Instructor Verification

[Koda]

someone correct me if Im wrong but as far as I know Firearm training qualification has no federal government standard, like a college diploma. Until then its private info and no way to verify.

 

[Koda]

I asked the question because I saw courses from OFA, REACT, and several others being posted on here. As someone who has been involved in the tactical environment for years, I wouldn't ever waste my money on their classes.

what are the tactical reasons you wouldnt take OFAs classes?

 

[IheartSig]

Probably for the same reasons he thinks Project Appleseed is worthless.

Cant be super opr8tr with a 22 working on fundamentals!

 

[oremike]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aiCm7OpYk...AAKs/7OkkjK291zM/s1600/129030517778353542.jpg

 

[Lange22250]

As far as I can tell the best way to vet a class, school or instructors is to "crowd source" using the right crowd.

Class Reviews & AARs
These tend to be some really serious guys when it comes to training and do it a lot. They are able to compare and contrast, reach out to a big pool of contacts to verify back grounds and have personal backgrounds that critically inform their opinion.

As far as I've seen what should really be happening is classes broken down to more focused elements with a clear description of what the elements are along with specifically articulated performance benchmarks students should be able to reach prior to attending. Unless you have time for week to month long classes mixing in too many elements diminishes what students get out of them, the subject matter can just be too dense for a couple of days. Of course people don't know what they don't know and usually have an inflated perception of what their actual performance really is so even good instructors can only do so much but it's nice to see an attempt to do it.

As long as an instructor doesn't embellish their background and "stay in their lane" any student can get a lot out of their classes. A good example is some of the top competitive shooters who are in high demand from units in the special forces community. Those students KNOW the tactics but also realize that they can always learn better shooting from someone who can demonstrate they are better and faster.

Gabe White is probably the best local instructor around. He is clear from the get go that he has no military of LEO background but is an incredible shooter who has broken the elements down to the point he can clearly teach them and really understand the principals with a lot of innovation. He also has a really good grasp on the legal and functional aspects of using a gun in self defense. At the same time doesn't pretend to teach you how to enter a room in a stack.

At this point the biggest problem I see with the civilian training market right not is the trend of offering classes that are more suited to Call of Duty wannabees than solid brass tacks basics focused. Most people are not well served jumping into high speed low drag team tactics classes because they don't need it and worse will not have enough practice coming out of the class and even if they do practice after the class will probably be doing it wrong and just ingraining poor habits. But that's what people want so unscrupulous instructors will jump in and offer them.

Really want to get innovative? The best program I've heard of is a club in Arizona (unfortunately I can't remember the name right now) that blends training with competition a lot like the traditional martial arts approach. Weekly or monthly classes with multi tiered skill levels where the higher level students also help teach. Intensive, repetitive drills along with timed skill testing that is compared to a standard based on the best shooters doing the same tests (a lot like competition) which encourage innovation, along with situational based evaluations that are critiqued by the group. Instead of just getting a belt you get a patch. If you don't perform to the level of your patch you get it taken away because the reality is skills are perishable and just because you did it doesn't mean you will be able to continue to do it without practice.

 

[orygun]

The ignore function is really nice here Joe. Thank you for having it.

Personally, I don't use the "ignore" function, but just this morning a couple of guys have caused me to reconsider.

 

[Certaindeaf]

. instructors can only do so much..

Exactly.
It is up to the individual shooter to advance.

 

[wayoutwest]

As far as I can tell the best way to vet a class, school or instructors is to "crowd source" using the right crowd.

Class Reviews & AARs
These tend to be some really serious guys when it comes to training and do it a lot. They are able to compare and contrast, reach out to a big pool of contacts to verify back grounds and have personal backgrounds that critically inform their opinion.

As far as I've seen what should really be happening is classes broken down to more focused elements with a clear description of what the elements are along with specifically articulated performance benchmarks students should be able to reach prior to attending. Unless you have time for week to month long classes mixing in too many elements diminishes what students get out of them, the subject matter can just be too dense for a couple of days. Of course people don't know what they don't know and usually have an inflated perception of what their actual performance really is so even good instructors can only do so much but it's nice to see an attempt to do it.

As long as an instructor doesn't embellish their background and "stay in their lane" any student can get a lot out of their classes. A good example is some of the top competitive shooters who are in high demand from units in the special forces community. Those students KNOW the tactics but also realize that they can always learn better shooting from someone who can demonstrate they are better and faster.

