How Much Training is "Enough"?

[Matthew Temkin]

I have been thinking long and hard about this topic.
When I teach my armed guard classes I assume that most of them will not seek out additional training so I try to give them as much as I can withinn 20 hours or so.
Someone recently sent me this PM and I think that his ideas cover a lot of common ground.
So..here it is...

Matt...Of course, safety, i.e. safe gun handling is the top priority. Which guns are best for their defense needs. I suspect you and I will not agree on this, but I'm simply not a revolver fan as a defensive weapon. They need to understand the operation of various types of guns including DA/SA revolvers, DAO revolvers, DA/SA semis, DAO, and SA semis. They need to know the proper use of safeties and the different types. Hopefully this will help them identify a suitable gun for them.

Holsters - if they are going to carry, they need to know the wide range of holsters and carry methods.

They should learn how to determine if a gun is loaded or not, how to store a gun both short term and long term, how to properly and safely clean a gun, how to properly lube the gun, of course defensive shooting, I think as much of that as can be accomadated should be.

They should learn how to load and unload their gun, but I would set speed reloading at a very low level. I just don't believe they'll be reloading in a gunfight. That's why I don't favor revolvers, they just don't hold enough ammo.

They need to know the difference in defensive ammo and range ammo.

They need know proper shooting stance and grip.

I think they need to learn basic tactics, esp. using concealment and cover and how important it is to stay there and not let the BG lure them out into the open.

They should get some experience shooting around cover/concealment and should at least see a demo about penetration and why first hand why inside residential walls are not cover.

They should be able to identify trouble spots in their homes, places they can't see and places that would provide cover like book cases filled with books and file cabinets filled with paper with emphasis on they have to have the books and paper to stop a bullet.

It might be a good idea to ask them to bring a sketch of their home floor plan so you could go over specific features of their homes.

A light. It's probably not important to have some kind of tactical light. I think sometimes average, non-gun people are a little intimidated and baffled by all the high speed low drag terminology and gear. They just need to think about how they would manage a gun and light if they had to and proper uses of the light. The most important thing to me, is to have a light and know someway to use it with their gun without producing a UD.

For outside the home, how to identify and avoid a threat or threat area, how to respond to strangers that approach them and especially that one may try to get their attention while another tries to come up from a blind side.

Of course emphasis on E&E - evade and escape - only fight if they have to.

Mathew, I don't think you'll have much success with moving while shooting. It's just too much at this level. I'd suggest move and shoot instead.

Emphasize the fallacy of shooting it out with a BG in close quarters. Emphasize how many shots it may take to neutralize the threat and of course where shots need to go.

I think esp. important is to help them understand BGs do not think like GGs. You have to make them realize the nature of the threat.

 

[XLMiguel]

Good post. IIRC, I was reading Lawdog's blog and picked up a line I tihnk he attributed to the Preacherman, it went like this-

"An amateur will practice until he gets it right, a professional will practice until he can't get it wrong"

How professional you want to become is up to you, but no one should be an amateur if they CCW, JMO.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Matt,

I don't think a professional instructor should ever label some objective level of training as "enough"..... the goal should always be to get better or make our students better... for me, that usually means more efficient in an ever expanding variety of endeavors. The list of skill sets you outline are common ones that we think of, but there are always others that could come in handy or ways of combining them in training and development. The focus of training should start with fundamentals and expand constantly as comfort levels are increased..."Train most of the time for what is most likely to happen," but you shouldn't limit yourself to the fundamentals only.

I start all my courses with a short speech about "Safety, Comfort and Competency"... part of that presentation is the fact that Competency is the responsibility of the student and that I feel it is irresponsible for an instructor to set an objective performance level as a goal at the beginning of the class. Without working with the students, an objective goal set could be below the current ability level (and therefore not push the student or motivate them) or beyond their capabilities (leading to an eventual sense of frustration, despite the fact that the student's skill may have increased in some way). My goal is for all of the students to improve significantly during any course as individuals.

(added after further thought) : I also think it is important to progress from mimicking mechanics and/or processes to understanding principles and concepts and how to apply them in context... for example: the answer isn't "how many shots to shoot" it is to understand that you can never know how many shots it will take and develop appropriate training and response models that incorporate that fact.

