Have you attended formal tactical firearms training?

[Sam1911]

My tactical training was with the US Army. M14, M16, M1911, hand-to-hand combat, gernades, M60 tank, etc., etc.

i rather spend 500 bucks on ammo and shoot it up then spent 500 bucks for some kool-aid drinker to show me how to shoot. Anyone can learn how to shoot without training i am self taught and damn good at it.

most important part is knowing how to aim and judging your distance, they didnt have tactical training courses 50 years ago and everyone did fine.

These discussions are always interesting, and one of the repeated themes is that of some confusion ... or at least disagreement ... on what exactly is practical (or "tactical") training.

What it boils down to is, exactly what do you want to be trained to do?

The military is a pretty good source of basic shooting instruction. In the past (well, sticking to the last century anyway), their training was somewhat rigid, square-range type stuff applicable mostly to fire between trenches, but has developed quite a lot in the last few decades to also include more commonly useful rapid-engagement training with long arms.

But very -- VERY -- little that the military teaches soldiers is applicable on the streets (or homes) of the USA where a citizen may wish to deploy a defensive arm (usually a handgun) against a criminal attacker. With no squad behind you, no artilliary, no rifle, no bayonette, no orders, no defined objectives, and no offensive ROE whatsoever. The skills, tactics, equipment, and legal issues are completely different.

To say that you've taught yourself how to aim and that you can judge distance really has Z-E-R-O to do with defending your life with a handgun at close range in a matter of seconds. To say that the military instructed you how to shoot "Expert" over their qualification course with an M-14 really has Z-E-R-O to do with how you should respond to a forcible entry into your home, or an attempted carjacking, etc.

I don't mean to denigrate the skills of marksmanship, or the training provided to our service members by the military. Not even a LITTLE TINY BIT.

However, when we discuss "advanced" or "tactical" or "practical" or "high-speed-low-drag" )) or whatever kind of firearms training, a common response is "I don't need that, I've been trained" or "I'm a pretty good shot already," etc. And that can be both true -- and false -- at the same time!

1) You can get training to teach a person who's never touched a gun before how to hold a firearm, obtain a sight picture, and shoot a bullseye with reasonable precision.

2) You can get training to teach an occasional shooter how to carry a defensive sidearm safely, shoot from cover, reload proficiently, draw, holster, move, and otherwise develop their gun-handling skills to make their marksmanship skills practical in the real world.

3) You can get training to teach a good shooter how to hone their skills for extreme precision, marksmanship, speed, or skill as applied to any of a dozen shooting sports disciplines.

4) You can get training to fight with a sidearm in very close-in, do-or-die combat against determined criminal attackers, retention techniques, ground/grapple gun manipulation, use of a back-up gun or edged weapon, etc.

5) You can get training in how to recognize/respond to developing threats, use social skills to diffuse or avoid attacks, use of alternative and less-lethal weapons, and also in appropriate and legal deployment of a firearm or other weapon in real-world social encounters.

6) You can get training in long-range precision shooting as might be applicable in hunting or "sniping" scenarios.

7) You can get training in LEO/Military team skills like house-clearing, MOUT, traffic stops, suspect detention/compliance, tactical driving techniques, etc. (If your job requires it.)

To say, "I've been trained" or "I know how to shoot" is not a very substantive statement, and to ask guys "why don't you get advanced training?" is not a complete question.

As a loaded comment: Most guys have all the skills they think they need. Said another way, most gun guys don't really know what things they could learn, nor how far that training could take them, or how poorly their skills in one area might translate in another area.

And a lot of gun guys really only care about the areas of the shooting disciplines that have grabbed their interest. For many shooters, telling them they need to practice carrying a gun and drawing and firing it while someone else is trying to wrestle them to the ground makes no more sense (to them) than dressing them up in cowboy clothes and teaching them quick-draw skills -- or suiting them up in a funny stiff coat and trying to make them shoot pin-point bullseyes with an Anschutz .22 at 50 meters.

So, one answer to the question of "why not" is ... "why?" Many gun guys are just gun guys because they like the noise, the recoil, the art of the weapon, hunting, or a dozen other aspects of firearms use. Convincing them to get training means first you'd have to explain what they are missing and then you have to explain why they should care that they're missing it!

 

[deafdave3]

I have had tactical firearm training. However, that is all the information I may volunteer. Everything else is UN Government classified.

