Is Experience A Valid Criteria When Selecting An Instructor?

[Trunk Monkey]

Just read an article about the proper way to use a "Tactical" flashlight in a house. The (unknown) author made it quite clear that not using his preferred brand of flashlight (Surefire, 200 lumens or less) would guarantee that you would become a "bullet magnet" (his words? The very first time you tried to clear a house.

He went on to talk about "How things work in the real world" and how tactical teams as SWAT does it.

At this point I had to stop and ask myself "Well now wait a second how much real world experience do you actually have?" Again, I have no way of judging this because I don't know who the author is but it made me stop and think am I going to learn more from the instructor has been to all the schools and had all the tactical classes and has all the certification but has never been shot at or someone who has actual combat/police/been through a mugging and survived experience.

I'd much rather learn the ins and outs of "Tactical" flashlights from someone who's had to clear a house or 2

As an example I want to tender the training class given by 3 instructors to who invented gun site numerous times and one who'd been to Iraq and Afghanistan numerous times.

The school trained instructors had some good ideas and some good techniques and they were good shots but every so often they did say something and the vet would be like "That's really not a good idea you don't want to do that in a real fight." And I have to admit when he explained why that wasn't real good idea it made sense every time

 

[Jeff White]

I going to learn more from the instructor has been to all the schools and had all the tactical classes and has all the certification but has never been shot at or someone who has actual combat/police/been through a mugging and survived experience.

The only possible answer is; it depends. It depends on what skills you want to learn. You probably won't need someone with combat or LE experience to teach you the fundamentals and mechanics of shooting. If you are wanting an instructor to teach tactics, you probably want one who has that experience.

But even then it's not necessary if the instructor is well grounded in current doctrine on the subject. The American military that rolled over the Iraqi army in 1991 was trained and led at the small unit level for the most part by people who had never seen combat. Most of the Vietnam veterans were either at the end of their careers in senior leadership positions or no longer serving by the time the first gulf war came along. But the institutional knowledge and the evolution of new doctrine that was for the most part developed by people who had combat experience produced a very capable force. An instructor has to be competent in his/her subject matter and he/she must know how to effectively teach that to others.

There are people with all kinds of experience and some of them are good instructors and some aren't. I would not choose an instructor based solely on his/her experience. Not everyone's experience in the military or LE is equal. And there are just as many people with the attitude that there is only one way to do something (i.e. your unnamed author who insisted you'd surely die unless you used a Surefire light with under 200 lumens) in those professions as there are in every other profession. Then there are those who may have gotten away with using an unsound tactic, technique or procedure in the real world who will now swear the book is wrong and their way is the only way because it worked for them the time they used it. There is a huge luck factor in military or LE tactical operations and just because something worked once, doesn't mean it's now doctrine.

There are also a lot of people with a lot of experience and knowledge but they don't have a clue about how to effectively teach someone else what they know.

So, it depends. In my opinion, experience is simply one factor to consider when choosing an instructor.

 

[Sam1911]

am I going to learn more from the instructor has been to all the schools and had all the tactical classes and has all the certification but has never been shot at or someone who has actual combat/police/been through a mugging and survived experience.

This is an important question and it comes up every once in a while here. Are you better off learning from a good teacher who is well educated in these subjects and knowledgeable, but who hasn't been in combat or actually shot anyone, or from someone who's been shot at and/or been in a combat theater?

Truth is, for all but a very few individuals, being shot at and shooting people is a VERY rare situation. Once in a lifetime is far more than the average. That goes for police officers and military personnel as well.

What does that once (or a handful) in a lifetime event teach that person, so that they can then teach you? It doesn't teach them technique. It doesn't teach them the law. It doesn't teach them to understand the criminal mind. It can trick them into a false sense of assurance that the (very possibly BAD) action they took or technique they used was a good one, just because they were lucky enough to get away with it.

It can teach them how they, personally, react to fear and adrenaline, and that might be useful for you to hear. But what are you paying for?

