Big name shooting schools -- worth it?

[Bix]

I'm enjoying the responses. I have taken several classes (handgun, carbine and shotgun) with a local LEO who teaches in different cities around my area. I like his classes, I certainly have learned things from him. Since I have not been in classes by other instructors I can't really determine the quality of what I'm getting. That's the reason for my original question.

The only real way you'll be able to evaluate the that training is by developing a frame of reference from other instructors. Hitting a 'name' school will give you something of an 'industry standard' for that frame of reference. But, you could also acquire it by training with a lot of different folks. I try to do both.

One thing to keep in mind is that, like all of us, trainers have areas of strength and areas of weakness. I try to keep this in mind when allocating my training dollars. If I wanted to work on my split times and target transitions, I might go see one guy, if I wanted to work on contact-distance gunfighting issues, I might go see somebody else. With the 'name' trainers, you can, to a degree, research these strengths and weakness and try to pick an instructor/class that aligns with whatever you want to be learning about.

 

[gym]

I never said that you can't benifit from training. I said it's more of a hobby to me, one of a few things I enjoy. I don't make it my life's work to train to be an elite gunman, or a professional race car driver, or a UFC fighter. To me you devote most of your time to a multiple of things, usually Family, business, and whatever time left to your interests. Once you go into anything that is obssesive it is usually short lived and takes up way too much of your time and money, unless you have some goal in mind that rewards your efforts. Racing cars is a million dollar hobby, only serious money can allow anyone to do it full time, or training with the best shooters or pilots, and offshore racers . It's great if you have the freedom and the means to persue your interests. But few do. It's a lifestyle like a pro athlete. Guns are a part of my life not my entire life. As mentioned these skills erode over time and must be practiced every day to be at the top of the pile. Not many folks have the means or inclanation to do that, not that there is anything wrong with those that do, it's your life you make your own choices.

 

[Buck Snort]

"I can definitely say that they are worth it to us- my wife and I have been to several sessions with nationally known instructors."

Are they worth if because they told you so?

 

[Buck Snort]

I'm just not motivated to spend a big chunk of my income and vacation time

There is nothing I'd rather do with my income vacation time!!!


Oh my!!

 

[BullfrogKen]

Hmmm...


Interesting direction this conversation is going.



wgp -

You'll have to make up your own mind of whether enrolling yourself in a professionally taught course is worth it to you. Contemplate for yourself what your goals are, and what you'd like to achieve.


And then ask yourself this -
Of all the folks who have responded to say they don't think it's worth it, or have said they think that it is, which of us took training and which of us didn't?
Who is in a better position to comment on the value of training, those who have taken some or those who haven't?



I feel confident you'll arrive at the best decision for you and your goals. But I'm done debating this on the internet.

 

[230therapy]

The first course I attended resulted in the doubling of my speed and halving my group size at speed. I attend a BASIC self-defense course annually. I learn more watching the instructor teach (and the students' reactions and performance to the correction) than from the actual shooting. While it does serve as a tune-up, I'm going to learn one or two little tips (and to have fun).

I highly recommend a mix of professional training. The key for the individual is to choose the correct training for the "mission". If your mission is self-defense against criminals, then 80% of your training may be more appropriate with combatives, force on force and short range handgun skills (retention, close shooting, operation, etc). Offering a mix of training offered from LFI (legal stuff), general self-defense handgun (such as Gunsite 200), combatives, dedicated force on force and SouthNarc's ECQC course.

Most people completely neglect the 0-5 foot range. They have NO idea how difficult and dangerous this situation is to the handgun shooter.

Heck, most guys I've seen on range days don't even know how to operate their handgun properly: they don't reload properly, get confused with jams and fumble around with their draws.

I fully agree that the Little Old Lady is the most dangerous human. I don't know what it is, but they account for many criminals annually.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Are they worth if because they told you so?

Buck Snort,

I can say they are worth it because both of us are objectivly qualified by education and life experiences to make that judgement.

My wife is a retired university professor, a PhD in criminology who got her start in that business as a 'juvie jailer' turning keys in cell doors and working with juvenile delinquents. Early along she learned the value of applied physical skills in dealing with violent interpersonal contacts with confirmed criminals (even teenaged ones). People died on the job where she worked, staff members who were killed by violent youthful offenders. Her early training helped her survive to go on to graduate school and then to higher education, but she's still a turnkey at heart. She knows that someone somewhere might try to kill her. And she knows how to deal with that.

