• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

It is particularly desirable that the pistol instructor

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing I do want out of an instructor is one who can SHOOT.

I've seen one, along time ago, who could talk the talk but could defiantly not walk the walk.

Whatever you teach in life, be competent at it. Know your stuff and how to teach your stuff.

And be able to do, what ever your teach, on demand.

Deaf
 
My opinion of the great Col. Cooper, never high to begin with, has dropped lower.

By that standard, the only driving instructors would be those who have survived serious car crashes.

Jim
 
One thing I do want out of an instructor is one who can SHOOT.

I've seen one, along time ago, who could talk the talk but could defiantly not walk the walk.

Whatever you teach in life, be competent at it. Know your stuff and how to teach your stuff.

And be able to do, what ever your teach, on demand.

i don't disagree, but would caveat that i may adjust my expectations a little depending on circumstances. skills are highly perishable and require constant practice. someone may be a great instructor and a little rusty. or they may simply be old or injured. as a personal example, i have taught a lot of people to shoot rifle using lots of different sitting and kneeling positions and used to be pretty good at it myself, however due to rocky mt spotted fever in my joints, it's quite painful now so i haven't practiced it in a few years. i can still teach it, but i can't do it very well anymore.
similarly, there's a lot of old farts i know that can't shoot so well anymore, but when they say something, i listen.
 
I was and still am a fan of Cooper, but not because of his personal achievements or anything.

I'm a fan because he recognized that he was in the company of men who revolutionized the use of handguns. He was the scribe for the men who did the work of developing what we now call "The Modern Technique". It's not "The Cooper Technique" because he didn't come up with it and never claimed to. He freely admitted and attributed the developments to those who made them. Jack Weaver, Thell Reed, Ray Chapman, etc. All are given credit by Cooper. All of them made contributions and happy circumstance put them all at Big Bear Lake to compile their collective experience and skill.

I enjoyed reading Coopers Corner when he was still alive, but that was his main strength. He was able to codify and document what was around him.

He wasn't perfect. You can point to things you didn't like about him. All fair. He was human and therefore flawed. But his greatest achievement was presenting to the outside world the compiled contributions of the Leatherslap gang and introducing us to "The Modern Technique" which is the basis for any handgunning method used today.
 
I recently stumbled upon this blog post by Gabe Suarez on this exact subject that I thought made a lot of sense.

http://blog.suarezinternational.com...phants-and-the-one-eyed-man.html#.VMSDyUfF_ZU

We all recall the story of the blind men and the elephant. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement. The problem was that no one man, had the vision that would have allowed him to see the elephant for what it truly was.

Do we see that in the training world today? Oh you bet we do. The problem is that there are some blind men that like to wear what they have done in the past like a flag…or perhaps a billboard, in the hope of giving them more credibility over the other blind men. These guys will grab on to the elephant’s tail hard (or other body part if you will) and exclaim loud and hard, “You see. I have personally grabbed this elephant therefore I, or others who have grabbed this tail right here, like me, can tell you the truth about this animal”.

And the billboards they wear coupled with the vociferocity of their message makes them almost beyond reproach. "Good heavens", their devotees would say. "How could you possibly question him....he was assigned to......"

But the sad part of it is that they do not realize that they themselves are in fact blind to the rest of the massive animal before them. The blind leading the blind.

[ . . . ]

Trunks and tails, eyeballs and a**holes – they are all a part of the animal, but nobody, and I mean nobody, no matter what their background was, has been everywhere and done everything. And if they tell you that, or insinuate that, they are liars my friends.

So where does that leave us. Our goal is still to identify, study and dissect that massive beast – the elephant. Fortunately, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. And the one-eyed man has enough vision to gather all the blind men and debrief them.
 
My opinion of the great Col. Cooper, never high to begin with, has dropped lower.

By that standard, the only driving instructors would be those who have survived serious car crashes.