What is this instructor's real world experience, exactly, and how does it relate to ME and what I need to know? A lot of military guys don't have much relevant information about civilian self-defense in the peacetime USA. They don't understand the laws very well, they aren't used to working alone, the scenarios they've lived through aren't anything (much) like what you'd be in if mugged or your home is invaded.

They MAY have great lessons to teach, but you need to be critical in determining what value you will obtain from them.

I'll try to find one of our other great threads on this so you can read it.

 

[Sam1911]

Here's one: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=771594

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Trunk Monkey:

I'd much rather learn the ins and outs of "Tactical" flashlights from someone who's had to clear a house or 2

Sounds good, but the idea is terribly unrealistic.

The clearing of one or two houses cannot and will not teach that "clearer" what he and his team did right, what he and his team did wrong, why he and his team was successful, what might have happened to make his team fail, or much of anything else.

There are simply too many variables.

We really should should not be training for clearing houses anyway. We may want to use a flash light in a much more prudent hime defense situation, but the "ins and outs of tactical flashlights" might be just a little different in those situations.

The participant and the trainer will learn much more from repeated FoF exercises and/or other simulations.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Remember I didn't ask if experience was the prime criterium, I asked if it was a valid criterium.

With this specific example (which had nothing to do with shooting any one or being shot BTW) I was able to do some research and found out that the author has 20+ years of law enforcement experience and has had to use a flashlight while clearing numerous houses.

His contention was that you need to use a light that doesn't have a constant on switch or you'll you'll hit the button too hard and turn the light on thus rendering yourself a "bullet magnet".

When he wrote the article he didn't say "I've been doing the for 20 years and I've seen this happen." He just said "You need to do it this way." And I ended up asking myself if it was valid advice and I couldn't fully decide with out looking at his Cirriculum Vitae.

 

[Plan2Live]

As of today I have been unable to afford a John Farnum class but I have trained under an instructor who has taken many of Farnum's classes and is a good teacher. Am I getting inferior lessons because I'm not training directly under Farnum? I don't think so and apparently John doesn't either because he offers instructor level classes.

As for the flashlight comment, I'm guessing your instructor thinks no one has ever "froze up" while holding a Surefire in the on position.

 

[Jeff White]

I was able to do some research and found out that the author has 20+ years of law enforcement experience and has had to use a flashlight while clearing numerous houses.

His contention was that you need to use a light that doesn't have a constant on switch or you'll you'll hit the button too hard and turn the light on thus rendering yourself a "bullet magnet".

I would say that most clearing of homes and other buildings that is done by LE is done with a light that has a constant on switch. SWAT doesn't do the majority of building clearings. Patrol officers do. No department around here issues Surefire lights to the patrol officers. Of course the more savvy officers buy their own, but no one in my immediate area is issued one. So buildings are most often cleared with the Streamlights or rechargeable Maglights that are provided by the department.

My personal decision would be to not train with this instructor no matter what his experience was. He may have a lot to offer, but he's limiting himself by not accepting that there are circumstances that invalidate his "rule".

There are multiple techniques dating back 50 or more years for using lights other then the small Surefire type light. The Surefire type lights didn't even exist until the late 80s or early 90s. We obviously cleared buildings safely in the dark during the pre-Surefire era. I know because I did it. I'm here writing about it now so I must not have been killed.

A good instructor will teach you how to use the equipment you have. He may demonstrate why what you have might be inadequate, but he won't make a blanket statement like that unless the equipment a student brings to class is unsafe.

As for constant on lights and SWAT. There are agencies who use a "wall of light" during certain dynamic situations.

Tactics, techniques and procedures are situational dependent. The Infantry skills I learned and used during the Cold War were different then my son used in Iraq in 2005 and the ones he used in Afghanistan in 2012 were different then the ones he used in Iraq. A group of patrol officers clearing a structure after answering an alarm and finding an open door will be done differently then a SWAT team would. Few of the individual skills used in any of those situations are applicable to a private citizen.