It is up to the student to decide when they feel they have invested enough time and effort in their training....but, if they ask me if they've trained "enough", my answer will always be "no". I may run out of things to offer a student at some point, but that still won't mean that they have trained "enough." Everyone should be constantly striving to better themselves or they are wasting potential. As Gandhi said, "learn like you are going to live forever....."*

Earlier this evening I started reading a book about tactical training published in 1995 that I have owned for about 6 months.... I should have read it 12 years ago...but, I didn't know that until about an hour ago. If I had assumed that because I knew "enough" to have successfully brought a book on the same topic to market, I wouldn't have taken this opportunity to learn more and get better at my job.

XLm,

If anyone truly thinks they "can't get it wrong" they are living a fantasy. Hopefully, those who are trying to live by that phrase understand that truism and are using the phrase to motivate them to never stop progressing.

-RJP

*-I also try to exemplify the second half of that quote from Ghandi, "... live like you will die tomorrow."

 

[Fred Fuller]

Matt,

When the state of the art stops moving, we can assume there is such a thing as 'enough training.' Until there are no new developments in hardware, no new tactics brought to light, no more lessons learned etc. there is no such thing as 'enough training.'

Everyone I know that I have respect for is a perpetual student. And I mean EVERYONE. I've had the great good fortune to work with a number of the biggest names in the business in the past two years, and I didn't see any of them skip out on the opportunity to learn- from each other, from their students, from circumstances. Good instructors are first and foremost good students always, and so are good practitioners.

I'd assume for anyone training security guards there is a mandated POI (program of instruction) that has to be followed. That sets the minimum level of training, but not the maximum. Naturally a lot of people are reluctant to go further than minimum requirements, if for no other reason than it's more work and expense for them to provide training beyond the minimum required.

I'm not that hardware focused, and I see nothing wrong with revolvers (I carry one every day). Getting students who are new shooters to master the manipulation of whatever they are carrying is a good enough starting point IMHO. Yes, a well rounded shooter should be able to handle any relatively common firearm that comes to hand- at least to the point of rendering it safe, if not loading, unloading, and shooting safely as well. But that isn't something you're going to get done in 20 hours, even if you spent the whole time on just that.

I may be a dinosaur but I firmly believe that a person who has an excellent skillset can do perfectly well with pretty much any reliable hardware. I don't think looking to hardware is any way to 'fix' software problems. Anyone who fumbles a reload under pressure with an autopistol and a spare magazine is going to be in the same boat if they're carrying a wheelgun and a speedloader. More misses thanks to a larger capacity magazine are not the solution to jangled nerves, snatched triggers, etc.

Good topic, thanks for the thread...

lpl/nc

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Thanks for the responses.
I too am a perpetual student of all aspects of self defense.
Which I have been studying since I was 12 years old. ( I just turned 55, so it has been awhile)
I have quite a few friends who are in police work--many as instructors--and we meet quite often to compare notes.
I have given a lot of free point shooting instruction to military and LE officers which was repaid by them sharing their insights with me.
I also teach for free at police conferences which allows me access to the other course being presented.
I am also an avid reader of books, magazine articles and internet venues of self defense/tactics and have watched more VHS/DVD's than I care to admit.
I also attend formal training as a student and find it rewarding being on the other side of the whistle--especially when one finds a gifted teacher who teaches good stuff.
Nothing special in the above, BTW, since it also applies applies to many others on this and other forums.
But--we are the exceptions.
I love to train and research but I am fully aware that many do not share my passion.
And they still need quality instruction.
Therefore, there must be a limit where we can feel comfortable that our students stand a fighting chance in most situations.
The thread starter is a PM that I received on CombatCarry forum in response to my question.
In my armed guard classes I begin with the history of handguns--from flintlocks to semi autos--and then go into gun safety, gun cleaning, basic marksmanship, use of cover, point shooting, ammo selection, holster selection, weapon retention, taking a suspect at gun point, how to interact with responding police, basic H2H skills, the importance of awareness, use of O.C and I finish up with either FOF with airsoft or use of two Shoot-Don't Shoot videos.
We also cover the legal aspects of self defense and I try my hardest to show them how dangerous it can be to take action that they really have no business getting involved in.
If time permits I will also include the basic use of the pump action shotgun.
All of these topics, BTW, are included in the States extensive course outline for training armed guards.
I would love for my people to avail themselves of more training, yet I understand that for many this will not be so.
Which is the same, I am told, for many police recruits.
So in this imperfect world I can sleep at night knowing that I have done my best to prepare them for the worst.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Understood, Matt... One of the challenges I have with the book and video work is often deciding when "enough is enough" in terms of topics or depth in any given presentation. Similarly, I also end up in lengthy discussions in the forums sometimes because of my interest in constantly developing a point, as opposed to just saying "enough"!

