Sidearms & Scatterguns NRA Conceled Carry Qualifications for Civvies/ Do they really check the Quality?

[Macleod212]

Im in Fayetteville, NC and myself and some of the lads I work with Usually Frequent some of the Civilian Ranges around Ft Bragg on the weekends because some of the lads like to take their wives/ kids along as well.
Weve all noticed over the past year the amount of growing Civilian NRA certified "Instructors" that the NRA has been putting out there.
My biggest curiousity is based on the two most Unqualified we've noticed in the NC area. One that works at Sharon harris "training" security guards (Non military/ Non LEO) and civilian beginners in the area. And the other runs a self certified Krav Maga school in Durham and teaches CCW and Firearms "useage." The question is, How do these people get away with this stuff? Doesn't the NRA check people before they certify them? Is there no QA before certification is given to let loose these individuals to steer new shooters the wrong way and give them bad info based on zero experience?
The main things Im talking about here are: Instructors who have no experience/ Embellish credentials ("I was special ops"), Don't know how to grip the weapon much less shoot it, Have zero round accountability (rounds spraying everywhere), Informing new shooters that they learned their "techniques" (lack of any technique--Hollywood) from SOF in order to attempt to excuse the negative results.
The biggest thing I don't understand is how do these individuals get away with it? we reported the Sharon harris guy because he was running around badmouthing Pat McNamara and Kyle Lamb, while informing individuals that he was an "operator," he was consuming alcohol at parties and threatening to pull his Concealed and shoot individuals whilst hammered. and yet the NRA did nothing. So how do these guys get away with it? how are they still ripping people off and teaching the opposite of checking the work through the sights and round accountability? How do they get away with embellishing and Misusing firearms? This has blown our minds for sure.
Granted NEW shooters don't know any better. They have no past experience of who to compare the quality of the instructor to. But why doesn't an organisation that promotes shooting safety and the preservation of the 2nd amendment seem to care?

 

[Veer_G]

I've encountered a few NRA Certified Instructors that were, as my Senior Training Counselor put it, "absolute douche nozzles." They get through, unfortunately, some of them bent from the get-go to do their stupid utmost, and others who develop their awful programs and practices over the course of time. One thing to remember about NRA instructor certification is that carrying the card doesn't mean that you're allowed to tout the NRA connection when offering non-NRA training. It's an absolute no-no. If you run across someone who isn't packing the gear, don't hesitate to get in touch with the NRA. A good place to start would be with the TC coordinator's office at 800.672.3888, X 1422. They'll know who was responsible for certifying the idiot in the first place.

 

[Macleod212]

I've encountered a few NRA Certified Instructors that were, as my Senior Training Counselor put it, "absolute douche nozzles." They get through, unfortunately, some of them bent from the get-go to do their stupid utmost, and others who develop their awful programs and practices over the course of time. One thing to remember about NRA instructor certification is that carrying the card doesn't mean that you're allowed to tout the NRA connection when offering non-NRA training. It's an absolute no-no. If you run across someone who isn't packing the gear, don't hesitate to get in touch with the NRA. A good place to start would be with the TC coordinator's office at 800.672.3888, X 1422. They'll know who was responsible for certifying the idiot in the first place.

Haha That's a good way of putting it mate. Theyre definitely out there. haha "douche nozzle." Cheers, Glad to know were not the only ones whove seen it. In a way though its sad too that there are so many of them.

 

[Delta4-3]

The gun store in Spring lake, right down the road from you has some NRA instructors that are absolute pole smokers. One had the audacity to tell me and a buddy, that he wrote the army's cqb manual. I asked what FM it was and he "forgot". He then said whoever could outshoot him got their money back for their concealed carry course. I was shooting my race gun and straight smoked him on time, group size, and placement. He kicked me out instead of giving my money back.

 

[Veer_G]

The gun store in Spring lake, right down the road from you has some NRA instructors that are absolute pole smokers. One had the audacity to tell me and a buddy, that he wrote the army's cqb manual. I asked what FM it was and he "forgot". He then said whoever could outshoot him got their money back for their concealed carry course. I was shooting my race gun and straight smoked him on time, group size, and placement. He kicked me out instead of giving my money back.

I'm going to assume that you were taking some sort of state-mandated but still homebrewed course, rather than the NRA's PPITH or PPOTH. As I said above, using NRA creds as some sort of guarantee of quality for and inducement to participate in non-NRA designed and approved instruction should be reported. Moreover, the individual who would offer a refund to anyone who outshot him or her and hen welched should be gone on lack of character alone.

 

[Macleod212]

The gun store in Spring lake, right down the road from you has some NRA instructors that are absolute pole smokers. One had the audacity to tell me and a buddy, that he wrote the army's cqb manual. I asked what FM it was and he "forgot". He then said whoever could outshoot him got their money back for their concealed carry course. I was shooting my race gun and straight smoked him on time, group size, and placement. He kicked me out instead of giving my money back.

Jesus. I guess if he wrote the CQB manual he was in the unit like the guy at Sharon Harris, he says shit like that. When asked about TTPs he gave me some line of shit and credited James Yeager 0_o as one of the best shooters. I almost died. Haha

 

[Macleod212]

I'm going to assume that you were taking some sort of state-mandated but still homebrewed course, rather than the NRA's PPITH or PPOTH. As I said above, using NRA creds as some sort of guarantee of quality for and inducement to participate in non-NRA designed and approved instruction should be reported. Moreover, the individual who would offer a refund to anyone who outshot him or her and hen welched should be gone on lack of character alone.