 

[A.H. Fox]

The first mistake made by many when considering how to protect themselves and loved ones is to plan for every situation. Do you NEED to know how to clear your house from person(s) unknown in the middle of the night? Or, do you need to have the skills/equipment to get you and your loved ones to a safe place in your home and call the police?

Any qualified training with firearms is good training. The training, if it is to be effective, must be relevant to the individual student. Being motivated to attend the training is not nearly as important as is quality and relevancy of the training to the goals of the student. A fella who lives out in the hills of South Central Missouri will most likely never be interested in "tactical" weapons training, more like "practical" weapons training.

The "what if" scenarios are easy Interwebs forum fodder but usually are far from important to everyday Joes. Usually, in my view, the continuing education to improve weapons skills is similar to wanting to learn to be a scratch golfer. Spend a great deal of time, effort and money on something that has little impact on your every day comings and goings. Even then, you may never be scratch golfer material, the pursuit is the point not the goal.

If you make your living having to use these "tactical" skills, the more training the better. If not, it is a hobby, just like golf.

 

[mcdonl]

I have taken Selfdefense in and out of the home, and shoot a couple of IDPA matches a year. That is it. I shoot a lot, since I started reloading last year I shoot a few hundred rounds a month.

The option I WOULD have selected would have been, "Yes, and if the chance to take another one at a good price came up I would attend...."

I am not planning to attend any, but I would if the price, location and time were right.

 

[themachine]

I've had the pleasure of training at ESI. Hands down the best tactical handgun program I've experienced.

 

[Al Thompson]

Hmmm. I had .mil training, was an active IPSC/IDPA shooter, bullseye shooter, member of a pistol team in the NG, since 1977. Had some spare money and took a handgun/carbine class at Shootrite in Alabama in 2009. If I had quit on day one, I would have gotten my money's worth. Tiger McKee diagnosed and cured several systemic problems I had and showed me training practices that allowed me to keep those problems at bay.

After 32 years of shooting, I learned new things that addressed specific problems. It's a huge boost in abilities when you get good training. When my nephew gets old enough, he and I will be attending class together.

Good formal training and a cheap handgun in a gunshow holster beats the heck out of a 2k handgun in a high dollar holster with poor or no training.

We have some CWP instructors here that quite simply are way out of their league. It's pretty easy to figure out who they are as they have zero formal training outside of a police academy or .mil. We have one guy who got a bit upset with me when he kept mentioning that he was a graduate of Ranger school. FYI, no handgun training in that school.

IME, the ratio is pretty precise. If you have an instructor that you are considering for a course, a lack of formal training with known quality instructors is a huge clue!

 

[surjimmy]

Yes, but it's not a very well known school. Have any of you heard of the United States Marine Corps?

 

[themachine]

Haha, nice!

The senior instructors at ESI are all former or current LEO or military. Joel Hodges to name one was an outstaning teacher and a beast with a handgun!

 

[Pete D.]

I’m curious as to why you see or do not see the need to attend formal tactical/defensive training.

Why I do not.....I'm not going to war. I'm not a believer in TEOTWAKI. My firearms are sporting goods, well used and dependable but that's what they are.
Pete

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, but it's not a very well known school. Have any of you heard of the United States Marine Corps?

And this goes right back to my previous point. A very close friend of mine spent quite a few years as a Marine. He is very proud of his service and learned a tremendous amount about life and shooting in the service. He's estimated that his round count in the Corps was in the hundreds of thousands.

However, in his decade or so back in civilian life he has spent a great deal of time studying self-defense tactics and training as are appropriate and useful for an armed civilian in the United States. He has trained with some of the very best trainers currently active, and through some of his extracurricular activities, has met and shared with quite a few more.

He maintains (and I have heard him tell other Marines fresh out of the service) that his USMC experiences left him largely ignorant of how best to defend himself on the street or at home as a civilian. He credits the training and experience he's obtained on his own and with study groups as providing nearly all of his practical skill set.

Again ... what exactly are we training to do? Fight a war? Shoot bullseyes? Rescue a hostage? Defend against a mugging or murder?

If you aren't going to go to war, why spend the money to practice for that?

If you honestly believe that you'll never meet a violent criminal, why spend the time and money to prepare yourself for that day?

 

[Ledgehammer]

Good formal training and a cheap handgun in a gunshow holster beats the heck out of a 2k handgun in a high dollar holster with poor or no training

.

