Gun Instructors - what do you expect?

[David E]

I expect them to shoot in front of the class.

I expect professionalism, courtesy, respect and competence.

Professionalism- I don't want to hear the instructor tell dirty or off color jokes during the class.

Courtesy- he talks to me as an equal. He uses appropriate words and phrases throughout the class. He's able to explain the technique in an understandable way without making anyone feel stupid if they don't get it.

Respect- he doesn't call anyone names or declare them close minded because they disagree or might have a different view.

Competence- I expect the instructor to have a higher than average skill level in the techniques they are teaching. If he's teaching an AR class, he shouldn't have to look for the mag release, or be prevented from taking a shot because the safety was still on. When he does take the shot, I expect him to hit it in the center.

If taking a handgun class, I expect his techniques to be well polished, smooth and consistent. Missing the grip, not clearing the holster, bowling or fishing, "poking thru" at the end and barely hitting the target isn't someone qualified to teach others.

We've all taken classes where the "instructor" was reading from a book, or from someone of lesser skill than yourself. How much did you really learn to improve your own skill in those classes?

What traits do YOU expect in a gun instructor?

Should they shoot in front of the class?

 

[d2wing]

Many instructors do not shoot in front of students as they are there to teach the student to shoot. Unfortunately many instructors are blowhards, as are many posters here that present themselves as experts. It is best to find out what the instructors certification is. I am certified by my state DNR, NRA, and my state University for 4-H as well. I took sanctioned and graded courses and passed exams as well as demonstrated competency in both shooting and teaching. All our instructors were very good. I have seen a few macho local instructors that were not so good. But still they were able to teach the basics. Do not get too hung up on the instructor, take what you can from the course and obtain the certification offered. The certificate is not a personality test.

 

[David E]

I take a gun class to learn things and improve my skills. The certificate, if any, isn't my goal.

I realize that not all instructors shoot in front of their class. One of the local LE instructors is such a fellow. Once over lunch, me and my buddy convinced him to shoot a drill. He's right not to shoot in front of others! But to be fair, I think he was a little intimidated by us and became flustered for no good reason.

But still, the instructor should be able to properly demo the skill he's wanting to teach. I find that when I demo something instead of talking about it, many more lights go on. I don't demo each and every drill, but when it's new or they're not quite getting it, I will. I only a magazine or two (if that) for the total class, because it's about getting the student to shoot better.

I do not think its a generally a good idea for the instructor to go head to head with a student or accept challenges from them, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Wondering if this shouldn't be in S&T, which is generally where most classes and teaching styles are generally discussed.

Since not all firearms classes and instruction are defense-oriented, we can leave it here for now.


I like a well-prepared instructor, one who is both technically prepared and conscious of that most valuable resource - time.

I like an instructor who connects with the class and knows enough to both challenge a student who is beyond others, while backing off to accomodate those at the novice level of understanding without missing a beat.

An instructor does not have to shoot in front of me. Professional sports is chock full of outstanding coaches who were mediocre players - or who didn't even play the sport at all. I value a good coach or instructor who is good at identifying my weaknesses and improving my abilities more than a skilled player or athlete who doesn't know the struggle of those not similarly gifted, now coaching at the end of a great career.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[moxie]

Sounds like you've had a bad experience recently. The only way to avoid that in the future is talking to former students and see what they have to say. Go from there.

I expect an instructor to competently demonstrate skills in front of the class with an eye towards getting the students to learn the technique. I don't expect him to be the best shot or the fastest draw in town. But certainly very competent and confident in his skills.

The name calling and dirty language are strictly out of bounds.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Rather than re-type a bunch of thoughts, perhaps it's a good time to revisit this.

It got made into a sticky in the S&T library. Which means it never gets noticed.



Thoughts on choosing a Trainer or a School to attend

I recall that there were a good deal of what I want from an instructor there that I must see evidence of before I even sign up. And perhaps more importantly I share some red lines that immediately removes a school or instructor from my consideration when I see them.

 

[David E]

When I say I want the instructor to shoot in front of the class, it's not to have him impress us. Just to show the proper way to do something if needed.

Beginner classes really don't require much shooting, but they do require demonstration.

No, I've not recently had a bad experience. I've been able to spot some problem children before signing up for their class, tho.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Yup, I got where you were coming from.