I spent a career (I'm retired, too) as a civilian employee of the US Army, and the major part of that career at Ft. Bragg, NC. I worked in the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, where the Army trains and educates its Special Forces soldiers.

You might note in passing that people don't just slap on a green beanie and proclaim themselves Special Forces soldiers. There's a hint there...

Now despite all the Hollywood fluff, Special Forces soldiers are in essence just glorified schoolteachers. True, they might commute to work via parachute, but much of what they actually do is teaching, plain and simple. While I was there, the first thing a new arrival at USAJFKSWCS did was go to ITC- the Instructor Training Course. In other words, they taught you how to teach.

In the years I spent at JFK, I saw a lot of teaching and training take place. And I saw a lot of good instructors at work, the old retired SFers that instructed a lot of the classes, the 'new guys' coming through Robin Sage where they had to 'train' their mock guerrillas in the Carolina woods, you name it. I had a lot of exposure to a lot of training, both good and not so good, and I can tell the difference.

We've had classes with Louis Awerbuck, Tom Givens, Southnarc, John Farnam and others. Without fail they are excellent at what they do.

And what is it that they do?

They care about their students, number one. They want to impart the maximum material possible in the few hours available, and they want their students to be able to perform the skills they are taught on demand, on the street, under pressure. They want the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose. And they make a career out of seeing to it there are better chances of that happening.

Number two, they TEACH, but they also LEARN. They teach novices, they teach cops, they teach soldiers, they teach other professionals. And they show everyone who shows up something new, something worth learning. Louis Awerbuck says the state of the art is a moving target. People learn new stuff every day. People who teach hundreds or thousands of students in a year, who see millions of rounds go downrange out of a variety of firearms outfitted with a variety of gear, have a chance to aggregate a lot of experiences, see a lot of changes, find out what works well and what doesn't work so well. And they teach based on that as well as what's been tried and true in the past.

And lastly, they are flat out good at what they do. I have never seen people better at watching what a shooter is doing, evaluating a problem, and offering several workable solutions all in a matter of seconds. It's amazing to see people like that at work, it's humbling to know that level of skill is present.

You know the best students I have ever seen, in any kind of class? Experienced Special Forces soldiers, that's who. Despite all they know, despite all the training they have had, despite all the experiences they've lived through, they are always looking for more. They always want one more edge, one more skill, one more bit of knowledge.

fwiw,

lpl

 

[27hand]

training

Lee, Great post.

Quick answer to the OP and reiterated by those who actually have taken the time to train is yes, training at a big name school is worth it.
Longer rant on the subject.
I have found in my circles that if a man has a gun and has the ability to press the trigger and get a reasonable hit, his ego will prevent him from taking a training class.
The few posters who have chimed in with the statement "they don't know what they don't know" realize this is so completely true, it isn't even funny.

I don't have the gift of gab and am not educated enough to present myself as many in this thread have, but those who have responded AFTER training
know what they are talking about.

Those who say it's not necessary because they can hit what they are aiming at, in my opinion, do not.

I cannot afford to travel to a big name school, but the people who teach at these schools will come to you. I personally think the repetition factor of 5 days is better than a 3 day class but a local 3 day class does present the basics with reasonable time to learn specific skill sets and gives you time to digest and practice what is presented.

Chances are very good that if confronted with a threat at 1 yard, the gun won't even come into play. Distance is your friend but you have to be trained enough to either get distance (to use a gun)or deal with a face to face close quarters encounter.

Shooting from retention, hand to hand,making a grab for any weapon you are faced with. All these possibilities will boil down to YOU defaulting to your level of training.
Something that was presented to me in a carbine class.
" It will happen when you least expect it"
"It will be over in seconds"
"IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, YOU WON'T DO IT".

How does anyone know what the trainer's quals are before signing up? Hit or miss? Research the trainer? Get input from his prior students? This is kind of tough. I called and questioned the organization that sponsored my first training class. The guy is a Lawyer, answered my questions and also provided some legal information regarding local laws and using deadly force.