I find the same thing with some of my staff and adjunct instructors when they are teaching a given course and end up wanting to cover a topic not necessarily in the curriculum for that course, but related to a student question or problem... the discipline from the instructor side to stay "on topic" has to be balanced with the ability to recognize when it is appropriate to go "off topic".

Specific to your issue, I do not teach courses that meet the CO minimum standards for CCW Permits because I think the statutes are GREAT from a RKBA view but horrendous from a training view (the statute simply calls only for a "demonstration of competency" with a firearm to a qualified instructor). If someone wants a Valhalla endorsement for their permit, they need to perform adequately in a 2 or 3 day Concealed Carry Tactics class to get our endorsement in order for me to sleep well at night.

-RJP

 

[sacp81170a]

One of the challenges I have with the book and video work is often deciding when "enough is enough" in terms of topics or depth in any given presentation.

It's also a challenge when trying to teach technique. Over the years I've had as a martial arts instructor I've learned that teaching advanced technique to someone who hasn't learned the basics is pretty much useless. "Milk before meat" is the saying that applies here. If you ask anyone who has mastered any skillset or art what they practice, the answer is always, "basics, basics, basics."

Part of the art of being an instructor is being able to gauge the readiness of your students to learn something new. It's always a balancing act between their boredom and stagnation and keeping them interested. The best illustration I can give them is my first Tang Soo Do class after I earned my 1st Dan. My instructor then, Will Baity, greeted me with "Now we go back and learn how to do everything right." Talk about a letdown.

He was absolutely correct, however. Things I had thought I was doing perfectly were now being held to a much higher standard. I tell my students now that the highest standard of all is actual conflict, and that's what we're training for. How much training in the basics is enough? There is never enough training in the basics.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Part of the art of being an instructor is being able to gauge the readiness of your students to learn something new. It's always a balancing act between their boredom and stagnation and keeping them interested.

That's what makes the choices of what to include and what to omit in the book and videos so tough... no student feedback to influence pacing or content!

-RJP

 

[MostlyGenius]

"If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum."

We as practitioners, trainers, and/or professionals might rightfully seek constant improvement in our knowledge and techniques, but this is not the course that most people are going to follow. There is a big difference between people who want to be there and people who have to be there.

All training should be designed around the available resources and the desired end state. There is a limit to how much can get crammed into a 20 hour block, and still be educational - it is not the amount of material you expose them too, but the amount that they absorb.

Looking at something like an armed guard program I would look at the needs an desires of the employer: they don't want gunfighters, they want people who can reduce their liability. There is probably a qualification requirement so the fact is that you will be spending most of you time getting them to shoot well enough to pass the qualification. If I had my chioice, gun safety and use of force decision making would be my focus and I would tie that into marksmanship (i.e. don't shoot at what you can't hit) and some appropriate tactics (that take into account they are probably not very good shooters, and the situations where they will be shooting.)

 

[Mannlicher]

Look at what happens during the deployment of any US Navy Carrier task force. They practice night and day. The safety and security of not only that Carrier Task Force is at stake, but also the safety and security of America as well.
Good example to follow.

 

[Rob Pincus]

MostlyG,

I'm not sure if you think your opening line is a true statement or not, but I think it is incredibly naive. It is a sheepish opinion at best and leads to complacency.