And it's not necessary for me.

I learned riflery at Parris Island. I didn't need my PMI to shoot in front of me to learn it.

If someone truly can't get the gist, perform what you want to see.

My concern with seeing it performed is the student tries to mimic exactly what he saw rather than figuring out how his or her body will perform it the best, because our bodies are all a bit different.

There's also the risk the student will become intimidated and feel foolish because he sees how far out of his league he is compared to his teacher.

There's the risk an advanced student loses respect.

There's the risk an accomplished student sees it, compares himself to what he saw, realizes they're of equal skill, and concludes he's come along as far as he needs to and doesn't push himself any further.


There are times when displaying the drill or technique is of benefit, but one must recognize the downsides as well.

 

[Sam1911]

I've taken some training that really impressed me and some that really didn't.

Professionalism really sums it up for me, I think. Personalities differ, of course, but be squared-away and focused. Keep the pace up. DRIVE the class. If your students find themselves with a lot of time for chit-chat, you're doing it WRONG. If YOU choose to engage in chit-chat instead of teaching, you owe folks a refund. I don't care how much TV coverage you get, nor how great your adventures were, I'm not here to get your autograph or listen to war stories. I'm paying for these minutes, don't waste them. Teach me something.

Honestly, the instructor I've been most disappointed in is someone with national recognition. The students were fans. He could have commanded studious attention to the subject with a word and set a challenging pace, but didn't. The instructor who most blew my doors off, no one's heard of. Many of the students were personal friends of his who he shot with regularly (all the chance in the world for joshing around and horseplay), and yet without having to ask for anything twice, the class hopped in double-time and got twice as much done in one day as the first fellow covered in TWO days.

Be in control of what's happening and the tone of the class. I don't mind a little salty language (though more than a very little bit indicates a lack of professionalism), but racism and other gross negativity has no place.

And a somewhat less direct but very important factor IMHO -- recognize that learning is eternal and seek to develop YOURSELF constantly. The biggest thing that impresses me beyond what happens on the firing line is hearing and seeing that an instructor is continuing to train with others regularly. Trying things, evaluating, not stagnating. Not necessarily looking for name-dropping, per se, but it should be apparent that the instructor is him/herself a student still experiencing the learning process and refining what s/he knows and how s/he imparts knowledge to others.

 

[tactikel]

I took a Carbine tutorial where the instructor only shot to demonstrate technique. He fired no more than 30 rounds in an 8 hour class, demonstrating what he expected me to accomplish. We engaged targets from 3 to 400 yards. He was personable, but all business. He only shared stories that demonstrated skills he was teaching. He answered dozens of questions with total focus. The instructor you want has quiet confidence (he's been there done that), is personable, patient, skilled, but firm in his expectations ( why did you shoot the threat you did versus the more dangerous one? ). I don't want a buddy, I want a serious instructor with people skills.
BTW Paulden, Az.is beautiful in April!

 

[Fred_G]

Things I expect: knowledge, skill, communication, and a true desire to improve a students ability. Someone who is not a 'my way or the highway' person, that can show different ways of doing something, then teach why they prefer and recommend a certain method, but don't have a problem if you use a different one.

And of course, someone who runs a safe class.

As far as shooting in front of the class, I have only taken classes from one person, he has never seemed to need to shoot in front of the class. I have shot with him, and he can shoot very well.

I think Sam1911 makes a good point here:

And a somewhat less direct but very important factor IMHO -- recognize that learning is eternal and seek to develop YOURSELF constantly. The biggest thing that impresses me beyond what happens on the firing line is hearing and seeing that an instructor is continuing to train with others regularly. Trying things, evaluating, not stagnating. Not necessarily looking for name-dropping, per se, but it should be apparent that the instructor is him/herself a student still experiencing the learning process and refining what s/he knows and how s/he imparts knowledge to others.

I was taught learning is like a rubber band, it expands as you do different stuff, and slowly contracts. So, you must always train and learn to keep it expanding, instead of contracting.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Again I come back to its not what one man can do himself, it's what one can bring me to do.