Jim


Cooper fits into a familiar pattern seen in some people in other areas of expertise. He was an intelligent and literate person who challenged the champions of orthodoxy by demonstrating superior techniques and self-promotion. He could walk the walk but he was even better at talking the talk. Years later when he was acknowledged as the greatest champion of a new orthodoxy he had very little openness to accepting the validity of any challenges to it. That lack of openness mildly hindered advancement in technique but more than anything reduced his relevance. This coupled with more people becoming aware of his personal beliefs about some subjects and his obvious enjoyment of the cult of personality he created has reduced his stature as a shooting demigod to that of merely a man who made many contributions that stimulated the discovery of even better shooting techniques than his. As others have said in this thread, if experience shooting at and being shot at by people was so important Jeff Cooper would not be considered a very good instructor. It is generally acknowledged he was indeed a good instructor of the techniques he taught.
 
It all depends on the class I'm going to. If I want to learn how to shoot fast and accurately I don't really care if someone has put the front sight on another human being. An IPSC GM is probably a lot faster and more accurate then any Tier 1 guy out there (they only train to shoot, not fast rope, gather intel, etc.). If I want to learn how to engage in a convoy counter ambush drill I'll look for someone with operational KNOWLEDGE (note I didn't say experience) in that area.

Skill level, teaching ability, personality, etc. are all unrelated to "experience." I met a rather senior FAM at a class (he was a fellow student). He had never been in a gun fight himself, never been in combat in the military, etc. On the other hand, hands down he was one of the best pistol shooters I have EVER shot with (including multiple former Tier 1 guys who classes I have attended). He was also a great guy, who shared his knowledge freely with the class as appropriate. I'd take a class with him any day of the week even though he didn't have "experience."

I think there is too much of an over reliance on "experience" and "gun fighting" as a credential for an instructor these days. If you're training on a flat range, and not incorporating movement, cover, and a 540 target area, you aren't training for anything other then weapons handling skills. How to run your gun and shoot it well can be taught by anyone with the requisite skills, regardless of their background (combat vet or preachers wife). Let's not kid ourselves, few training courses, even with the big name instructors go beyond a flat range, with maybe some fore and aft movement and turns. If you are able to get to a class that incorporates all the good stuff, count yourself lucky and take good notes.

-Jenrick
 
The instructors I find myself interested in taking are typically at an age where they are near eligibility for social security. Their reputation precedes them from decades of instruction and as good teachers. To me it's not an either or situation. I've trained with both.
 
How much corporate knowledge does your training establishment have? There's a world of difference between an instructor who's never dropped the hammer on someone in pistol fight teaching to a POI developed by people who have done so to maximize lessons learned in gun fights versus some random guy who hangs his shingle out after winning a competition or two.

I know just about every one of the guys I got instruction from while assigned as a support guy in an SF unit never used their pistol in combat (most to all of them had fired long guns in combat, however, so the elephant had been seen, even if it hadn't been dispatched with an M9), but the training was based on sound principles. Most of my instructors in my police academy had not been in officer involved shootings, though some had -- again, good instruction based on collective knowledge and experience.
 
The issue I find with firearms instruction is that nobody can instruct me on the finer points of the legalities/best practices of civilian self-defense in specific factual situations. To me, this doubt is where I am most likely to fail. Military and police operate under different rules, so this is usually glossed over.

I had one excellent instructor who knew these details. However, he was a longtime beat cop in a bad area who was transferred into the police training bureau after bagging his lifetime quota of “Elephants.” He was also an incredible shooter (large PD champion for years) with endless practical real world tips. These folks are hard to find (they don’t put up Youtube plugs for products) but they are worth every penny if you can find them and hire them for the day.
 
Really I think the only consideration to be given to an instructor is "Does this person have more knowledge and skill than I do, and are they competent at using that to increase my level of knowledge and skill?"
 
the finer points of the legalities/best practices of civilian self-defense in specific factual situations. To me, this doubt is where I am most likely to fail.
This is where guys such as Massad Ayoob come in. He has a course specifically tailored to exactly these "finer points." Marty Hayes, up here at FAS, works in this arena as well.
 