Completely agree

 

[Delta4-3]

I'm going to assume that you were taking some sort of state-mandated but still homebrewed course, rather than the NRA's PPITH or PPOTH. As I said above, using NRA creds as some sort of guarantee of quality for and inducement to participate in non-NRA designed and approved instruction should be reported. Moreover, the individual who would offer a refund to anyone who outshot him or her and hen welched should be gone on lack of character alone.

True, I should have used my reading comprehension skills up top. This was not an NRA course, but a chose bucket flashing meaningless cress. I mainly wanted to warn the op away from the pos.

 

[EddieNFL]

I've found most to be Not Real Accurate...either behind the trigger or podium.

 

[Macleod212]

I've found most to be Not Real Accurate...either behind the trigger or podium.

I believe it.

 

[RBid]

Being a douchebag or qualified has nothing to do with civilian vs service. Neither does shooting ability. There are lots of people running around who were mil or LE, and have never had to present a firearm under stress. There are lots of mil or service types who can't shoot for shit, and many more who couldn't teach fire to burn.

Liars are liars. Douchebags are douchebags. Great teachers come from a variety of backgrounds.

 

[Macleod212]

Being a douchebag or qualified has nothing to do with civilian vs service. Neither does shooting ability. There are lots of people running around who were mil or LE, and have never had to present a firearm under stress. There are lots of mil or service types who can't shoot for shit, and many more who couldn't teach fire to burn.

Liars are liars. Douchebags are douchebags. Great teachers come from a variety of backgrounds.

As much as Id like to agree with you for stating the obvious, my experiences as per my original post were with Civilians. YES. I know many many Cops that cant hit the broad side of a barn. and especially not under duress. but they are given the opportunity to learn these skills (most are) either from their dept or by using personal funds to gain training from qualified personnel through courses. There are plenty out there for both LE and Military. Both have access to more specialized training. Civilians on the other hand can only gain access to open enrollment courses. That shouldn't stop them from learning either way. Most of the POI is exactly the same. Douche bags ARE douche bags. But inexperienced douchebags that haven't had the need to use firearms for duty or combat need to watch themselves when training other civilians "for war." And as far as embellishing abilities and past occurences, civilians have less room to talk. That was my point

 

[Macleod212]

And by civilians I speak of individuals with zero past service and nothing to apply their teaching to other than theory. Not saying you cant learn anything from a civilian. I learn shit from people all the time. People are people. but mindset and experience is key.

One of the individuals I discussed speaks of himself in a very high manner. Yet holds no skillset worth listening to or learning from. The guy likes to badmouth and fabricate stories about other individuals that make vocal statements about him not being qualified and his teachings of minimizing contact on the weapon to combat recoil (physically impossible), firing one round and pausing a second between shots in a shooting scenario (get you killed), Not moving when taking fire, not using cover (easy target), etc.... I call it setting people up for failure due to lack of reality. This same guy had 10" groups (some misses 10 rounds, no bullshit) @ 7yds last I saw him and was proud of it. Bullets don't bounce off people. analysis equals paralysis. Hope I clarified that for you.

 

[RBid]

You're crediting people with zero experience with teaching theory based material. That may happen sometimes, but there are other people who have zero personal experience and teach material derived from the experiences of others. It should be obvious to many people that certain truths are common knowledge at this point. You don't need to have a service past to know that handgun rounds are unreliable for one shot stops, for example. You don't need a service past to know that most civilian engagements happen at close range.

When Vickers and Leatham did their joint course, do you suppose that Leatham taught bogus material, or offered any counterproductive ideas?

 

[Veer_G]

Part of the issue here is that competition for students is fierce, and a lot of people seeking training insist on a whopping portion of BTDT, real of fictionalized, for their money. I've seen the over-amped SGT Rock over-actors jumping around all over the place like they had just drained three Red Bulls on top of their No-Doze and their dozen testosterone patches. Some schmucks eat this shit up, especially the ones who feel short-dicked because they didn't serve — it makes them feel all tingly and special. Generally speaking, the less real chops that the instructor has, the worse the antics. I had one one time who wasn't even an instructor in the course yelling and screaming, just about bug-eyed, that people had to seize weapons from each other because it was part of the SOP of some Israeli discipline, the study of which, naturally, he was peddling to the rest of the class. It was seriously bizarre.

 

[E. Bryant]

The instructor from which I received my CCW training a decade ago knew very little about handguns and the techniques involved in using one for self-defense. But the course was not about the mechanics of putting lead on target; it was more about the legal aspects of concealed carry, with a sprinkling of safety instruction. To the instructor's credit, he didn't pretend to be anything other than a morbidly-obese retired schoolteacher and wrestling coach.

Frankly, I don't know what someone can reasonably expect in the typical 10-12 hour CCW class, beyond the most basic operation of a firearm. Given the nearly-countless aspects of using firearms in self-defense, and the widely-varying levels of student experience in the typical course, there simply will not be any opportunity for serious marksmanship instruction.

 

[Macleod212]

You're crediting people with zero experience with teaching theory based material. That may happen sometimes, but there are other people who have zero personal experience and teach material derived from the experiences of others. It should be obvious to many people that certain truths are common knowledge at this point. You don't need to have a service past to know that handgun rounds are unreliable for one shot stops, for example. You don't need a service past to know that most civilian engagements happen at close range.