There exist scores of professional sports coaches who performed substandard in the sport - or who never even actually competed at that level at all - yet they are credited by their understudy as the person who pushed that really gifted athlete onto performing far above and beyond that coached athlete's innate own personal abilities, onto reach the top levels and into winning that sport's ultimate trophy recognition.

Those few individuals, and there truly are few of them, those are the ones who achieve greatness.


It's one thing to be born into innate talent. It's a whole nother level to realize you've been given the chance to coach that talent into greatness. And far too often those great coaches aren't recognized, while the talent is.

But if you get them in unguarded, honest moments, they'll tell you the reason they got great is because of an otherwise ordinary coach who knew how to capitalize on greatness.

 

[Trent]

When I run my basic pistol class, I use the last 10 minutes or so as a "marketing" piece and summary to cover what comes next, and demonstrate a few "do it yourself" drills if they want to start practicing a little in advance. THAT is when I shoot in front of the class. (And in two of the drills, I shoot while moving!)

The point I try to make at the end is "we've come this far, if you want to go further, come back again and learn more!"

I don't shoot during the class, just at the very end, as I don't want to intimidate anyone. Just open their eyes a little to some more advanced technique.

Regarding the rest, I agree; a high degree of professionalism is required. Even if you are teaching friends. There is a serious art to teaching - just because you are a great shooter doesn't mean you know diddly squat about teaching. Nor does the reverse hold true.

I'm an above average shooter only because I've trained and practiced hard. I'll never be the best; but I'll shoot to the best of my personal ability. Everyone has their own ceiling, and when you get close to it, it gets progressively harder to get better.

I'll be the first to admit there are MANY shooters who are better than me. But the rockstar shooter might not be a rockstar trainer.

I'm a pretty good teacher, and I hope to get better at it.

 

[taliv]

there are lots of different kinds of teachers, which is why i usually recommend taking classes from as many sources as reasonably possible.

some instructors shoot phenomenally but can't explain what they do well at all. the students often have to be perceptive enough to figure it out or leave class with not much more than a certificate and bunch of spent brass.

and others are like the coaches mentioned above, who understand concepts and are good at diagnosis and are great instructors but were never grandmasters themselves. I'd still expect them to be able to demonstrate proper techniques *that work for them* and be familiar with many alternatives.

I wouldn't expect them to do everything perfectly or at an impressive pace BECAUSE as I'm sure you'd agree, there is a LOT of maintenance involved in perishable skills and maybe it's the off season for them, or maybe they've aged or have a life apart from shooting and being nationally competitive isn't a priority for them anymore.

I'd expect they'd have enough professional pride to not be just flat out sloppy though.

I would still take a class from someone I thought was less skilled. I learn stuff from people I beat in matches all the time. The best instructors never stop learning.

 

[splithoof]

All good points above, and one additional that I look for:
If an instructor is teaching anything about the application of deadly force with a firearm, I would certainly hope that they have a long and well respected career in which the potential application of deadly force was/is an integral aspect of their professional employment. This could be military, career LE in elite units, etc. Someone with real-world credentials who has been properly vetted.

 

[Sam1911]

I would certainly hope that they have a long and well respected career in which the potential application of deadly force was/is an integral aspect of their professional employment. This could be military, career LE in elite units, etc.

I'm torn on this one.

I agree that having "seen the elephant" can be valuable, but I don't know that I believe it is critical. To a large degree, actually having shot at and been shot at didn't really inform what they most need to impart to their students. (Questions of law, skill, tactics, etc.) As it seems that we cannot well communicate the true fear, stress, and shock of actual immediate violence, it is hard to see how that greatly helps an instructor teach his students valuable things -- especially about civilian self-defense. (I think teaching about sustained combat might be different in that regard.)

And it can get in the way. There is enough adulation of "real warriors" in our gun nut culture that some been-there-done-that guys get a lot of attention, out of proportion to their ability to teach and their mythos gets in the way of being a good instructor and running a quality program. (War stories, fan boys, peeing-contests, "my way is best because I saw real combat and you didn't..." etc.)

Many of our most well-regarded teachers/trainers/instructors have not served in "elite" units, or served at all. Some big names hold, or have held, only minor or nominal positions in law enforcement and are yet considered worth listening to and studying with.

 

[340PD]

As an instructor I agree with what the OP stated.

