Gun Instructors

[Texas9]

I have been told more than once that, while training is paramount, the instructor must be truly expert in their field and someone you'd want to learn from. It has been recommended to me several times to check up on any potential instructor to make sure 1. that they are who they say they are and 2. that what they have to teach and how they teach it is quality.

I have little doubt in my mind about the instructors at FTP in San Antonio, which is where I'll be taking my CHL class. They also offer several other classes (personal defense, home defense, andvance concealment, etc.) that I would love to take.

The guy I'm talking about is Hoot Gibson. My wife and I bought our 92FS Inox from him about six years ago, and dealing with him ever since has been a pleasure. I would, however, like to double check and make sure that I want to spend a boatload with him and his staff before I actually spend a boatload with him.

I have no reason to doubt him for any reason. I just wondered if anyone knew of him, or knew of a way for me to check into his background a bit.

Thanks a ton!



c

 

[40SW]

As an NRA certified firearms instructor, I can tell you that I am never offended when students want reference letters and if they want to see my credentials. I would do the same in their place, there are alot of frauds and rambo types running around. I find it flattering and necessary. I keep a three holed binder with dozens upon dozens of recommendation and letters of praise, from gun shops, law enforcement officials, civilians, organizations, etc. I enjoy sharing it with students, it builds trust and I do the same with contractors , doctors, and anyone else who's services I avail myself of. I think you are doing the right thing, find out who they are accredited by, check their references, if they have none, well, thats a first red flag. No references , well, then check with the NRA, or the state, or the agency, whomever, whatever you do, please check.

 

[CWL]

Someone teaching the basics like in a CHL class is not going to be much different than the next one.

If you decide to start training seriously in tactical use of pistols (and other arms), you should look into the trainer's background. Word of mouth is a good way to hear about who is good and who isn't.

As for your "truly expert" expectations, bear in mind that different professional trainers (those with years of military & LE experience in addition to pure civilian shooters) will have different methods and techniques. This doesn't mean that one way is better than another, because there is usually more than one way to solve a problem.

The goal to training is to learn a variety of techniques and decide for yourself which ones you like best.

 

[40SW]

Other key points.

1. Make sure that your instructor encourages student participation and its not just a lecture type course. No student participation= no money from you.
2. Make sure that they are patient in answering your prelimenary questions, ie. length of course, price, when and where, if they are impatient, they are not for you.
3. Check to see if they have any complaints filed against them and if their credentials have ever been revoked or suspended.
4. As I said in my initial response to your thread, you are doing the right thing.

 

[AndyC]

You could also ask over at http://www.texaschlforum.com

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah, the Texas CHL classes have to cover X materials and so aside from how the course is taught, the material is going to be the same and what is taught is lecture. So, there won't be many true "experts" teaching CHL, but all are qualified CHL instructors who have passed the DPS program.

Now for personal defense and other such classes, this is a completely different story. It has been my experience that folks of virtually any gun course will tell you that the instructor was good or great and that they learned a lot. Most folks are poor consumer judges for something exciting like shooting classes. It was not until I had been through several classes that I realized a couple were taught by unprofessional jerks who taught things that weren't always in my best interest.

Strangely, even classes that are poorly taught will be claimed to be amazingly good class by others at the same class. That was the case with the class in which Dane Burns was an instructor at a class given in Dallas (See "Commentary on daneburns, part II" at www.tacticalforums.com, with some of the more significant discussion starting on page 2). Or check this thread on Glocktalk where Littlemac asks for input on courses that were less than awesome and see how some folks jumped his case for ever suggesting that not all instruction is above board. It was really strange. see http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=610172

My point is that I believe it is difficult to get feedback on gun classes that is anything other than hugely positive. I think most folks are so happy to finally be getting some instruction and happy to be able to do things at a range that they are not allowed to do on the majority of ranges out there that they mistake access to information and freedom with being quality instruction when that is not always the case.

Another interesting point in the GlockTalk thread is that people do seem to think that if they learned 1 or 2 things that it was a good course. Now I guess this may all depend on whether you are attending to learn new things or just want a refresher. I don't like spending lots of money on a refresher. Given the cost of courses, time invested, travel, food, ammo, etc., learning one or two things can be darned expensive. If I am attending a 2-5 day class and spending anywhere from several hundred to a couple thousand dollars, I would like to learn more than just one or two things. However, that seems to be a standard by which people go by to determine if a class was good or not. I see that as a fairly low standard.