When Vickers and Leatham did their joint course, do you suppose that Leatham taught bogus material, or offered any counterproductive ideas?

Rob leatham has trained with various Special Mission Unit personnel and has had insurmountable training over the years resulting in an amazing shooting ability. Again I'm afraid you're absolutely missing my point. Rob isn't even close to the type of individual I'm talking about

 

[Macleod212]

Part of the issue here is that competition for students is fierce, and a lot of people seeking training insist on a whopping portion of BTDT, real of fictionalized, for their money. I've seen the over-amped SGT Rock over-actors jumping around all over the place like they had just drained three Red Bulls on top of their No-Doze and their dozen testosterone patches. Some schmucks eat this shit up, especially the ones who feel short-dicked because they didn't serve — it makes them feel all tingly and special. Generally speaking, the less real chops that the instructor has, the worse the antics. I had one one time who wasn't even an instructor in the course yelling and screaming, just about bug-eyed, that people had to seize weapons from each other because it was part of the SOP of some Israeli discipline, the study of which, naturally, he was peddling to the rest of the class. It was seriously bizarre.

Hit the nail on the head. Exactly

 

[Macleod212]

The instructor from which I received my CCW training a decade ago knew very little about handguns and the techniques involved in using one for self-defense. But the course was not about the mechanics of putting lead on target; it was more about the legal aspects of concealed carry, with a sprinkling of safety instruction. To the instructor's credit, he didn't pretend to be anything other than a morbidly-obese retired schoolteacher and wrestling coach.

Frankly, I don't know what someone can reasonably expect in the typical 10-12 hour CCW class, beyond the most basic operation of a firearm. Given the nearly-countless aspects of using firearms in self-defense, and the widely-varying levels of student experience in the typical course, there simply will not be any opportunity for serious marksmanship instruction.

Yea I wouldn't expect a basic CCW Certification class to include any technique but instead to be more about the laws concerning carry. But let's say the individual that you learned from (that knew very little about mechanics/technique) hosted courses about tactical shooting with a combat mindset and self defense, Tactical, tactical, tactical and charged unsuspecting individuals money to learn these techniques. In reality such teaching from theories rather than experience would result in innocent people becoming victims of fractercide. But in addition (in my opinion CCW should at least cover basic grip, using the sights and round accountability. That way you would have individuals carrying that could actually help when others are attacked or they are attacked themselves and lower the chance of innocents being shot because of poor shooting ability

 

[Graham]

The instructor from which I received my CCW training a decade ago knew very little about handguns and the techniques involved in using one for self-defense. But the course was not about the mechanics of putting lead on target; it was more about the legal aspects of concealed carry, with a sprinkling of safety instruction. To the instructor's credit, he didn't pretend to be anything other than a morbidly-obese retired schoolteacher and wrestling coach.

Frankly, I don't know what someone can reasonably expect in the typical 10-12 hour CCW class, beyond the most basic operation of a firearm. Given the nearly-countless aspects of using firearms in self-defense, and the widely-varying levels of student experience in the typical course, there simply will not be any opportunity for serious marksmanship instruction.

Michigan CCW classes are not about marksmanship or tactics. If the instructor can covey how to unbox a handgun, load and unload it, and impart the four rules of gun safety then he's doing his job. The issue I have with some of the State instructors here is that, when faced with a captive audience, they can't resist the urge to talk about themselves and attempt to teach beyond their knowledge, skills and abilities. Michigan requires that a lawyer or police officer speak for an hour in each class about the legalities of concealed carry and the law of self-defense, but most of the cops that I have seen give this part of the training haven't a clue.

The skill required to shoot well with a firearm is different from the skill necessary to fight with it. Anyone can be taught how to shoot, meaning how to manipulate the trigger without moving the sights off-target. Fighting with a gun is a different kind of skill. The skill-set applicable to defensive pistolcraft is the three-fold:

1. Marksmanship
2. Gun Handling
3. Mindset

The second element, Gun Handling, further breaks down into the following:

A) Safety
B) Dexterity
C) Technique

Novice shooters have mastered none of these skills. Sport shooters with a competitive shooting background may have mastered the first skill-set: Marksmanship. They may also possess an advanced level of safety and dexterity with regard to their own gun-handling. However, and despite sometimes significant personal achievements, without additional knowledge and experience gained away from a one-way shooting range they are not qualified to instruct beyond the marksmanship skill set.

Unfortunately the same holds true for many precision rifle instructors.

 

[Veer_G]

Michigan CCW classes are not about marksmanship or tactics. If the instructor can covey how to unbox a handgun, load and unload it, and impart the four rules of gun safety then he's doing his job. The issue I have with some of the State instructors here is that, when faced with a captive audience, they can't resist the urge to talk about themselves and attempt to teach beyond their knowledge, skills and abilities. Michigan requires that a lawyer or police officer speak for an hour in each class about the legalities of concealed carry and the law of self-defense, but most of the cops that I have seen give this part of the training haven't a clue.

The skill required to shoot well with a firearm is different from the skill necessary to fight with it. Anyone can be taught how to shoot, meaning how to manipulate the trigger without moving the sights off-target. Fighting with a gun is a different kind of skill. The skill-set applicable to defensive pistolcraft is the three-fold:

1. Marksmanship
2. Gun Handling
3. Mindset

The second element, Gun Handling, further breaks down into the following:

A) Safety
B) Dexterity
C) Technique

Novice shooters have mastered none of these skills. Sport shooters with a competitive shooting background may have mastered the first skill-set: Marksmanship. They may also possess an advanced level of safety and dexterity with regard to their own gun-handling. However, and despite sometimes significant personal achievements, without additional knowledge and experience gained away from a one-way shooting range they are not qualified to instruct beyond the marksmanship skill set.