-RJP

 

[Jeff White]

Train to standard not to time. A program that is time oriented needs to have a minimum goal. If you have 20 hours, decide what task absolutely must be trained in that 20 hours. Then plan 40 hours of tasks to go with it.

No two groups of students will start with the same skill level and the skill level among students in the same class will vary. You can only train as fast as your worst student can absorb the information. It may take you all 20 hours to get the minimum required task trained to standard or you may get 8 hours into the extra 40 hours of training you prepared.

The important thing though, is that you train to a standard not time.

Decide what your students must know at the end of the 20 hours. Plan to teach them more, but never move on to the next task until they can complete the current task to standard.

Jeff

 

[Rob Pincus]

Jeff,

What of the students who can't reach that standard? What of the ones who are already there when you start the class?

Individuals are annoyingly individual. . In the LE or Mil world, you can (must?) set an objective standard, but we know that those standards have to be notoriously low in order to keep officers on the streets and the ranks full. In the private sector we have the luxury of not being beholden to bureaucracy, so I prefer not to set a standard, but to push every student to get as much out of any training session as possible as individuals. My course outline is a guide, but the needs and abilities of the students are important.

When I start a class, I probably know 95+% of what I'm going to put out, but the last parts of the class come from the students... their questions, comments, concerns, problems, interests, gear, jobs, abilities and various other factors flavor every class, to include the levels of competency achieved by each individual.

You can, of course, decide what you will teach in a given period of time, but we cannot guess, choose or decide what the students will actually know or be able to do after a session.
"More than they did before it started.... as much more as possible" is my standard.

-RJP

 

[Jeff White]

Rob,
If you don't set a standard for the bare minimum of what a student successfully took from your class, how would you be able to testify as to what he was taught and what standard he met should he be involved in a shooting and you were subpoenaed?

I'm probably looking at this from a much different perspective as I've only formally taught civilians once. I've taken several open shooting classes and there was always a standard to meet.

Jeff

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Every armed guard class is different due to student makeup.
My best class was a few years back where all 10 of the students were either former military or ex LEO's.
In that class I was able to cram over 40 hours of material into the 20 hour format.
Other classes were packed with former Soviet Republic/ Bloc combat vets who had recently moved to NYC and I learned more from them than they probably learned from me.
Of course I do get a class of raw beginners who have no are not exactly on the bright side and those are times that I really earn my pay because the classes are not fun for me.
In my head I do have a bare bones standard but, happily, I am usually able to add a lot more due to a bunch of sharp students.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Jeff,

First, I teach for Critical Incidents, not for court. I won't testify that a student met an objective standard, I will testify to the fundamental concepts that were taught and justify them. I don't technically "certify" the general student. Testifying as to what was taught is relatively easy, testifying as to what a student learned is impossible. I would have no integrity if I ran a standard LE type qual course at the end of a pistol class and made any reference to the hit percentage in that static environment as having anything to do with a real shooting.
I do run qualifications for LE agencies and certify instructors. For the former, I test to the standard of the agency and would testify to that fact if called to do so. In the latter case, it is not easy to get certified as a CFS Instructor, so I would have no problem testifying on behalf of those guys and I have both a written test that they scored better than 90% on and a video demonstration of their ability to teach the material to a standard acceptable to me.

Secondly, I find those end of class exercises that used to be much more common in this industry to be largely "feel good" exercises and/or thinly veiled marketing. If you "pass" Shooter 1, you can come back and take "Shooter 2" ! If not, golly-gee, you better think about taking "Shooter 1" again! . That is certainly not always the case, but it is the Martial Arts Belt Color business model that has been seen a lot in the firearms training industry.

It is the reason you will never see an "Advanced Combat Focus Shooting" course... you can take the CFS course every year and constantly push yourself to improve. The fact is that only a few people have ever taken the course more than once, because the principles can be applied without an instructor standing by and the limited time/money for training can be applied to tactics oriented courses or training from other points of view, both of which offer new contexts in which to apply the principles learned in the fundamental course(s).
The most advanced CFS course was the the last one taught and the program will constantly evolve. The CFS book, for example, was published 11 months ago and I just took delivery of the 5th printing last week... it is the 4th major revision. I've already had comments about inconsistencies between the CFS video taped last April and one or more versions of the book.... it is a problem I will face constantly with a program that refuses to be static and ignore better information, explanations, drills and/or expressions.