 

[Sam1911]

And I ended up asking myself if it was valid advice and I couldn't fully decide with out looking at his Cirriculum Vitae.

Well in the case of that particular question, I think you could pretty easily come up with a decision about whether you consider his advice worth acting on or you don't. Looking at his CV isn't going to tell you all that much about whether that thing COULD happen to you, or whether it is likely to.

There is a lot of "I've been doing this for XX years and you should listen to me..." type talk that gets thrown around, often in lieu of good, sound logic, persuasion, or tests and examples to convince others of your argument's strength. In and of itself, longevity in a profession isn't proof of validity of opinion.

While I won't get into debunking the "bullet magnet" idea, I think you can see all sides of the question for yourself, and decide whether you think the idea holds merit or it does not, without knowing how long he's been doing this thing.

Remember I didn't ask if experience was the prime criterium, I asked if it was a valid criterium.

Only if that experience is directly applicable to your questions, and is broad and deep enough to be worth basing decisive answers on. If you can't verify that any more clearly than simply that the person giving you said advice followed a certain career for a long time, then you don't know much more than when you started.

Clearly...so very clearly...there are a lot of opinionated folks who've spent years in the same job. Deciding whether their advice is helpful to you or not is always an exercise left to the listener.

 

[strambo]

It is a valid criteria. The problem becomes finding the very few people with relevant combat experience who are also well trained and experienced instructors teaching courses open to your attendance.

Combat experience isn't necessary to learn 90+ percent of what you need in terms of marksmanship, gun handling, basic tactics and legal issues. For the other 10% save up and attend a course with one of the former "delta" types teaching.

I've had instruction from both and have found that good instructors with an armed professional background are solid whether they have been in a firefight themselves or not. A person who has only ever been a civilian may have great knowledge, but there is a risk of them having some unrealistic notions since they have never been "grounded" so to speak with military or LE professional training and honest evaluation of their skills and likely needed to use them.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Remember I didn't ask if experience was the prime criterium, I asked if it was a valid criterium.

I could be valid...if applicable to what you need. I would suggest that the prime criteria is the instructors ability to teach...note I wrote teach, not instruct.

Before he passed, I always thought of Paul Gomez as being a top tier instructor in the defensive use of firearms for private citizens...interestingly, he didn't have any real life experience in the use of deadly force as a private citizen. What he had was a lot of experience training with different techniques, the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the ability to teach to valid points

Survivors of deadly force encounters are seldom the best evaluator of good techniques, people who study those encounters from an uninvolved point of view draw much more valid teaching points

 

[Bobson]

Are you better off learning from a good teacher who is well educated in these subjects and knowledgeable, but who hasn't been in combat or actually shot anyone, or from someone who's been shot at and/or been in a combat theater [and who, in all likelihood, has less combat-related skill than Mr. Burgundy, above]?

I'd like to point out the potential further contrast in the two options above.

Being in combat doesn't qualify a person as a good teacher, nor does it mean the person in combat was even good at it. Frankly, at this point in our nation's history, we have a surplus of combat veterans who are complete idiots.

No disrespect to younger vets, because I'm one myself, but somebody needs to point out this truth. Just like not every guy who tosses a football is Tom Brady, not everyone who's been to combat has something worthwhile to teach you.

Does it hurt? Of course not. How could it? But it certainly doesn't automatically add validity to the guy's teaching. I wouldn't bother with it. Find an instructor based on his knowledge and credentials, which needn't include combat experience. If combat experience is a major emphasis to his program, I'd question what else he legitimately has to offer.

I would JUMP at the chance to learn from, say, a guy with ten years of Ranger experience/training but never saw combat, over a guy with 3-4 years Ranger experience/training who did see combat.

 

[strambo]

Good points Bobson, as a vet of the current conflicts myself I was going to say the same thing, but decided to take a different approach instead.

You are placing too much faith in "Ranger" training though!