Unfortunately the same holds true for many precision rifle instructors.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Although Graham only alludes to it, initial CCW/LTCF qualification is also separated from advanced instruction in "defensive pistolcraft" (really, gunfighting is a more honest term, but not very PC) by its lack of dynamism. A fight with weapons, powder-actuated, contact, or otherwise, requires movement, or "getting off the X," as has become popular to say, but CCW/LTCF range instruction is entirely static, procedurally an outgrowth of basic marksmanship practice. And that's pretty much a good thing. At that point, as I really wouldn't trust the average total newcomer to make a sandwich with a metal knife, let alone draw and fire on the move, I'd much rather see them completely absorb the four (or three) rules and understand the function of their firearms. Given the fact that so many CCW holders walk through a real-life "Hogan's Alley" in their daily lives (meaning that they're blithely carrying firearms around the rest of us), I'd love to see a greater move towards functional competency beyond the static discharge of a firearm on a typical range. It may be unpopular with some to say it, but with all of these rights come inherent responsibilities, such as taking care to understand the need for retention and practicing increased awareness of surroundings, and not every person with a state license to sling up comes to grasp and appreciate these points.

The NRA has come to include advanced pistol instruction in their gamut of course offerings as a reaction to the increase in interest and the increasing number of states that permit open and concealed carry of firearms. Many of their old-hand instructors have come from competitive backgrounds like bullseye, so in creating new course material they have also had to retread instructors sometimes not entirely well versed in the mechanics and mindset of "shoot and scoot." Not all of them have made smooth transitions. One thing to note that speaks to the general mindset of the NRA is that the word "weapon" is completely verboten in any of their training. As it is, the general MOA as taught per NRA standards is a bit stodgy and mechanical, but given the skill sets and experience of some of those who comprised the initial PPITH and PPOTH instructors, it seems appropriate for it to be lock-step and carefully procedural. This isn't to say that all NRA instructors are cut from the same cloth, but it's fair to state that the NRA is interested in maintaining "brand integrity" through its procedures and practices. As the OP found out, though, there are some who are completely off the rails

 

[E. Bryant]

Given the fact that so many CCW holders walk through a real-life "Hogan's Alley" in their daily lives (meaning that they're blithely carrying firearms around the rest of us), I'd love to see a greater move towards functional competency beyond the static discharge of a firearm on a typical range. It may be unpopular with some to say it, but with all of these rights come inherent responsibilities, such as taking care to understand the need for retention and practicing increased awareness of surroundings, and not every person with a state license to sling up comes to grasp and appreciate these points.

Bravo. I'd like to see this done, much as I'd like to see driver's ed take into account the task of actually controlling an automobile (as opposed to merely pointing it in a general direction while attempting to follow at least some of the rules of the road), but we know it ain't going to happen - the potential recipients of the training can't be bothered to devote the time and money necessary to develop the required skills, and there will be a small but loud group of naysayers who will suggest that acquiring such skills can only lead to the increased use of such skills in a manner detrimental to the public good.

 

[RBid]

One of my gripes with the practice of seeking instructors with military backgrounds is context. You get guys who usually pocket carry LCPs without spare mags, and they're "running" service pistols and OWB double mag carriers, with some guy claiming Spec Ops background drilling them on shooting pistol from prone at 25 yards... so that they can "get better at concealed carry". A lot of these people would be well served to have somebody slap them and say, "Look, Bill, you need to be training to draw that LCP from your sweatpants pocket and shoot from retention at a target 3 feet away, or you need to stop wearing that stuff everywhere, and carry a purpose built tool." I'm all for developing supplemental skills, but having a former Marine teach you about civilian concealed carry is not always going to result in a program that fits your needs.

Realistically, the best approach might be two instructors-- one with an LE background, and one being an accountant or something who shoots competetively, and has only carried as a civilian.

People need relevant material, which includes mindset and preparation for what will happen to the body under stress, etc, but also includes emphasis on what a civilian does Monday-Sunday in their real lives.

 

[EddieNFL]

Bravo. I'd like to see this done, much as I'd like to see driver's ed take into account the task of actually controlling an automobile (as opposed to merely pointing it in a general direction while attempting to follow at least some of the rules of the road), but we know it ain't going to happen - the potential recipients of the training can't be bothered to devote the time and money necessary to develop the required skills, and there will be a small but loud group of naysayers who will suggest that acquiring such skills can only lead to the increased use of such skills in a manner detrimental to the public good.

And on the other side of the coin...who would set the standard and fee(s)?

 

[Veer_G]

One of my gripes with the practice of seeking instructors with military backgrounds is context. You get guys who usually pocket carry LCPs without spare mags, and they're "running" service pistols and OWB double mag carriers, with some guy claiming Spec Ops background drilling them on shooting pistol from prone at 25 yards... so that they can "get better at concealed carry". A lot of these people would be well served to have somebody slap them and say, "Look, Bill, you need to be training to draw that LCP from your sweatpants pocket and shoot from retention at a target 3 feet away, or you need to stop wearing that stuff everywhere, and carry a purpose built tool." I'm all for developing supplemental skills, but having a former Marine teach you about civilian concealed carry is not always going to result in a program that fits your needs.