Very well stated. My view is if you've decided to purchase a handgun for self defense that's only one part of the equation. After attending Ayoob's course I realized there is a lot more to defending yourself than being able to shoot a bullseye at 10 yds. I understand if you don't have the money, times are tough right now. If you can't afford to take a course I would highly recommend idpa as a great practice environment and it affords you the chance to pick the brain of more experienced shooters. But to just dismiss formal training in civillian situations would be remiss.

We are lucky to have some great shooters and experienced gunhands at our local matches.

 

[Mudinyeri]

I've been through basic and advanced US Army "tactical" training. Basic Training was almost laughable. I suppose if you'd never fired a weapon before you might have learned something in US Army Basic. My advanced training was another matter entirely. I learned a lot.

I continue to participate in civilian training whenever time and money permit. Obviously, one needs to find good instructors or the training isn't worth the time and money spent. Assuming that one can find good instructors, the only argument(s) I can understand, to some extent, against further training are time and money being unavailable. Even then, it generally comes down to priorities.

I've participated in training with people who don't think they need training. It's usually quite enlightening ... especially for the person who doesn't think they need any (more) training.

As current or former military or law enforcement, you may have survived any number of dangerous engagements. However, if you seriously don't think you can learn anything from additional training I really don't care to be around you when the chips are down. It's nothing personal, but that sort of hubris is what gets people killed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm a believer in training. Been to Gunsite a couple of times, taken classes with a number of other trainers including Massad Ayoob and Louis Awerbuck. Just had a one day class on moving targets with Louis Awerbuck last Sunday.

The way I look at it, I have no way of knowing what, if anything, might happen, so I have no idea of what I'm going to need to be able to do, or how good I'm going to need to be, for a satisfactory outcome. So the better prepared I am, the luckier I'll be.

 

[kmcintosh78]

You forgot to add "Training via Military and/or LE".
I have never paid for training, but have received it through the Military and LE. It was worth it.

 

[Crusader103]

You forgot to add "Training via Military and/or LE".

I didn't forget to add it..... and I'm not dismissing it either. My goal was mainly to get responses on the what and why of people choosing, or not choosing, to attend.

I see military/LE (of which I have experience in both) providing firearms training incidental to a position and therefore not a choice of the attendee. I was looking more at choices.

Yes, I know people "choose" to go LE/.mil, but the main purpose is not usually to become better at shooting skills.

 

[9mmforMe]

I have no formal training with my defensive sidearm. I have taken three NRA safety courses, one being required for my CCL when I lived in Virginia.

My choice in the poll was that I plan on taking further instruction in the future. Hopefully it will be from one of the bigger names, but most likely I will get some training from somone local, which is fine by me...I'll just choose as wisely as possible and hope to get a good instructor.

I have been shooting for almost 17 years, have read books by Ayoob, Taylor, Keith and others. I also would read every gun rag I could get my hands on for the first 6 years I was shooting. Through this gathering of information I incorporated much of what I read into my practice sessions at the range.

What can I say, though I wish I had more training, I hope that if the situation ever arises I will be able to stop any threat to myself and my family, friends, and fellow citizens (where applicable).

 

[browningguy]

I had some training in the military, NRA shooting since I was 8, and as a member of the 55+ group I still shoot IDPA a bit. I would not spend the money on current "tactical" training. To be honest I see most of the courses advertised for SEAL wannabes, if you think the world is going to end next week then maybe it will come in handy, but for all the rest of us not so much. Unless you are going to be serving in the military (or the police) the chance of being in a firefight, with 10 assailants, at night, when you happen to have your carbine and pistol on you, is vanishingly small. Even when I watch the "tactical" TV shows I almost laugh, the instructors shoot their targets and then swivel their heads back and forth a couple of times to pretend they are doing threat assessment, I even see guys doing this at the range. They take a shot at a target, pull the pistol back in close, then swivel their heads. They have absolutely no idea what to look for but it is what they were trained to do. Maybe what you should do is shoot the targets then make tracks for the closest cover where you can dial 911, not stand in the open bobbing your head around.

I think most people, after learning basic shooting skills, would be much better off to learn situational awareness. Ayoob, though he often goes way overboard, at least does teach this. The bit he did a while back where he drives around the bank parking lot a couple of times before pulling up to the ATM may be a bit much but at least the ideas are sound.