A $400 + class with a day off work and 600 to 700 rounds of ammo is a bite for me. All told, I could buy some ammo and/or a new pistol for that money and have something tangible.

Instead of that, I took away some knowledge and ability to react to a threat long after all the ammo is gone and realized I didn't have a clue beforehand.

 

[GEM]

Also being an educator, I can tell if a class is well prepared. My experience with Insights, KRTraining, OPS (Andy and Steve), Givens at Rangemaster, Claude Werner, LFI, the NTI crowd, the various courses at the Polite Society is that you really do learn skills, cognitive ablities and mindset. The FOF components and stress reduction are very, very worthwhile.

I agree about men who think that they are instinctive gun fighter/warriors as they probably think they are great lovers, drivers and minstrels.

One point I'd like to make is that in the debate about carry - one thing that is brought up is the fear that some untrained doofus will shoot an innocent during an intensive incident. I've had folks say - I'd trust you to carry but not Macho Man over there. Why, they know I took the time to train.

In two rampage incidents, the Good Samaritan citizen came to a bad end. That was the Tacoma Mall and Tyler court hourse. While they were brave and may have saved folks, their outcome was suboptimal because of mistakes that competent training may have avoided. In other rampages, like the Colorado Church - the trained person (Assam) did reasonably well. If you are going to chortle about sheeple and being a sheepdog - don't you think you have some responsibility to be competent?

 

[Aquila]

Yes, they are worth it. However, you may have persons in your immediate area who have gone to several schools and may be teaching in your area or be willing to show you what they have gleaned.

You usually have to bring experience to the table at some of the renowned schools so get your basics local and carry on from there. Don't forget IDPA; many guys there may very well be "playing" but they do have experience worthy of merit. Join and participate. Then seek the tutelage of the ex-Army Delta, Navy DevGroup guys. It's what we all want.

 

[Aquila]

"Are they worth if because they told you so?

Buck Snort,

...

I spent a career (I'm retired, too) as a civilian employee of the US Army, and the major part of that career at Ft. Bragg, NC. I worked in the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, where the Army trains and educates its Special Forces soldiers.

You might note in passing that people don't just slap on a green beanie and proclaim themselves Special Forces soldiers. There's a hint there...

Now despite all the Hollywood fluff, Special Forces soldiers are in essence just glorified schoolteachers. True, they might commute to work via parachute, but much of what they actually do is teaching, plain and simple. While I was there, the first thing a new arrival at USAJFKSWCS did was go to ITC- the Instructor Training Course. In other words, they taught you how to teach.

In the years I spent at JFK, I saw a lot of teaching and training take place. And I saw a lot of good instructors at work, the old retired SFers that instructed a lot of the classes, the 'new guys' coming through Robin Sage where they had to 'train' their mock guerrillas in the Carolina woods, you name it. I had a lot of exposure to a lot of training, both good and not so good, and I can tell the difference.

We've had classes with Louis Awerbuck, Tom Givens, Southnarc, John Farnam and others. Without fail they are excellent at what they do.

And what is it that they do?

They care about their students, number one. They want to impart the maximum material possible in the few hours available, and they want their students to be able to perform the skills they are taught on demand, on the street, under pressure. They want the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose. And they make a career out of seeing to it there are better chances of that happening.

Number two, they TEACH, but they also LEARN. They teach novices, they teach cops, they teach soldiers, they teach other professionals. And they show everyone who shows up something new, something worth learning. Louis Awerbuck says the state of the art is a moving target. People learn new stuff every day. People who teach hundreds or thousands of students in a year, who see millions of rounds go downrange out of a variety of firearms outfitted with a variety of gear, have a chance to aggregate a lot of experiences, see a lot of changes, find out what works well and what doesn't work so well. And they teach based on that as well as what's been tried and true in the past.

And lastly, they are flat out good at what they do. I have never seen people better at watching what a shooter is doing, evaluating a problem, and offering several workable solutions all in a matter of seconds. It's amazing to see people like that at work, it's humbling to know that level of skill is present.

You know the best students I have ever seen, in any kind of class? Experienced Special Forces soldiers, that's who. Despite all they know, despite all the training they have had, despite all the experiences they've lived through, they are always looking for more. They always want one more edge, one more skill, one more bit of knowledge.

fwiw,

lpl "

I'm reading the superb book CHOSEN SOLDIER: The Making of a Special Forces Warrior by Dick Couch. Excellent coincidence.