Realistically, the best approach might be two instructors-- one with an LE background, and one being an accountant or something who shoots competetively, and has only carried as a civilian.

People need relevant material, which includes mindset and preparation for what will happen to the body under stress, etc, but also includes emphasis on what a civilian does Monday-Sunday in their real lives.

You could almost do eight hours alone on making the adjustment from being unarmed to armed and the need to make alterations in one's wardrobe and practices. That mindset thing is big, but it isn't just the will to survive and the need to practice better situational awareness. Learning not to telegraph that you're armed, learning to use body/arm position to avoid consciousness-raising on the part of some poor unfortunate who might shit themselves if they could see through your shirt, these are skills that aren't stressed in training for being a doorkicker, and, as you stated, the body of doorkicker knowledge don't translate uniformly well, if at all, into concealed carry training.

Most people new to concealed carry have the idea that it can be assimilated into daily routine like one takes a prescribed pill for a condition, and it just isn't so. Our culture has long driven people towards an addiction to convenience, and the new pistol carrier wants the usefulness of a full size duty weapon in a major caliber in the footprint of a .25 ACP Baby Browning, and hold the recoil, thank you, please. It just ain't happenin', and I've seen a good bit of enthusiasm tamed when the dull realization that capacity, recoil management, and relative size don't always come in a happy medium package sets in, to say nothing of having to shell out for a decent holster, pouch, and belt combination. A lot of their expectations are informed by the media, as much in their ill-informed criteria in selecting an instructor as in their movie-driven expectations of what concealed carry is actually like. Don't like little holes in all your shirts at 3:20 or 8:40? Don't carry.

 

[kraigWY]

I guess you guys wouldn't like my classes. I do a woman's safety and firearms self defense class. Except for the safety aspects (four rules of gun safety) my class is totally unconventional.

First thing I tell them is "this is not a shooting class, its a firearms self defense class. Then I tell them my main goal is to make the pistol/revolver as comfortable and natural in their hands as a cell phone to a teenage girl.

Then most of the class is based on my experience and observations I'm see in my 20 years in LE, or what I read in the news about home invasions, car jacking, purse snatching muggings and such.

I don't recommend any gun or method of carry, I provide as many guns as I can get my hands on and let them choose. I certainly wont tell a girl how to carry. They dress different then I do, I carry a 642 in my pocket, my wife couldn't get a 38 round in her pocket.

I seldom let the ladies shoot with two hands, seldom do people have both hands free.......example, I have a 3 ft rag doll, they have to draw and shoot with the doll in one hand, pulling it behind them as they were protecting a child, or drawing with one hand will pulling on a baby carriage with the other.

We all know that certain stances are more solid for a shooting platform, I don't go that route, you stance may be setting in a car, on a couch, on laying down like you've been knocked on your butt at an ATM machine.

The main thing is to shoot until they are comfortable and have total confidence in their gun and them selves.

I don't like long classes, I go two hours a week for as long as they want to show up.

I don't charge, I can sign off on CCW permits per Wyoming laws, but they can also get the CCW permit with nothing more then a Hunter's Safety card, Cost $5 to get that. People came for me for training after finding out the local NRA instructor wants $250 for a 4 hour class. I don't charge, most of these ladies couldn't afford that. We have an indoor range and I even got the club to waive the $5 range fee for non-club members.

I don't believe SD should be a rich man's game. I even furnish most of the ammo.

Like I said, its a safety and self defense class, want a shooting class I'll put on a bullseye clinic.

So you guys probably wouldn't like my style one bit.

 

[Graham]

...Like I said, its a safety and self defense class, want a shooting class I'll put on a bullseye clinic. So you guys probably wouldn't like my style one bit.

Kraig, I may disagree with you from time to time regarding holding-over in inches, but you are truly a gentleman and I regret not having spent more time talking with you last year.

 

[kraigWY]

Well Graham, if we all agreed about everything, there wouldn't be anything to talk about, we all have different opinions, which is a good thing, if not all you scallywags would be after my misses.

 

[Veer_G]

I guess you guys wouldn't like my classes.

Kraig, you sound defensive. If you're moving students along from initial familiarization through growing confidence and onto practical proficiency, and you're doing it in a way that's relevant for them, more power to you. I appreciate the fact that you feel that SD training is expensive, and I agree that it can be done on a budget, along with the acquisition of a firearm suitable to the purpose of SD. I do get a bit frustrated with folks who want to carry without making a minimum investment in gear appropriate to what they have. I've seen people at firearms events OCing (I don't OC) with sagging, twisting Uncle Mike's style holsters barely held up by ratty old woven leather casual belts, and it concerns me. I'm not suggesting that people stroke their egos by buying del Fatti, but a reasonable holster from the likes of De Santis/Galco/Bianchi on a proper, purpose-driven belt should be a minimum for most situations. I know that some women purse-carry, and I've done the work to train them in that method, but even then there are minimums that I feel should be met. In fact, I'd just as soon see them with less gun and better gear. Retention is an under-appreciated aspect of carry that should be stressed but typically isn't.

 

[Bruiser_Joe]

Just because a person can shoot doesn't mean he can teach you how to do the same. Some people just have a way to getting information across so people will understand, it doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. The market is flooded with people who have military/leo background, and like others said doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Before taking any class people PLEASE look that person up, read some reviews of their courses, ask friends. I highly suggest leave your local range instructor to teach the mall ninjas and find someone worth learning from. I firmly believe that everyone has something to learn from them, wether its what to do that is right or wrong. If you ever think your above correction and that your word is gospel, then you are no longer worth listening to in my opinion. The best teachers are the ones who never stop learning.

