the game in regards to facing danger ( with force). I am not really interested in receiving instruction from them. I dont mean to say that they have to have been in a gunfight but I require that they have operated under similar conditions, in that arena and have faced danger. There is a unique perspective that one gains from having been there, having made decision in dangerous circumstances and having taken action to achieve dangerous goals. I want to learn from an experienced person who is qualified to comment on what works and what doesn't, what sucks and what is bull. I don't want to receive instruction from someone essentially telling me a story

I don't mean to sound curt but if your experience is limited to the classroom and the range, I will pass... that just my take on it.
 
Last edited:

stephen426

New member
Tunnel Rat,
I shoot my Glock 43 at the practical shooting club I am in since it is my normal carry gun. Having a 6 plus 1 is definitely a challenge for higher round count drills, but it certainly will make you practice your reloads! If you think of it, a standard 1911 only holds 8 rounds of .45 acp. I strongly believe in shooting what you carry and shoot it more than other guns.
 

Jeff22

New member
Since 1982 I've been to almost 50 shooting classes. Some were a day long, many were two days long, and several (NRA LE Instructor Classes) were a week long. Sometimes my PD paid me to go and often I went on my own time and almost always had to buy my own ammo and pay the tuition and expenses.

It was lots of fun and I learned a lot of things from people who knew more than I did or different than I did.

The focus of my training was mostly what was useful to an armed citizen or to a cop working uniformed patrol (lots of overlap there).

I've never been to Gunsite or Thunder Ranch or anyplace like that.

In that time I've only attended two classes that were oriented toward competition shooters, one from Jerry Barnhart and one from Mike Seeklander. I learned some useful things in those classes too. (I shoot USPSA and IDPA on the local level when my schedule permits)

I think lots of people would benefit from formal instruction and would learn new things and enjoy it, if they were to find a class that met their particular goals. The skills an armed private citizen needs are one thing, and the skills a patrol officer needs are another thing and the skills a SWAT team member are yet another thing, and there is a lot of overlap in certain areas and some things are entirely different. Best to find training that addresses your particular circumstance.
 
Top