 

[JohnKSa]

Experience may or may not make an instructor better. I look around and see lots of people with a good deal of experience who haven't managed to learn anything from the things that have happened to them.

I look around and see others who have very little experience but are able to learn a lot from watching the experiences of others.

If an instructor is a good instructor, more experience is better. But no amount of experience will make a poor instructor into a good one. I'd rather learn from an excellent instructor with no combat experience than a poor instructor who's got a lot of combat experience.

 

[Bobson]

Good points Bobson, as a vet of the current conflicts myself I was going to say the same thing, but decided to take a different approach instead.

You are placing too much faith in "Ranger" training though!

Perhaps, I admit. I was mostly using it as an example. I recognize that Ranger School is primarily a leadership development program, but the men who serve in battalion have my respect either way.

 

[1911 guy]

My primary criteria for selecting trainers is the answer to two questions:

Is part of their staff active law enforcement or military? An affirmative answer opens doors to them to stay "in the loop" on current methodology and tactics. A negative answer doesn't mean they stink, but it might mean they have less "ear to the ground" than some other instructor cadres.

How often do their instructors take classes at other schools? If someone says "Never, because we're the best", run hard, run fast, don't look back. They stink. However, an instructor cadre that is exposed to new methods and tactics will usually glean the best from many sources, filter that through what they know of best current practices and methodologies, and teach a very sound set of skills.

Having a combat vet, retired or active officer who was involved in a "good shoot", etc., isn't a bad thing. But it should not be the driver behind a choice of schools or trainers.

 

[Branko_D]

A combination of experience and being on top of current theoretical knowledge would be best, in my view. How to put it, any theory which has a sound basis has two parts, important things and fluff. Someone without practical experience can't tell what part is fluff or debatable and which part is truly important.

This is so in every human endeavor. Sure, with institutions such as the army you'll have doctrine - originally based on combat experience and lessons learned from it - passed on in usable enough condition. However, I can't recall any exercise which pit inexperienced troops vs experienced troops where the inexperienced troops won without some big advantage to level the field.

 

[Sam1911]

The "elephant in the room" here is something I brought up before: What are you paying this instructor to teach you?

A lot of folks are saying, "I'd train with someone with Ranger experience." Ok. Why? What are you going to pay him to teach you? Shooting? Well, ok, but that's not the point of Ranger school. Leadership, mission planning, and small group tactics? Ok, but I don't see any courses around that guys are rushing to sign up to learn that sort of thing -- AT ALL. Something about how to survive a lethal force encounter of the type a law-abiding US citizen is at all likely to see? Well, tough luck because that's not at all what those guys are experts at.

You'd train with someone with infantry experience in Afghanistan? Oh? Why? What skills, exactly, that they've mastered do you want them to teach you? Their tasks, their threats, their equipment, their duties, their team, their support, and their ROE, are all ENTIRELY different -- WHOLLY different -- from anything you're hoping to get out of firearms training for practical uses as a US citizen.

And, again, if that's not the case -- if you really DO want that infantry experience training -- what instructor, and what course, are you signing up for that's claiming to teach that? Because I've never seen a tactical course description advertised that offered to.

Training with an experienced law enforcement officer? Well, that may be closer to "on point," but many of the same cautions apply. What cops do all day is not self-defense. Much of it has nothing to do with violent encounters. Much of their violent encounter work doesn't look like lawful self-defense, because it isn't. It is duty-related use of force, which might or might not be applicable to your appropriate actions as Joe Citizen.

What are you paying them to teach you? And exactly why do you think they are especially qualified to do so?

For the other 10% save up and attend a course with one of the former "delta" types teaching.

I'm going to put strambo on the spot here and request that he explain what the "other 10%" is -- EXACTLY -- and who's teaching it and why we American citizens need to put those tools in our tool box?

 

[Kleanbore]

Remember I didn't ask if experience was the prime criterium, I asked if it was a valid criterium.