I have absolutely no problem if people want to attend these types of courses. Some will teach you valuable skills, some are probably going to get you in trouble in a real fight, but you also have to keep practicing those skills if you want them to remain ingrained.

 

[Old krow]

But very -- VERY -- little that the military teaches soldiers is applicable on the streets

I'm not arguing the point about a formal class as I think that they are a great idea, but I think that there are some specific lessons learned in Mil/LE that are difficult to achieve in a short formal class (or even multiple classes) and are applicable on the streets.

One being situational awareness. They preach that until you're willing to cut your own ears off... or at least that was my case. In some cases, people actually have to live by this. Not that everyone pays attention or abides by the training, but it is there and is applicable. It's a very important factor in defense. While a formal class may or may not teach it (I'm sure many do) it isn't quite as effective as it could be being a habitual routine. If someone finds it a different way then that's great, but they give it away there.

IMHO boot camp was "functioning under sleep deprivation 101." Children were of course the follow on courses.

I understood your post, and I agree. It's sort of splitting hairs, but I think that the extremes of the argument (the bigger one) about the high dollar guns and no experience vs practical always leaves out that key component.

My official answer to the OP's questions, yes, I do see it as a wise investment. No, I have not had any of the classes that you mentioned. I do plan on taking a few, at lest one in the near future. And, I agree with your assessment about the emphasis on the amount on the guns vs. training.

 

[Sam1911]

One being situational awareness. They preach that until you're willing to cut your own ears off... or at least that was my case.

That is an interesting point. (I don't have the benefit of that experience to be able to compare.) Do you feel that the situational awareness cues they taught transferred well to civilian life outside of a war zone? i.e: identifying criminal actors and their traps vs. military operations, ambushes etc.?

 

[Old krow]

That is an interesting point. (I don't have the benefit of that experience to be able to compare.) Do you feel that the situational awareness cues they taught transferred well to civilian life outside of a war zone? i.e: identifying criminal actors and their traps vs. military operations, ambushes etc.?

First, a quote that applies to all training;
"a teacher merely cooperates with the learning principle inside of a student." I might have butchered that, but the idea is still the same.

If you're speaking of the "cues" specifically, in some cases yes, but in many it would be no. I was referring more to the thought process that goes into it as the "battlefield vs. criminal" are really just different variables of the same equation. Somebody wants to hurt you.

"Am I vulnerable?", "How?", "What's my plan?", "What's my back up plan?", "Do I stand out? (Am I making myself a target)", "Why?", "Egress?", "Fight or flight?"
There's a list of questions that apply.

One example that I use from time to time is car tags. Is a teacher with an "Educator" tag on their car more or less vulnerable stopping at Wal-Mart on their way home from work in the afternoon or on Saturday morning? (It may differ in other states).

In that sense of the use, yes, I think that it applies on or off the battlefield. In either case, my goal is to gain the tactical advantage over the BG (and live through the altercation).Life in general has a tendency of being a good teacher provided the terms of the quote are met.

 

[Sky]

Age has something to do with it also. If you are over sixty and never had to defend yourself stateside with a weapon then your mind set may be different than a younger man.

My reaction time is still pretty good (if I am generous in my critique) but my vision unless wearing granny glasses I can't even see the front sight. Nighttime I have the crimsontrace laser or a night scope on a rifle.

Up until about 45/48 I felt I could hold my own. Started seeing feeling degradation of muscle mass and stamina/reaction times around 57. I was lucky everyone thought I was in my late 40s because I was still in shape ( no Beer belly ). From 60 to 62 has been like ten years condensed. I was not aware of things until I actually tested myself and found that simple things are not as my "mental image of self" still accurate. Looking in the mirror doesn't help either.

Put it this way if I can't take a mugger out in the first 30 seconds then I am probably gonna lose. Will I try "you can bet your ??"! One thing war does teach you is just how fragile and lucky you are to live a life, many don't.

I grew up on a farm hunting and protecting live stock and went into the Army in 6-68..Did 4 years in S.E. Asia two of which were very enjoyable.

Survival schools, POW schools all kinds of schools and you know very little was ever put to practical use.

Mind set and confidence in a given situation is probably the most important skill learned. Also the ability to accept death and take as many BGs with you as you can helps. They used to call it the 1000 yard stare but all that meant was and individual knew there was no way he could live through another month like his last month/week/day. They knew this in their soul and were no longer afraid for they were in many ways resigned to their own mortality (dead already) and wanted to make their last breath count.