-RJP

 

[absolut_beethoven]

How Much Training is "Enough"?

An oblique answer from an ex boss of mine from when I worked in the jewelry industry many years ago.

I asked him about the extensive (almost excessive IMHO) security in his place and his response was "it's much better to have too much rather than sadly find out later that you didn't have enough!"

 

[sacp81170a]

Martial Arts Belt Color business model that has been seen a lot in the firearms training industry.

Sadly, the original purpose of the "Belt Color" standard has been completely lost in some areas of the martial arts and that very same mentality is in danger of being implemented in the firearms training industry. Unfortunately, as in "martial arts" tournaments, the only place the skills you learn really count is the street. I have yet to be attacked by a punching bag or a paper target on a stand...

The problem comes in when you have to go to court and justify someone's actions. Juries and judges would much rather have convenient labels to apply to basic questions, thus, "Sharpshooter", "Expert" and the whole subject of being "qualified". The way my department gets around this problem is to have yearly "range qualifications" to state prescribed standards and then tactical training by qualified instructors. Who defines who is a "qualified instructor"? Well, often that qualification takes the form of a certificate from a professional training facility. Hopefully, that instructor can teach you things that will help keep you alive on the street, but the only real way to test that training is to engage in dangerous, possibly illegal (and certainly fraught with legal consequences) activity on the street. Thus the age old conundrum.

I just figure I'll take away from a class what works and makes sense for me and be happy with that. Hmmm, didn't Bruce Lee say, "Use what works"? The funny thing is, the more I train, the more things work for me...

 

[MostlyGenius]

RobP:
"If the minimum wasn't good enough it wouldn't be the minimum."

Not at all naive. There is no sort of credential without a test. A test has a passing score. If there is no objective standard: a PT test, marksmanship qualification, or what have you there is no way to determine if the personnel are 'trained.' A purely subjective training program like the one that you have outlined might work well for individuals but organizations can't really operate with that. Nobody said anything about what the minimums need to be either: Federal Air Marshals have a higher minimum standard than the average state CPL class. Unfortunately, if you teach anything other than private citizens you will rarely get to set what the standard is going to be.

Again, while serious practitioners will work for constant improvement, many people attending 'required training' are looking to check the block. I have met a whole lot of police officers that shoot no more than is necessary for passing qualification.


JeffW:
"Train to standard not to time"

I agree with what you are saying about this, but time is generally one of the resource constraints. The military gets away with saying things like this because I doesn't cost them anything, the resources have already been purchased. They don't have to pay the instructors (or students) extra for another day on the range.

 

[Jeff White]

I agree with what you are saying about this, but time is generally one of the resource constraints. The military gets away with saying things like this because I doesn't cost them anything, the resources have already been purchased. They don't have to pay the instructors (or students) extra for another day on the range.

Time is a resource constraint in the military too. Try to accomplish meaningful training in the reserve components. If you don't have a standard, a goal to meet when you start, how will you ever know what to train on, when you've succeeded and are ready to move on to the next task, and also as important, when to retrain.

I think that you need to take the available time that you, the available resources, use your experience to decide what tasks you can reasonably train to standard in that time and prepare additional training to utilize any extra time in case you have an exceptional class and you complete your goals early.

Bureaucrats love to write training requirements out in hours. Why because they are too lazy to sit down and actually quantify what it is they want the student to be able to do at the end of the training. So we get things like 40 hours basic firearms training, 24 hours defensive tactics, 8 hours hazardous materials.....it goes on and on.

In reality, just about every skill we want someone to learn can be broken down into a task, condition and standard. If the task you want to train is too complicated to quantify in that way it's probably composed of subtasks that you can quantify. We do this all the time with something as simple as present your pistol. You break that task down to a by the numbers presentation and each step can be quantified. And you can grade each students perfomance on the task.