With this specific example (which had nothing to do with shooting any one or being shot BTW) I was able to do some research and found out that the author has 20+ years of law enforcement experience and has had to use a flashlight while clearing numerous houses.

His contention was that you need to use a light that doesn't have a constant on switch or you'll you'll hit the button too hard and turn the light on thus rendering yourself a "bullet magnet".

When he wrote the article he didn't say "I've been doing the for 20 years and I've seen this happen." He just said "You need to do it this way." And I ended up asking myself if it was valid advice and I couldn't fully decide with out looking at his Cirriculum Vitae.

I suggest that experience in clearing houses is not a valid criterion for selecting a trainer for using a flashlight for home defense.

Civilian defenders who contemplate clearing houses by themselves have a lot more more to learn than what kind of switch to choose.

 

[Sam1911]

And I ended up asking myself if it was valid advice and I couldn't fully decide with out looking at his Cirriculum Vitae.

Well in the case of that particular question, I think you could pretty easily come up with a decision about whether you consider his advice worth acting on or you don't. Looking at his CV isn't going to tell you all that much about whether that thing COULD happen to you, or whether it is likely to.

... I think you can see all sides of the question for yourself, and decide whether you think the idea holds merit or it does not, without knowing how long he's been doing this thing.

I wanted to flesh this out a little more because there's another phenomenon that might be in play here.

Sometimes we receive advice that seems off, or questionable, or maybe just a bit too strident, too assured, to "110%" to be real.

It is important to develop the understanding and the confidence to do your own analysis of such things. Your own testing, your own reasoning, your own decisions.

Looking at such a piece of instruction and having to go investigate the teacher's history and experience to decide if you can swallow that bit of wisdom is usually just fishing for some way to justify to yourself something you don't really trust.

Instructors teach different things. They believe different things. They have different experiences from one another. No two are going to give you carbon copies of each others' advice. It is up to YOU to determine what of their teaching is worth incorporating into your practices, which parts gel with other things you know and have experienced, and what you're going to be able to live with and use.

"Well.....but he's been a Delta Seal for 50 years!" isn't going to answer those fundamental questions for you.

 

[strambo]

I'm going to put strambo on the spot here and request that he explain what the "other 10%" is -- EXACTLY -- and who's teaching it and why we American citizens need to put those tools in our tool box?

No problem. I meant the other 10% in terms of training amount as much as content. As-in, attend a few high quality training courses and if you are into it and can afford it, as a cherry on top, go to one with one of the top instructors with that background like Larry Vickers, Mike Pannone, Pat McNamara.

Though you will no-doubt get great info and learn a lot from these guys, mostly you'll see they are teaching the same stuff as the other high quality trainers. You'll scratch that itch to learn from someone of this caliber with all the been there done that T-shirts and get what they have to offer. They are teaching to a civilian and LE audience though, so the tactics will be applicable to self defense. It isn't like they are teaching how to clear houses like a Tier 1 counter-terror unit (unless you are in such a unit and pay them to teach you that).

I also think the other 10% in terms of tactics would be getting individual movement (use of cover) and firearms manipulation techniques taught by folks who have done it and seen it done with bullets going both ways. The differences won't be profound, but they will have tips and insights into the how and why backed by real world experience. Most instructors teach multiple techniques, it is nice to hear from a combat vet why they like technique A vs. B and their thoughts on each when both would be viable. I'm pretty cerebral myself with this stuff and like to look at it from a logical and efficiency standpoint and I notice so do many of the top instructors on the combat experience and competitive side.

I haven't been fortunate enough to attend a course with one of these guys yet on the civilian side, I have worked with a few former Tier 1 guys overseas though. Offhand, I can't think of any instructors at any civilian firearms course I've taken who didn't have a military and/or LE background though not necessarily direct combat experience. For example, Bruce Gray is an outstanding instructor. I don't know if he's ever been shot at and don't care, he's the single best pistol instructor I've had.