Gabe White is probably the best local instructor around. He is clear from the get go that he has no military of LEO background but is an incredible shooter who has broken the elements down to the point he can clearly teach them and really understand the principals with a lot of innovation. He also has a really good grasp on the legal and functional aspects of using a gun in self defense. At the same time doesn't pretend to teach you how to enter a room in a stack.

At this point the biggest problem I see with the civilian training market right not is the trend of offering classes that are more suited to Call of Duty wannabees than solid brass tacks basics focused. Most people are not well served jumping into high speed low drag team tactics classes because they don't need it and worse will not have enough practice coming out of the class and even if they do practice after the class will probably be doing it wrong and just ingraining poor habits. But that's what people want so unscrupulous instructors will jump in and offer them.

Really want to get innovative? The best program I've heard of is a club in Arizona (unfortunately I can't remember the name right now) that blends training with competition a lot like the traditional martial arts approach. Weekly or monthly classes with multi tiered skill levels where the higher level students also help teach. Intensive, repetitive drills along with timed skill testing that is compared to a standard based on the best shooters doing the same tests (a lot like competition) which encourage innovation, along with situational based evaluations that are critiqued by the group. Instead of just getting a belt you get a patch. If you don't perform to the level of your patch you get it taken away because the reality is skills are perishable and just because you did it doesn't mean you will be able to continue to do it without practice.

This

 

[Derbel McDillet]

The OP writes:

There seem to be a lot of instructors make some very grand claims about their experience and background. Most of which doesn't seem to hold up even after a quick good search

Please provide us the results of your "good search" and explain why the claims of these instructors don't "seem to hold up". Identify the instructors by name and provide links, please.

The OP writes:

Having been in the Military for 13 years and after years of DoD/DoS contracting, some of the bio's and claims I read in a couple of the instructor bio's for posted courses were comical at best.

Why should we believe any of your self-professed expertise? What are your qualifications? Please provide documentation so we may verify your claims.

Thank you.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If the instructor has experience in what they are instructing and a good teaching technic that is practical to me and what I want to learn , then that would work for me.

Note by experience , I don't mean that they need to be Super Silly, Airborne Ranger ,Delta , Seal , Special Forces qualified .
Even if they are any of the above , that dosen't automatically make them qualified to teach anything or anything I want to know.
Andy

 

[DingDongMF]

OP, what kind of training are you looking for?

 

[Koda]

I always wonder why some feel that only military and or special forces background are the only ones "qualified" to teach civilian defensive firearm training? I would think civilian law enforecment background is closer because the cops deal specifically with the type of criminal the armed citizen is training to survive an encounter from....

The OP's claim that OFAs classes are a waste of money is way off base.

regardless of the instructors background, as long as his class offers a practial application for civilian defensive firearm training and his ability to instruct is good, his reputation will follow him and thats how you verify your instructor befor you take a class.

 

[thorborg]

Personally, I'm glad I am not an instructor, and even more so that your not in my class since you seem to be inciting and insatiable.
You purport to ask a serious question when you have no intent on following anyone's advice.
I have 4 years of Viet Nam era real-time experience along with ten years of DOD contracting including a fairly high level Federal security clearance. I vet real well, but it doesn't mean I'll make a good instructor.
A neighbor kid spent two years in the third grade, so you could extrapolate not everyone has the ability to grasp things that are being taught regardless of the quality of the instructor.
Every instructor has nearly the same safety spiel but after that has different opine on most else, making it up to the student to absorb and grasp what is applicable to their situation.
I just got a Utah CCW. The instructor was knowledgeable but average, but then, I really didn't care, as I have been through more than what he was presenting and mentally disagreed with a some of it nonetheless all I wanted was the signed paper to send to Utah at the lowest cost in time and money. A job well done in that regards.
There are no Gun Guru's, one stop shopping or one size fits all.
The quality of your education will come from your assimilation of information from many sources followed by real time practice.
All in all, Everybody has some value even if it is proof of what not to do.
Are you one of those community activist?

 

[AMProducts]

Having been in the Military for 13 years and after years of DoD/DoS contracting, some of the bio's and claims I read in a couple of the instructor bio's for posted courses were comical at best.

So I hate to pile on just for the sake of piling on. But really, sometimes it's just too easy.

As others have said, it's pretty easy to crowd source this. Pretty much the number one thing I look for in firearms training is class size. Most of the classes I've taken, and most of the classes I've given were 1 on 1 or 1 on 2.