There doesn't need to be a belt system, with multiple levels of competence. I've found that when it comes to shooting and self defense skills, there aren't really any super-secret advanced techniques, there are just people who are really, really good at the basics. I don't see different levels, I see different classes for different techniques. You can't cover all that many tasks and train them to any kind of standard in 24 hours which seems to be the length of most civilian shooting/defensive tactics schools. You can however get enough correct repetitions of a few tasks that you've built a foundation for the student to conduct sustainment training on.

Jeff

 

[MostlyGenius]

Jeff:

Agreed. What I am saying about the military is that you push off some of the remedial training to the NCO's, or keep running the drills until the wee hours circumstances permitting.

Course hours of instruction is used to measure things that aren't easily quantified, but it is an artificial metric. What we loose sight of is that the administrators generally have very little experience with the subjects that they are overseeing, and that the big picture is made up of small details.

Belt systems don't even work in the martial arts.

 

[sacp81170a]

I've found that when it comes to shooting and self defense skills, there aren't really any super-secret advanced techniques, there are just people who are really, really good at the basics.

Jeff:

Shhh, you'll give away the big secret if you're not careful...

MostlyG:

Belt systems don't even work in the martial arts.

They do if they're not artificially inflated, but that's where the problem lies. Anytime I see someone who earned their "black belt" in 2 years I've generally found that their basics aren't up to snuff. 6 years of training(and I mean training every day, whether in class or not) is really more like it. I've learned not to ask about belt rank but rather how long and how often a person has been training.

 

[MostlyGenius]

They do if they're not artificially inflated, but that's where the problem lies.

So I guess we can say that belts don't work as system of credentials. There is little comparison within a given martial art, let alone across martial arts for belt ranks. The only value they have is within a particular club, school, or set of individuals, otherwise the standards are not the same.

 

[sacp81170a]

So I guess we can say that belts don't work as system of credentials. There is little comparison within a given martial art, let alone across martial arts for belt ranks. The only value they have is within a particular club, school, or set of individuals, otherwise the standards are not the same.

Essentially, you're correct. It didn't used to be such a rainbow of colors when colors were first implemented. It was usually white, brown and black. Then you had Western students who, when they asked the question "How long will it take to get my black belt" didn't like the usual answer of "Depends on how hard you train, but maybe 5 or 6 years if you work hard." Inflation proceeded from there because of the profit motive.

That's the risk we run with "certifications" from this or that training facility. The skills are perishable, and unless they're constantly practiced they deteriorate, so me taking a class at Gunsite 5 years ago really shouldn't impress anyone if it's the only training I've done in that 5 years.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Wayyyy too much time being spent worrying about testifying that never actually happens. The fear/concern/obsession people seem to have in this industry for worrying about getting sued is amazing considering the incredibly low number of instructors who have ever been on the stand (public or private sector) in the hypothetical situations that are constantly posed.

I'll stick to teaching students how to defend themselves as best I can and worry about court if the day ever comes. I could not look myself in the mirror or make any claim to integrity if I was doing anything else. I teach what works, I teach and talk about the context for the use of those skills. I trust that is good enough. I take my responsibility to impart valuable skills and knowledge much more seriously than I take the idea that I'll be able to placate a jury with a test that has little or nothing to do with a defensive incident.
If students are just going to a class to get a certificate or gain some magic title, there are other instructors out there who will supply that service.

Given my record, you're more likely to see me on the stand stating that traditional qualification courses are close to worthless in terms of verifying or predicting actual defensive firearms ability.

Keep in mind that I've been through a lot of this as a student and have been repeatedly frustrated, disappointed and even ocassionally embarrassed by the "tests" or the "certificate" I was given. When some students are given 3 chances to shoot a CoF, event though the instructor stated that everyone had to pass the first time to get certified (in the most recent case, as an "instructor!"), my certificate becomes worthless. When the course is slated for 8 hours, starts at 9am, features a 1.5 hr lunch and 5 breaks of 10-20 minutes and then ends at 4pm so the guys at the other end of the state from the academy don't go into unpaid overtime, the course credit hours are a joke. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.