 

[kraigWY]

Didn't mean to sound defensive, I'm to old to be defensive. I only care that the ladies get something out of the class that may save their lives or honor some time.

I'm just a bit un-conventional. To the point some say I'm way out in left field, but life is un-conventional. Most shooting classes do nothing to prepare women for the street.

But defensive, no, never met to come on that way.

 

[RBid]

kraig,

I suspect that your classes provide a lot of very relevant thoughts and learning points. Addressing real needs and real life is a very good thing, sir.

 

[George Az]

There is a difference between teaching men and women. Mixing a little bit of btdt with a little empathy for the student is a good thing. The days of the quiet professional are becoming rarer and hard to find. What may have worked in Fallujah does not mean it will work for a 120 lb female student.

There are too many charltans in the game. To the O/P - I am truly surprised things aren't vetted a little better in the Ft. Bragg area, I mean 20 years ago eveyone knew who everyone was or worked with someone who did. Here in Arizona most of these types are 20 years L/E vets, PD or S/O, driving monster diesel trucks, teaching who knows what , to the tune of $200 for the day because they used to be a POST certified instructor. The NRA types are even worse. I know Gunsite is expensive, but at least a student will get real knowledge via vetted instructors.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Rob leatham has trained with various Special Mission Unit personnel and has had insurmountable training over the years resulting in an amazing shooting ability. Again I'm afraid you're absolutely missing my point. Rob isn't even close to the type of individual I'm talking about

Knowing both Larry and Rob, I whole heartedly agree with you that Rob is a consummate professional and no where near the type of person you are talking about. Fayetteville has a lot of good shooters and instructors but like anything else,the old saying "there is always one", still holds true no matter where you are.

 

[Macleod212]

Knowing both Larry and Rob, I whole heartedly agree with you that Rob is a consummate professional and no where near the type of person you are talking about. Fayetteville has a lot of good shooters and instructors but like anything else,the old saying "there is always one", still holds true no matter where you are.

Exactly bro

 

[RBid]

Knowing both Larry and Rob, I whole heartedly agree with you that Rob is a consummate professional and no where near the type of person you are talking about. Fayetteville has a lot of good shooters and instructors but like anything else,the old saying "there is always one", still holds true no matter where you are.

For the record, when I brought Rob up, it was as an example that civilians CAN offer something at a defensive course. Nobody in this thread said anything remotely negative about Rob.

 

[Macleod212]

For the record, when I brought Rob up, it was as an example that civilians CAN offer something at a defensive course. Nobody in this thread said anything remotely negative about Rob.

What we meant was Rob hardly qualifies at a mere civilian. You went to the extreme end of the civilian spectrum. The purpose of the post was about the OTHER END of the civilian spectrum. i.e. the untrained individuals that bullshit people and steal their money. People with zero background and zero idea what the hell is going on so they make up for it with bullshit that costs money.

 

[TravisP]

Well I am a certified NRA pistol,rifle,shotgun,personal protection and home firearm safety instructor. I have been for 20+ years. I am ex-military. Have never been Law enforcement. I could have been teaching CCW in my home state for awhile now and have chosen not to. I do not feel I have the experience in pistol shooting to give a good class. Not all NRA instructors are the "bad ones" but i totally agree that they are out there. After the CCW craze people starting coming out of the wood work that were NRA certified to give classes and charge people out the rear end. They are the type mentioned, this is what I have done type, but mostly embellish things. I spent the last two days at a class helping as a range officer, not the teacher. This was taught by very well known instructor and was for women only. It was not a CCW class. I was there to assist in the safe operation and to basically familiarize these non experienced ladies with the safe handling and techniques of shooting. Most all of the students that came were there so they could learn about the safe handling/operation and gain some things that they could work on at home to up their markmanship and to rid themselves of the "scared of guns" mentality. I have never touted myself other than what I am. I am certified and can pick up any pistol, rifle, shotgun and teach people how to load, unload, grip, clean, and shoot that particular firearm. I can work with people and can get them hitting targets but I also recognize my boundries and limitations. We had a women in class today who stated that she had her ccw license and could shoot anything. This lady had without a doubt, went to a instructor who wanted and got her money and signed off on her license. Not very much experience but an NRA guy more than likely had trained her, NOT ME.

 

[kraigWY]

Cops V. Military in self defense classes?

I've done both, military and LE, quite extensively. I believe civilian LE POST certified officers are much more qualified to instruct firearms self defense to civilians.

When was the last time the military taught "drawing from a diaper bag while playing tug-of-war with a baby carriage and the target?" Civilians don't need to learn "fire and maneuver/bounding over watch" to fight off muggers.

I say POST certified, I'm going to ASSUME (big assumption) that like the State of Alaska, before we could be certified to teach any subject to LE officers (or anyone else using our credentials) we had to attend and pass the FBI's Instructor Development Course. Then instructor training in what ever subject we were to teach. And per Alaska Statue our certification continues after we retire as long as we teach a course at least once every three years.

Police officers spend their careers dealing with street crime, the type of crime they are teaching the civilian to protect themselves from.

I have also viewed the NRA Instructor's POI, and I don't think it fits, so I decided to forgo getting the NRA Certification (Excluding the NRA LE Rifle Instructors Course).