Basic introduction to handguns courses require different techniques that SD courses. The instructor must be very versatile in his/her presentation style.

That said, I have had many great golf lessons from a teaching pro that I could regularly beat on the course. "Do as I say, not as I do" applies in some cases.

 

[fastbolt]

I expect them to shoot in front of the class.
...
Should they shoot in front of the class?

Yes, when appropriate and as needed in order to facilitate student understanding, learning and development. Not to show off. Not to make anyone feel inadequate (by inevitable self-comparison).

I prefer it when the students feel that they ought to be able to learn and duplicate whatever it is I'm teaching and demonstrating throughout the class. I'm trying to give them the opportunity to have justified confidence in their abilities, step by step.

Professionalism, courtesy & consideration ought to go without saying.

 

[LeonCarr]

As a Firearms Instructor myself I shoot typically to demonstrate a technique I am teaching to help reinforce the technique to the students. In a 400 round pistol/rifle class I might shoot 50 rounds in demonstration.

Safety of course is the priority along with professionalism.

As far as comparing one instructor who has used deadly force to one that has not, Rob Leatham is an excellent instructor, has never shot anybody to my knowledge, and I would take a class from him in a heartbeat. Anybody who says they can't learn from a USPSA Grand Master is so closed minded that they probably won't learn much from anybody.

One thing I look at when taking a class myself is when is the last time the instructor took a class. IME/IMO the most important part about being an instructor is to never stop being a student. I much prefer an instructor who continually trains him/herself than one whose last training class was in the 1990s.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[ErikO]

As a newly minted instructor for Basic Pistol and CCW, I'm careful to know my limitations. I'm not a lawyer, not a cop and never served in the military but do know where common questions regarding use of force and sceific laws for the states I will be running classes will come in. My goal in training is to ensure that all of my students will go beyond the basic requirements for concealed carry and will go on after my classes for additional defensive pistol training. I have good connections to other trainers whose exertise extends into those areas and will incorporate as much as I feel comfortable doing to add value to my classes.

Ego gets checked at the door. I am no expert nor do I claim that title but I do seem to know more than the other average folks on many aspects of what is required of each individual who carries. I do my very level best to provide instruction in a natural way as more of a 70/30 conversation than as a lecture.

As part of my Instructor development plan, I do indend on going to advanced training myself, such as a MAG40, so I have a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

I'm a decent shot, so live fire demonstrations should not involve me embarrassing myself. As part of the 'ego checked at the door' aspect, any such demonstrations would be to help my students understand the concepts I am teaching and not to show how good I am.

 

[David E]

Any instructor who intimidates his students by shooting in front of them isn't doing it right.

Any instructor that requires students to do it exactly his way will frustrate his students.

I suggest to my students that they try it my way, then make adjustments if necessary. Never let them lose sight of their goal: to become a better shooter.

When I was in boot camp at Edson Range, the PMI didn't shoot for us, but it was a basic class. But there was demo regarding the positions. It wasn't all verbal.

Likewise, an instructor covering how to draw a gun properly needs to have a very good draw. He can demo this without firing a shot. If his draw is riddled with flaws, he shouldn't be teaching how to draw.

 

[Trent]

If an instructor is teaching anything about the application of deadly force with a firearm, I would certainly hope that they have a long and well respected career in which the potential application of deadly force was/is an integral aspect of their professional employment. This could be military, career LE in elite units, etc. Someone with real-world credentials who has been properly vetted.

I disagree on this.

Lethal force, from a Law Enforcement, or military perspective, is FAR different from lethal force, from a civilian perspective. The entire core perspective is wrong for application of lethal force for civilians.

When I went through NRA training classes, many of the other instructor trainees were SWAT and/or past military, and they had the most difficulty adapting their mindset to teaching civilians. Some cops and soldiers need a LOT of training to get their minds wrapped around when lethal force is appropriate for self-defense.

I am friends with some cops, and old soldiers, and few have a clear understanding of the law on lethal force. Cops, especially. Most cops don't make a career out of studying law. Their career is full of domestic disturbances, lots of reports, and lots of traffic stops. They understand lethal force from the perspective of their JOB, through and through; but that's far different than lethal force from a civilian perspective. (First and foremost, civilians don't generally have power of arrest, as they do...which dramatically changes how and when you can intervene.)