 

[mcdonl]

You might note in passing that people don't just slap on a green beanie and proclaim themselves Special Forces soldiers. There's a hint there...

Dammit Lee... there go my retirement plans

 

[Crusader103]

There are several reasons to obtain advanced training, but you should also understand that "advanced training" is not necessarily synonymous with "big name school."

It is posssible to obtain valid education and find ways to advance your skills through books, videos, and chats with your more experienced friends. I will not discount that at all and many of you know that my own book is receiving it's finishing touches right now.

Some of the first things that I find in my students, many of whom are experienced in law enforcement and military (including special forces) is that #1 they are not as good as they think they are #2 if they are humble about it they will learn more #3 they believe without exception that the money was well spent.

In addition to enhancing your skills, which you will if you find the right big name or small name school, you should also be concerned with two other major facets of information that you will glean. That is (hopefully) a greater in depth knowledge of the mindset that is a prerequisite to suriving a gunfight both mentally and physically, and the second is the legal preparation and knowledge that is critical should you ever be faced with a deadly force incident. Many "uneducated" shooters are great shooters, but proficiency with a firearm is but a small piece of the overall puzzle. The firearm is a tool like any other. The mind must be educated. You wouldn't just buy some tools and call yourself a general contractor would you? Even if you know how to use the power tools you must still be up to speed on planning, zoning laws, legal issues, how to deal with others, etc.

Remember, your goal is to surviving physically, mentally, and legally. Range time and friends can generally only help with the first skillset, and that is not enough. If you think you have the second one in the bag simply because you can sit back and say, "Yea, I am aware of my surroundings and I could handle shooting a bad guy," you are probably ill equipped in this area. Finally, if you think you know what you can and can't do legally because you read the latest magazine article or somehow mystically have an insight as to what the law really states, you are more than likely setting yourself up for failure.

Finally, if for no other reason you should get the training as one more way to cover your backside should you be forced to act in a life threatening situation. I have testified in such cases enough times to know that you will be asked, probed, and prodded about your abilities, experience, knowledge, etc. You will find it to be money well spent when you can answer that you have some form of professional training and knowledge beyond the latest Guns & Ammo. No matter how good you really are you will easily be painted as a novice looking for an opportunity to wave a gun around if you do not have the credentials to back your actions up. At least show that your skillset, mindset, and legal thinking was based on sound principles of a qualified instructor. It may not sound like much to you now but it may very well later.

Notice that nowhere did I say that this training has to be through a big name school. It may very well be, and there are some good ones out there, but it doesn't have to be. I have on at least three separate occasions turned down instructor positions with the federal government and two of the top name schools in the country. Why? I have no desire to be a full-time instructor and by not being affiliated with a particular school I am free to teach what works the best. I am a full time military officer and that is my primary responsibility. Therefore, when I provide instruction to you, you do not end up with a fancy gold foil certificate with "insert name TOP GUN SHOOTING SCHOOL" on it. That does not reflect the quality of your instruction.

That being said, you should seek out training and educate yourself on the instructor's credentials. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to call yourself an instructor. So be diligent, seek out the instructor who has the basis to call themselves an instructor, learn all you can about them, and ultimately you will have done yourelf a huge favor.

You'll probably even learn something.

 

[SWDoc]

Several good points have been made.

It IS possible to get good trainers to come to or near you. I agree John and Vicki Farnam are very good, and will travel. This week they are in Victoria, TX (30 miles from me). This is a town of 50,000 +/-, so not a really big place. Over the years , I have taken several courses from them. Did a 1 day urban rifle course 2 days ago. They also did the instructor course (wed/thurs) and a basic and an advanced defensive pistol course (yesterday and today). They can do the same for you, if you have the numbers to fill the courses and a decent range.

Had Michael Janich 2 years ago (2 day Martial Blade Concepts course), and Brian Hoffner from Houston comes down a couple of times a year. Rifle/Pistol/shotgun/edged weapons. Magpul comes within 2 hours from time to time. Thunder Ranch is coming back to Texas sometime in 2010, I heard.