I want to gear my training to the individual. Women have different needs then men.

There is a difference in learning marksmanship and learning self defense. If you just want to learn to shoot a pistol find a Bulls eye coach (for example) The CMP's pistol SAFS would be great. If you want to learn to protect yourself from street crime, or a "active shooter" find someone with that experience.

I start out with firearm safety then hours of 3-3-3, three shots in three seconds at three yards until the ladies get over the fear of their firearm, and build confidence in the ability of getting it in action. Then we start working on scenarios. AND, I seldom let the women shoot with two hands. Favoring the weak hand over the strong hand.

As I said before, seldom do any of us have both hands free.

 

[Graham]

I say POST certified, I'm going to ASSUME (big assumption) that like the State of Alaska, before we could be certified to teach any subject to LE officers (or anyone else using our credentials) we had to attend and pass the FBI's Instructor Development Course. Then instructor training in what ever subject we were to teach. And per Alaska Statue our certification continues after we retire as long as we teach a course at least once every three years.

In most good departments the minimum qualification to be an instructor is basic firearms knowledge, above average shooting ability, real-world tactical experience and successful completion of any version of the FBI instructor development class.

While some agencies want to say that they have the capability to do something, the truth is that they don’t employ anyone who truly knows how to do it. Some of these agencies have appointed firearms instructors based on criteria other than their experience and qualifications for the position. An instructor selection process without objective criteria is a recipe for tactical and legal disaster. Appointing novice shooters to be law enforcement firearms instructors is evidence of negligence and any firearm skill practiced only twice a year before being attempted in the real world will likely get a student seriously injured or killed.

Training sport shooters to be firearms instructors is a good start. However, mastery of marksmanship fundamentals and knowledge of how to place hits on target is not sufficient to be an instructor of either modern technique or of the tactics of force-on-force. A law enforcement firearms instructor must be able to articulate and demonstrate differences in tactics and techniques while explaining when and why each is appropriate. This ability is developed only through experience.

 

[Macleod212]

Well I am a certified NRA pistol,rifle,shotgun,personal protection and home firearm safety instructor. I have been for 20+ years. I am ex-military. Have never been Law enforcement. I could have been teaching CCW in my home state for awhile now and have chosen not to. I do not feel I have the experience in pistol shooting to give a good class. Not all NRA instructors are the "bad ones" but i totally agree that they are out there. After the CCW craze people starting coming out of the wood work that were NRA certified to give classes and charge people out the rear end. They are the type mentioned, this is what I have done type, but mostly embellish things. I spent the last two days at a class helping as a range officer, not the teacher. This was taught by very well known instructor and was for women only. It was not a CCW class. I was there to assist in the safe operation and to basically familiarize these non experienced ladies with the safe handling and techniques of shooting. Most all of the students that came were there so they could learn about the safe handling/operation and gain some things that they could work on at home to up their markmanship and to rid themselves of the "scared of guns" mentality. I have never touted myself other than what I am. I am certified and can pick up any pistol, rifle, shotgun and teach people how to load, unload, grip, clean, and shoot that particular firearm. I can work with people and can get them hitting targets but I also recognize my boundries and limitations. We had a women in class today who stated that she had her ccw license and could shoot anything. This lady had without a doubt, went to a instructor who wanted and got her money and signed off on her license. Not very much experience but an NRA guy more than likely had trained her, NOT ME.

Now this is what I was after. You answered many of my questions. Thanks for posting

 

[Jäger Wilhelm]

I know Gunsite is expensive, but at least a student will get real knowledge via vetted instructors.

Bingo! You get what you pay for. It matters in just about everything in life........

 

[kraigWY]

I know Gunsite is expensive, but at least a student will get real knowledge via vetted instructors

I agree to a point...............but how many single mothers can take the time from their kids and that kind of money for such courses. $750 (or what ever it cost) will buy a lot of pampers.

I'm against making self defense a rich man's game.

 

[Graham]

For you LE/Military guys, check out my LE firearm instructor KSA test here:

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...0-knowledge-test-le-firearms-instructors.html

 

[Macleod212]

Cops V. Military in self defense classes?

When was the last time the military taught "drawing from a diaper bag while playing tug-of-war with a baby carriage and the target?" Civilians don't need to learn "fire and maneuver/bounding over watch" to fight off muggers.

I'm going to have to disagree. In my experience. Analysis equals paralysis. Any engagement, no matter what or where involves a grip, a sight picture and several shots. The point is always to hit the other guy (and ONLY the other guy-no innocents) and not get hit yourself.
I believe civilians absolutely need to learn to fire and maneuver/bounding overwatch(being aware whilst moving and engaging/ suppressing/ trying to get a clear shot). why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't people have all the tools hey need to survive a gunfight? If someone is lazy/unrealistic and doesn't want to learn certain techniques then fine, but why make that call for them? my experience is when it's time to grab your weapon negotiations have already gone to shit. It's then time to eliminate the threat and develop the situation. If someone is getting "mugged/assailed" and they pull their firearm (obviously whatever grip they get is what they're stuck with till/if they have time to adjust it) to deter/eliminate the threat they aren't going to be standing still in one place. A smart individual will be heading for an advantageous position of cover/protection maybe even whilst firing or providing cover for other unarmed individuals leaving the area. Not much different from a military engagement. Any type of engagement makes a few things perfectly clear: you want to live and you want the assailant to stop. I believe in being armed with more than just a gun, fear, in-capability, lack of training and bravado (all of which create disaster). Realistic training I absolutely agree with. Many many repetitions until its subconscious. Law abiding shooters should be more aggressive and more confident then their attacker. That makes it pretty undesireable to attack them in the first place.

