It is particularly desirable that the pistol instructor

Johnny_B_Goode · Jan 31, 2015

Apachedriver said:
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.

You do not need a firearms instructor to lean those things. You can learn them from many different types of instructors. In my life my football and basketball coaches taught me more about survival than any instructor I met in the Marine Corps. To be effective an instructor has to take a personal interest in your success. It does not matter if that instructor has seen the elephant or not. The good lord has already equipped you with everything you need to survive.

HexHead · Jan 31, 2015

Sam1911 said:
I don't mean to detract from either man, both of whom I have some respect for, and have met and shot with or trained with both.

But compare Mas Ayoob and Larry Vickers. Who should you rather take self-defense instruction from, if you have to pick one?

They both teach shooting techniques, both are well known and have the respect of their fellows, one has been in combat, one hasn't. Is that compelling?

I trained with Larry Vickers. He focused on accuracy and skills to help you stay alive in a gunfight, even if you're breaking some of "the Rules".

I'll take Vickers experience over Ayoob's, not because of his combat experience, but his being a Delta team trainer and a founder of IDPA. He's a great shot too.

Sam1911 · Jan 31, 2015

I'll take Vickers experience over Ayoob's, not because of his combat experience, but his being a Delta team trainer and a founder of IDPA. He's a great shot too.

Which would be fine if you're there to learn marksmanship skills. If you're learning defensive gun use, with an eye to understanding the tactics and the legalities, Ayoob's course would be the wiser choice. That was my point.

The course I shot with him (LV) was a reprise class for a bunch of cops that train with him regularly, so the shooting skills stuff was all pretty basic. I really don't know how excellent a shot he is or how his training holds up at more advanced levels. But that wasn't really my point.

Hangingrock · Jan 31, 2015

Apachedriver:

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.

I can't say I disagree with what you have written.That said I still lean towards actual practical experience as opposed to theory.

Sam1911 · Jan 31, 2015

... practical experience as opposed to theory.

Practical experience at what, though? As others have said, having been in combat probably doesn't give you useful experience to teach to others who need to prepare for a robbery or assault on a street here in the US. Having been a street cop and made a bunch of felony arrests or explosive entries (with however many shots fired) doesn't tell you anything you need to instill in a student who's self-defense oriented.

Who's experience is similar enough to the subject being taught to be relevant?

WHAT's being taught is still more important than WHO is teaching.

Kleanbore · Jan 31, 2015

Posted by Hangingrock:

That said I still lean towards actual practical experience as opposed to theory.

I can think of three areas in which that makes sense.

The first is trial experience--the kind that Massad Ayoob has garnered through participation as an expert witness in numerous criminal trials involving self defense. As Marc MacYoung points out, the attorney who does not have a practical understanding of what happens in a use of force incident will be severely handicapped unless he or she brings in an expert witness who does have that understanding. This extends further, into the understanding of how witnesses perceive what happens in use of force incidents. I'll take Ayoob's advice over that of anyone who has simply read the law and spoken to an attorney who has not defended a number of self defense cases.

The second relates to tactics. But one or two incidents would be nowhere near sufficient. Therefore, the "elephant" has to be simulated. FoF training with simunitions in many different scenarios can teach the instructor what is likely to work and what is not. That is "practical experience".

Another is practical experience gained, either personally or by others on the staff, through observing thousands and thousands of students training with different firearms, holsters, and carry positions. I don't have that experience, but my choice of firearm and holster is based on the observations of people who do.

Real gunfight experience? No. There are far too many variables. Too few equations and too many unknowns, as it were.

And if someone has been killed, the instructor will not be in a position to describe the details anyway.

Old Dog · Jan 31, 2015

WHAT's being taught is still more important than WHO is teaching.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

I've known a few folks who've muddled their way through gunfights. Death is final, to be sure, but if you survive, the aftermath can still be problematic. Ideally, I'd like to supplement what I've learned from Ayoob with a course from Larry Vickers (are you there, LV? Come on up to FAS sometime.)

Johnny_B_Goode · Feb 1, 2015

I did have to take lessons later in life. I had shot revolvers or a gun that could be handled like a revolver all my life. Then I decided I was going to get a Glock. At first I was horrible with the Glock. I just took lessons from a guy who was on his way to being a top competitive shooter. Then he got married, had kids and the notion of competitive shooting seemed foolish.

It really didn't take a lot to get me shooting a Glock or any pistol for that matter very well, even micro pistols. He simply analyzed my strengths and threw everything else out. The only thing I had to work on is the thumbs forward grip that the most competitive shooters use today. He didn't even see the need to push me away from a weaver stance. He said I move into isosceles stance naturally. I never even noticed myself changing my stance.

It is particularly desirable that the pistol instructor

Johnny_B_Goode

member

HexHead

Member

Sam1911

Moderator Emeritus

Hangingrock

Member

Sam1911

Moderator Emeritus

Kleanbore

Moderator

Old Dog

Member

Johnny_B_Goode

member

Similar threads