Usually things happen unexpectedly and if you survived the first thought of "What da" then IF you have a MEANS and the WILL you might just prevail.


For all of us it would be beneficial to attend any course that can enhance our skills but at this age I am running at about 75% power when all things are considered.

Obviously it is a young mans world for fighting.

I try to go to the range at least once a month and usually go Jack Rabbit or Hog hunting once or twice a month with a night scope. It's cooler and more of a challenge.

Now that I have rambled will I be attending a self defense course, probably not. Do I want to? Not really. Would I learn something new...I am sure I would....would the new knowledge ever be used in a real situation...probably no more than a good sand wedge.

Now having said all that in a total shtf scenario it will be just like a war where the bad guys are really bad and you don't want to be captured nailed to a tree and skinned alive with very important pieces of you body removed with a dull knife.

Expend your rounds and make them count but save the last one for yourself.

In my younger days and a really big nuke war I always felt I could survive by cunning and "daring do" but now I wounder if the lucky ones are the people at ground zero?

Just a different mind set; once I had an old guy WWll vet say some of the same things to me. I thought what a defeatist attitude and a way of thinking I could never accept! Now that I am older I can understand his reasoning.

 

[happygeek]

Does Appleseed count? They were having one less than a 2 hour drive away 3 weeks ago and it was free for me. Tried, and failed, to get the wife to partake. I learned a LOT in a day and a half.

I've had one tactical rifle & pistol class, no I don't think it translates all that well into civilian life. I suppose if you live in a house where you're not worried about 5.56 rounds hitting your neighbors and keep a rifle next to your bed then it'd help. But it was still an excellent learning experience and was a bit of fun over the course of a week and a half, and hey, it was free.

I have yet to actually pay for training, other than the gas to get to Appleseed and the hotel, so I can't say if it was worth it. Both classes were definitely a good learning experience though.

As far as the proverbial question as to whether you need training, I'm sure the people who make a living instructing would say yes. The NRA's magazine has self defense stories every month, wonder how many of those people had formal training and if so how much?

 

[Bovice]

Posted by Al Thompson:

Tiger McKee diagnosed and cured several systemic problems I had and showed me training practices that allowed me to keep those problems at bay.

Tiger McKee: STAWWWP DRAWWWP THE WEEAPON NEAAOW!!!

I loved how when he was on PDtv on sportsman's channel, he'd always issue the warning "stop, drop the weapon NOW" to the target first, but only a split second before shooting it three times. As soon as he finished the sentence, the first round was already on the way. I don't think I could drop a hot iron that fast! Hahahaha

I've had quite a bit of formal training starting about 7 months ago. I've gotten MUCH better all around as a shooter because of it, both defensively and in the marksmanship department.

When I shoot on a square range I think to myself, "wow, I have SO much time to make this shot!" and my hits with a handgun rarely ever make more than one tangerine-sized hole from 15 yards away.

I did an IDPA match for fun (I've since joined officially) and one scenario involved shooting targets at varying ranges from about 7-8 yards out to about 40, and I didn't miss any. I shot it in damn near the best time of the day, too. Also had a steel stage: a 5 plate wheel, a plate rack with 8 (I think 8) and a second 5 plate wheel (the things that start moving once a plate drops off). I've never shot steel in my life, much less a revolving wheel. I didn't miss ANY shots there either. Each one connected and dropped a plate. I firmly believe that my training helped me do that, because it sure as hell wasn't experience from competing. When the rules and such for the stages got too far-fetched and complicated, I got procedurals left and right. Oh well.

 

[Mudinyeri]

I would not spend the money on current "tactical" training. To be honest I see most of the courses advertised for SEAL wannabes, if you think the world is going to end next week then maybe it will come in handy, but for all the rest of us not so much.

I've been to several civilian defense, gunfighting courses and I wouldn't characterize any of them as being targeted to SEAL wannabes. Maybe you're just looking in the wrong place for training?

I have no desire to relive my "glory days" from my time in the Army, but I do like to learn new techniques and keep the rust off of my old skills. The civilian training that I participate in accomplishes both those goals.

 

[xcgates]

I have not, but am considering something along those lines in the future.

If I get anywhere near the benefit out of such a class as I did out of a couple of the defensive driving/track day schools, it will be money well spent.