Posted by Sebastian the Ibis:
The issue I find with firearms instruction is that nobody can instruct me on the finer points of the legalities/best practices of civilian self-defense in specific factual situations.
As Old Dog points out, Massad Ayoob addresses that. Look up MAG-20, and make it possible for yourself to attend.

Two things:
  1. The subject of use of force law is not limited to firearms--deadly force can involve a nine-iron, bat, blade, flashlight, or a fireplace tool; and
  2. it is really, really important to avoid looking at the subject as a how to on the justification of deadly force.
 
There is one critical thing you need to notice here:

It is a critical flaw to assume that a person who experienced a gun fight has actually "seen the elephant."

I have personally seen combat. I know many other veterans who have. But, at times I've seen some of them talk about what they learned from combat, and it made me think, "What the hell is this guy talking about?" I have seen people using bad tactics, and survive because of luck. A lot of them will say they had confidence in their training.

What if a cop never saw a gun fight becaus he used great tactics and always ended up with havng a drop on his suspects, so he never gave the opponent an opportunity to shoot? What if a cop who has no grasp of sound tactics got in a shoot out due to his lousy tactics, and survived just by luck? Does a gun fight experience make the later more desirable as an intructor than the former?

A lot of what is touted as "battle tested" or "proven" really isn't.

Post by Jernick:
I think there is too much of an over reliance on "experience" and "gun fighting" as a credential for an instructor these days. If you're training on a flat range, and not incorporating movement, cover, and a 540 target area, you aren't training for anything other then weapons handling skills.

Another problem is that people with those experience, and perhaps even if they are great operators, are not necessarily good teachers. It also does not necessarily mean their operational experience will be properly reflected in what you are taught.

Some of the "operational" thing that made sense in the instroctor's world may be a complete nonsense if applied to you.
 
Last edited:
Great points, TestPilot! Apropos of nothing it reminds me of the old say- good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement! It's very true that a guy with great skills and situational awareness may win a fight before it ever happens. The biggest win is avoiding the fight, and on some level no one really "wins" once the guns come out. The loser might go to the morgue but the winner may go to the hospital and then on to jail.
 
What if a cop never saw a gun fight becaus he used great tactics and always ended up with havng a drop on his suspects, so he never gave the opponent an opportunity to shoot? What if a cop who has no grasp of sound tactics got in a shoot out due to his lousy tactics, and survived just by luck? Does a gun fight experience make the later more desirable as an intructor than the former?

We've mentioned Jim Cirillo in this thread. He might be a great example of this. It would have been fascinating to study pistol shooting with him, but I don't want to learn his tactics. If you read how his stakeout squad operated, holy crap! That's not anything like what I need to know as a defense-minded citizen.
 
Cooper's intended audience was law enforcement and soldiers. I am sure many citizens have saved their own lives due to Cooper's words. But Cooper wrote his books assuming everyone was a soldier. The draft was alive and everyone had a loved one heading into combat somewhere.
 
Johnny_B_Goode said:
Cooper's intended audience was law enforcement and soldiers. I am sure many citizens have saved their own lives due to Cooper's words....
Not at all. In fact he took great pride in the fact that the school he started in the late '70s was the first place where practical training was readily available to private citizens.

How do I know?

In 2002 he and I discuss that sitting in his den during commercial breaks while watching the Monaco Grand Prix.
 
Duded:
Fortunately, just the sight of the defender's gun normally suffices. Decades of Armed Citizen column reports support that claim, along with NYPD Stakeout's 280 armed robbery interventions (only 40 made the cops shoot) The data from the DOJ's Annual Crime Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report agree. Cops and soldiers rarely have to present a pistol from ccw, civilians normally have to do just that. Ask any cop how often he had to fire.

" just the sight of the defender's gun normally suffices."

Point 1: Suffice for what? You need to be careful there.