The point here is that you can likely get some diverse and high quality training without traveling much (if at all) if you are willing to find some people who want the training and make it happen. We do this without the benefit of a gun club, in our case.

I strongly agree that taking from a number of trainers is huge. The additional trigger time is always good, and there are real differences in not only basic techniques, but mindset. Exposure to a variety of styles lets you (after a few courses) intelligently develop a blend that fits your needs and abilities/limitations. For instance, I coordinated Mike Janich's trip to Victoria to start filling a gap in my abilities when at contact weapon range, and found 12 other guys who would go along for the ride. Very affordable.

Point was made about 5 day courses as opposed to 2 or 3 day courses. The good thing about the 5 day is the immersion. The bad thing is that depending on the curriculum and your physical condition, you might be a little less of a firebreather on day five of a course that is physically demanding or that has really long hours. A full day of training followed by low light takes it out of me. YMMV. Of course, we do low light at night. No enclosed shoot house for daytime training like at the big facillities. Subtract points from the local option.

Lee's point about the instructor being a student. If he's not, his material risks being dated. Ditto his take on the technologies. Again, taking Farnam as an example, I have seen him change his mind on lasers, pistol retention/low ready, and rifle low ready (to name 3 things) in the past 2 years. I was talking to Dianne Nicholl (Ms. F's co-author on her books), and they are STILL making changes to the rifle/shotgun edition. Have been trying to get it out for 18 months but the material keeps changing! This is a function of his traveling, learning, and fine tuning. I would be sure a local LEO was staying current and how he was doing it (reading as opposed to attending courses, interacting w/ national/international trainers etc.)

Someone pointed out the benefit of retaking even basic courses. I can't speak for others, but in my case, I have found these skills to be perishable, so I agree. In '08 and early '09 I was training hard in pistol. Lots of hours of certificated courses and shot around 8500 rounds in classes and training. Late 09/early '10 did not train much in pistol. Definitely lost a few steps.

IDPA/IPSC, I don't personally compete, but some of my friends do, and it seems to have improved their speed a lot. They also say the time stress helps. We started shooting at about the same time, and they are now much faster and more accurate than me. FWIW, they no longer pay for large classes, but locate trainers who have a niche specialty they need (point shooting, etc) and get 1 on 1 training for a day then go home and practice.

Short answer to the OP: I think it is worth it. But if you cannot afford it, make them come to you. It can be done. And train w/ as many different top notch trainers, preferably those whose curriculum directly addresses your goals.

Steve

 

[shockwave]

Someone pointed out the benefit of retaking even basic courses.

A fundamental truth of martial arts is that the masters are faithful to the basics and spend much, if not most, of their time perfecting the basics. They review the basics constantly, and when trouble arises in performance, the first place they look is the basics. Footwork, stance, balance, attention - these are the essentials and a good school will hammer these home. Paradoxically, the better you get at martial disciplines, the more you need to return to the fundamentals.

Experienced students will tell you that any return to basic principles is time well spent. Advanced tactics and skills build on top of a firm foundation, they do not replace it.

 

[Jenrick]

From a whole bunch of different folks: "High speed is nothing more then executing the basics on demand under pressure correctly every time."

Also taking a "basic class" with your support hand as your primary hand (ie. righty shooting left handed all week) is a trip. You will learn a lot, and it's fun to see things backwards for a while.

-Jenrick

 

[GEM]

The legal defense point is a good one. One has to tell a story to the jury of why you acted. Having training that points to competency and reason leading to your actions would aid in that. The legal literature has defense attorneys saying that in a self-defense situation, they like their clients to have such training.

There is some evidence that training might set a higher standard or be a negative is you go killer-commando or present yourself before as being trained as a 'killer'. But quality schools teach variants of de-escalation, ADEE from Skip at the NTI, Ayoob's legal perspective, etc.

Good FOF also has a dealing with the law component after a fight. Given some FOF is intense dealing with the law while freaked is good training to have.

Granted this is expensive but excellent local schools can do it. Pratically, $400 for a weekend.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Experienced students will tell you that any return to basic principles is time well spent. Advanced tactics and skills build on top of a firm foundation, they do not replace it.

this is a huge point that is often missed by folks looking for the newest "tactical" method.

you need a solid foundation of shooting ability before you can get the most out of more advanced instruction