Instructors at the local range can be hit or miss. I recommend anyone spending their hard earned cash with a well-vetted instructor who has a proven track record. There are a whole bunch of them out there teaching all over the country.

In terms of specific skills a civilian needs: Basic marksmanship (both hands), movement (to cover and also moving while shooting), basic movement through a structure (for those times when it can't be avoided, have to grab the kids etc.) firearms manipulation (reloads, malfunctions, draws-both hands), use of cover, low light, firearm retention, legal issues. Any good instructor will cover these things and cover them well whether they've been shot at before or not. Most instructors will have emphasis/expertise in some areas less so in others.

When that is covered, the most important thing would be training the above under high-stress (force on force). This is the step most people never get to...yet it is the reason the combat miss rates are so high for trained police officers who score well in their pistol qualifications. They have proven they can hit small targets at 5-25yds all the time w/o stress, yet miss an entire body at under 5 yards more often than not. What is needed is not more square range target practice...

Oh, I just thought of another common pitfall that snags everyone. "Training scars", inefficient things you do for convenience or range safety or just in ignorance. Combat vets are better able to pick out training scars, at least the ones who are good instructors. Here is the most common one I see and one I was guilty of myself for a long time:

Facing forward on the range while cranking your neck around to look behind you. You pat yourself on the back because you are "scanning 360" with your "head on a swivel!" Why on earth would you do that in combat? Just turn around and scan, that way you are ready to immediately engage and you are oriented to the threat to make the hit! If a partner or civilian is around as you are turning/scanning dip the muzzle down into "position SUL" or similar like you would while shooting/moving anyway. This is only taught because you can't have people turning around on a square range.

How do you train it? Simple, on a square range train to scan the front 180. At home dry fire (to your heart's content) or live fire when safe, always scan the back 180 by turning around.

When I'm shooting in the woods my 360 scan also performs the same valuable real-world safety function as in combat, after every string of fire I see if there is a person or vehicle that has showed up behind me and may be a safety hazard (or threat, since I'm out in the boonies).

 

[Matthew Temkin]

If it boiled down to two equally qualified instructors but only one had combat experience then that is who I would go with.
As in any subject, experience is vital.
Which is why I would want an experienced trail attorney representing me as opposed to one fresh out of law school.

 

[kopfjaeger01]

In my over 30 years of instruction, I taught techniques and considerations to students. Only when working with a particular unit, would tactics be taught. Even then, techniques and considerations were covered. The unit needs to develop and implement their own tactics. But as anyone who has ever been in a high threat situation knows, the best laid plans go out the window when bullets start flying. People then rely on the basics and the training they received.

A good instructor should be familiar and have experience in a wide range of situations and with various types of equipment and be able to teach to a diverse set of individuals (young, old, men, women, fat, skinny, etc.). Every student is different, with different needs, skills, and abilities.

I rarely took on civilian students due to liabilities, and would certainly never teach them "tactics." Most students need "basics." Heck, even most "pros" need more focus on the basics. Me included. Anytime I train or practice, I begin each session by focusing on the basics and building from there. Even if I'm working on something a little more "advanced."

My advice on instructors is: Don't get lured into the bearded fat guy wearing Wiley-X's, with all the "cool-guy" tattoos who always talks about his time "in the sandbox." Find a solid professional who is a humble with experience and the ability to actually teach and is more interested in your success than his own.

Just my thoughts....

 

[9mmepiphany]

As in any subject, experience is vital.
Which is why I would want an experienced trail attorney representing me as opposed to one fresh out of law school.

Your example is actually an apples vs. oranges one.

The is a difference between hiring someone to do something and hiring them to teach you how to do it. The best trail attorneys I've ever met, couldn't teach you to do what they were able to do, even if they wanted to.

However, I do agree that experience is vital...but it should be in teaching

 

[TurnipBreath]

I imagine I would choose an experienced skydiving instructor over one who barely became qualified himself. His experience would validate the content.

However, it wouldn't validate his competency as an instructor - only as a skydiver.