What you are describing is NOT a fight. It is just an "incident" where the defender got lucky enough to meet an opponent who did not want to fight. Luck is not a good standard for preparation.


Point 2: It is NOT just the sight of the defender's gun.

This point is really hard to explain. Let's say there are two identical incidents of a crime perpetrated by an armed criminal. The criminal threatens an innocent defender. The defenders pull a gun in each case, and shout "Stop!"

However, the perpetrator stopped when commanded by one guy, but did not when commanded by another. The there is something different about the two defenders. The defender is of the same race, same height and weight, same build, same gun, both yelled "stop!" in a forceful and authoritative manner. I'll even say they used the same Isosceles or Weaver or whatever stance, and their tactical positioning was even he same. But, there is still a very subtle but critical difference about the two defenders.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. In fact he took great pride in the fact that the school he started in the late '70s was the first place where practical training was readily available to private citizens.

How do I know?

In 2002 he and I discuss that sitting in his den during commercial breaks while watching the Monaco Grand Prix.

I never had the pleasure of your discussion with Cooper but well remember his transition from Guns & Ammo "Cooper on Handguns" columnist to establishment of the school in Paulden. He many have required civilians to present a recommendation from local law enforcement but he definitely was interested in training civilians even if emphasis was not on what Ayoob more fully developed for understanding the technical and legal aspects of civilian self-defense situations.
 
" just the sight of the defender's gun normally suffices."

Point 1: Suffice for what? You need to be careful there.

What you are describing is NOT a fight. It is just an "incident" where the defender got lucky enough to meet an opponent who did not want to fight. Luck is not a good standard for preparation.


I submit that anytime a person feels the need to pick-up a gun for defense a fight has begun whether you or they realize it. Failing to realize that is what may cause the person to not actually fire the gun in time to save their life. That being said, picking-up the gun is frequently sufficient in ending a fight. To many decades of incidents listed in the American Rifleman magazine section "The Armed Citizen" support this belief. The February 2015 issue alone has 2 of the 6 incidents being examples. If you insist a fight does not begin until shots are fired then I guess those 2 incidents would be proof of this:

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tzu
 
Post by Nom de Forum:
I submit that anytime a person feels the need to pick-up a gun for defense a fight has begun whether you or they realize it. Failing to realize that is what may cause the person to not actually fire the gun in time to save their life. That being said, picking-up the gun is frequently sufficient in ending a fight. To many decades of incidents listed in the American Rifleman magazine section "The Armed Citizen" support this belief. The February 2015 issue alone has 2 of the 6 incidents being examples. If you insist a fight does not begin until shots are fired then I guess those 2 incidents would be proof of this:

It is not so much that I am interesed in what does nor does not constitute a "fight."

I am pointing out that expectation of actual gun fight not occuring in an majority of armed encouter is irrelevant on preparation for incidents where a gun fight do occur.
 
I am pointing out that expectation of actual gun fight not occuring in an majority of armed encouter is irrelevant on preparation for incidents where a gun fight do occur.
Uh, say what?
 
I submit that anytime a person feels the need to pick-up a gun for defense a fight has begun whether you or they realize it. Failing to realize that is what may cause the person to not actually fire the gun in time to save their life. That being said, picking-up the gun is frequently sufficient in ending a fight. To many decades of incidents listed in the American Rifleman magazine section "The Armed Citizen" support this belief.

I agree. Be familiar with the most common effective options, but don't step into a situation with a complacent, predisposed notion of what should be sufficient to quell your "fight". You could very well find yourself with a shortfall of mental preparedness should greater action be required than you were prepared to take. This will likely lead to taking too little or too great an action. In either case, you've cooked your proverbial goose.

Conversely, if the situation requires less of you, you've probably achieved the best results for your well-being.

As to the OP, the instructor I want is the one who will teach me the techniques, the mindset and the rules of engagement; the book knowledge and the real life applications of all three. To date, I've found that instructor is actually several different instructors.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top