 

[Graham]

In my experience. Analysis equals paralysis.

In my experience you need both analysis and action; sometimes simultaneously.

I believe civilians absolutely need to learn to fire and maneuver/bounding overwatch(being aware whilst moving and engaging/ suppressing/ trying to get a clear shot). why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't people have all the tools hey need to survive a gunfight?

What you are describing requires very advanced training, much of it done by teams. That's not realistic for a civilian class of individuals.

my experience is when it's time to grab your weapon negotiations have already gone to shit.

Your experience is unique. Loud verbal commands don't stop, and remain a form of negotiation.

It's then time to eliminate the threat and develop the situation. If someone is getting "mugged/assailed" and they pull their firearm (obviously whatever grip they get is what they're stuck with till/if they have time to adjust it) to deter/eliminate the threat they aren't going to be standing still in one place. A smart individual will be heading for an advantageous position of cover/protection maybe even whilst firing or providing cover for other unarmed individuals leaving the area. Not much different from a military engagement....Law abiding shooters should be more aggressive and more confident then their attacker.

Danger. Danger Wil Robinson! The tactics taught to civilians must be legally sound.

 

[RBid]

What we meant was Rob hardly qualifies at a mere civilian. You went to the extreme end of the civilian spectrum. The purpose of the post was about the OTHER END of the civilian spectrum. i.e. the untrained individuals that bullshit people and steal their money. People with zero background and zero idea what the hell is going on so they make up for it with bullshit that costs money.

My entire purpose for entering the discussion here was to refute the idea that civilians should not be defensive pistol instructors. I used an extreme example, because it demonstrates that such a thing (a qualified civilian) exists.

One of my points is this: personal experience is not necessary to teach reality based material.

Let's say Joe Hypothetical learns Vickers' material, inside out. He serves as a support instructor for awhile, then goes forth and teaches that material on his own.

Is he unqualified?

The "civilians = no" concept is my only quibble. If that's not a disputed point, we're gold. I'll move on.

I am not saying that there aren't idiots of all stripes teaching classes. I think it's easier to spot the poser civilians or career embellishers than it is to recognize when other guys are teaching irrelevant material. All of that is silly.

 

[Graham]

My entire purpose for entering the discussion here was to refute the idea that civilians should not be defensive pistol instructors.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that civilians should not be instructors simply because they are civilians. We are all civilians.

One of my points is this: personal experience is not necessary to teach reality based material.

This is one school of thought; but most of its supporters are people without personal experience. Not everyone who teaches defensive pistol craft needs to have been in a gunfight. Being unfortunate enough to get shot at does not, without more, qualify someone to teach. But credible experience in the discipline is necessary.

Let's say Joe Hypothetical learns Vickers' material, inside out. He serves as a support instructor for awhile, then goes forth and teaches that material on his own. Is he unqualified?

To teach gun safety or marksmanship: No. To teach defensive pistolcraft: Yes.

Repeating what you heard is not instructing. This is the very problem that I have seen in some police departments managed by people with very little law enforcement experience: They appoint people with no experience to be firearms instructors, then self-certify them as such. Is it a problem to use these people to impart knowledge to civilians about which end of a firearm is the dangerous one? No. But they are not qualified to be law enforcement firearms instructors and it is negligent to employ them as such.

The other issue I have is with the quality of the material. One must ask whether what is being taught is accepted in the larger community. I could develop a method for 'gunfighting' that I call the 'Graham method', find people who have no experience and charge them to listen to me, then self-certify them to teach my method, but then I will have an ongoing credibility problem.

 

[Macleod212]

In my experience you need both analysis and action; sometimes simultaneously.

You missed my point friend. I never said close your eyes and run for it completely unawares whilst blasting rounds.

What you are describing requires very advanced training, much of it done by teams. That's not realistic for a civilian class of individuals.

I disagree. it doesnt take a team to provide suppression or to look where you are going.

Your experience is unique. Loud verbal commands don't stop, and remain a form of negotiation.

I think youre under the impression I read this all in a book somewhere. I didnt. and I never said communications stopped, just rationale on the assailants behalf (i.e. rounds have been fired)

Danger. Danger Wil Robinson! The tactics taught to civilians must be legally sound.

Thats funny. but on a more serious note. civilians need to be more capable. Or are you more worried about the dead guy suing you moreso than you are being alive and saving other innocent individuals?

Im glad i could amuse you. But my statements stand. Legality is fine if thats what youre into, but im not going to follow the rules when someone is trying to kill me.

 

[Graham]

Legality is fine if thats what youre into, but im not going to follow the rules when someone is trying to kill me.

Unfortunately the law gets imposed on you whether or not you happen to be 'into it'. That's why it is an integral part of defensive pistolcraft and why an instructor must incorporate it into civilian training. I understand that you choose not to follow the law. But the problem for law-abiding people is that the criminal always has the advantage: He has a mental advantage because he is not afraid to use his weapon illegally; and he has a physical advantage because it is he who initiates the conflict. His act forces law abiding people to react and to decide when and how to legally use their firearm in self-defense. The reaction must at all times stay within the law, so people who seek to obey the law have much to think about and little time to think about it. That's why we train.