(This being said; one cop I know has also been a martial arts instructor for over 30 years and is also a firearms instructor for law enforcement; he knows his business on lethal force and self-defense, including civilian perspective. He's an excellent teacher. So don't think I'm making universal overtures here; the world isn't a one-size-fits-all place.)

Another aspect of lethal force, from a law enforcement or military perspective, which is far different for civilians, is armed backup is generally a radio call away. Civilians get to wait in line on 9-1-1 and (as often as not) will be treated as a criminal when cops show up, until they work out who is a good guy, and who is a bad guy. Whereas when a cop calls in backup, there's no question whatsoever and no time wasted explaining who they are (or why not to shoot YOU if you still have a gun in your hands.)

Anyway, not saying law enforcement and ex-military couldn't be great teachers - some are. But there are also civilians who are great teachers.

Lethal force application involves a LOT of reading on laws, case law, and situations and scenarios uncountable. The person teaching lethal force has to be able to gather up information well outside of one's own experiences and "roll it up" in to a format that is digestible, and appropriate. Regardless of a persons' personal background - studying this information and formulating that plan to instruct effectively off of it involves a LOT of time and energy. The best SWAT operator on the planet might be great at doing their job; but it doesn't mean they'd do great doing THAT job. It's a totally different discipline.

 

[Infidel4life11]

The Instructor needs to demonstrate what's being taught and needs to be able to do it on par or better.

If I'm better that the instructor what good is the instructor in teaching me? I take a class every week with the same instructor, every other weekend I shoot uspsa and steel with him. He's better than me he teaches me a lot, I never stop learning from him.

 

[Trent]

The Instructor needs to demonstrate what's being taught and needs to be able to do it on par or better.

If I'm better that the instructor what good is the instructor in teaching me? I take a class every week with the same instructor, every other weekend I shoot uspsa and steel with him. He's better than me he teaches me a lot, I never stop learning from him.

If you're working with the same guy every week, you should reach parity of skill at some point - or close to it, given physical differences.

An instructor can "teach up to a certain point" - regardless of whether it's firearms, or any other martial art. It's why there's dan rankings in karate. A first degree black belt can teach novices. He can spot a flaw with a beginner a mile away, and correct it. But when he looks at his seniors he can't find many, or even any flaws in their technique. The students would find it hard to see any flaw in the first degree's technique, but a third degree could pick him apart for a week straight, with corrections.

Shooting is no different. Time and practice opens your eyes to seeing things. As you get better, you can learn to spot those really-hard-to-spot things very easily and make corrections. A new instructor can see if someone's flinching, or using too much or too little trigger, easy enough. A more seasoned instructor will see white knuckles and know that the student isn't applying grip force properly. An even more seasoned instructor will see a flyer now and then and know that the student's not relaxing their strong side thumb, even though it's not visible while watching them.

I've trained one novice rifle marksman up to shooting solid high master scores this year in long range shooting. I didn't do it for him. All I did was lay the foundation and apply proper motivation. The kid can very nearly outshoot me at this point, on a calm day we're consistently a couple points off from each other. When the wind picks up I pull ahead - experience reading wind is hard to teach. You have to do, and learn, with practice.

But if you motivate someone (and clearly that instructor motivated you, since you are out all the time with him), you WILL equal or surpass him someday.

And.. That's when you should feel compelled to start paying it forward to the next guy.

 

[hso]

If an instructor is teaching anything about the application of deadly force with a firearm, I would certainly hope that they have a long and well respected career in which the potential application of deadly force was/is an integral aspect of their professional employment. This could be military, career LE in elite units, etc. Someone with real-world credentials who has been properly vetted.

There are good trainers out there that haven't had to fire a shot in self defense. The skill of a trainer is primarily training as opposed to being expert at the skill being taught and there's nothing about "real-world" credentials that ensures that nor does it ensure expert skill in the technique.

In most physical skills training the trainer needs to be able to demonstrate the skill well as well as explaining it and assessing the trainee's performance of it, but they must be able to train the trainee with expertise above all.

Paul Gomez was an outstanding trainer. Southnarc is an outstanding trainer. Their backgrounds were dramatically different, but they had/have superior expertise at training those in their courses.