Every year thousands of citizens spend millions of dollars in the firearms training industry. However are these dollars well spent?
On the face of things, I would say yes. I think there is rarely a place where money is not wasted than in training. However I think the vast majority of firearms training is not realistic and does little to prepare its students for violent confrontations.
Thus I submit this list of 5 clues that, if seen, indicates that training is not realistic.
1) Emphasis on shooting beyond 7 yards.
Very few law enforcement shootings occur past this distance. Even fewer in the non-LEO world. While it may be entertaining to shoot further and it may improve trigger control, it is not time well spent in a time-crunched world.
2) No Integrated Options.
If an instructor does not have a background in anything except firearms, this is a real strong clue that he doesn't really understand the nature of the problem. Self-defense minded instructors should have extensive H2H training and not just a two week defensive tactics course. Actually firing the weapon is only about 1% of the problem, however most people spend 99% of their time training this 1%.
A quality self-defense program should consider many different force options including H2H, OC, contact/edged weapons etc.
3) No Force on Force Training.
See above.
If the training amounts to shooting at paper or steel targets, regardless of how complex and skillful the demonstration, there is minimal benefit received after the student learns basic trigger control.
Most instructors tend to try to develop incremental improvements in the students ability to manipulate their firearm at more and more impressive levels. These increments are very rarely a deciding factor in confrontations. The speed at which you manipulate your firearm is not the limiting factor in defensive engagements. The main limiting factor is the speed of decision-making. If you only shoot, you don't test this aspect.
At a police training conference once, Rob Leatham (perhaps the greatest shooter in the history of competitive pistol shooting) gave a demonstration where he responded to three pop-up targets and instantly mowed them down with three shots in about 1 second from the draw.
While no one would dispute that such a demo takes tremendous skill and dedication, it was a young patrolman who asked the most relevent question about the demo: "What does that show? There's no way you could identify three threats that quickly."
If you're not training against a living, moving adversary there's no realism in the training.
4) Instructor's equipment looks like it belongs in competition (i.e. speed rigs, kydex OWB) or emphasis on competition.
If you see an instructor using this equipment, you can immediately tell he hasn't put in the flight time in FOF training. If he/she had, they would have found their kydex holster constantly losing the gun during H2H and grappling situations.
They probably would have also spent a small fortune in kydex to replace all their broken holsters.
There are some exceptions to this rule. For instance, Kelly McCann has a video series where he works out of a kydex OWB but he openly states that its only so the students can see what he's doing easily. When he was active operationally he always wore a leather IWB when in plainclothes.
Instructors whose resumes are largely based on their competition success generally do not make good self-defense trainers. Competition is a highly specialized skill and has little to do with real defensive engagements.
While I enjoy competition shooting, I recognize that its really little better than playing racquetball in terms of preparing you to face real problems. I participate purely for recreation and because I like most of the folks involved.
5) No Impact Reduction Suits (i.e. Bulletman Suit, High Gear, FIST)
If an instructor isn't using one, then there isn't any real contact. If there isn't any real contact, there isn't any realism.
If you don't reach an incredibly adrenalized state, you can't expect that your techniques will hold up under stress. Thus you can't count on them. The only way to bring injury potential down to an acceptable level and still reach this adrenalized state is to use a padded adversary.
No If's And's or But's.
While I am certain this post will find its detractors, its still true. If the firearms training you've had displays any or all of these clues, it wasn't worth much past the barest novice level.
Unfortunately the vast majority of firearms training does display most of these clues. Even the impressive high dollar schools with instructors with seemingly impressive resumes and really cool equipment.
Fortunately times are changing and good training that covers the real needs of self-defense is becoming more available.
Michael Brown
On the face of things, I would say yes. I think there is rarely a place where money is not wasted than in training. However I think the vast majority of firearms training is not realistic and does little to prepare its students for violent confrontations.
Thus I submit this list of 5 clues that, if seen, indicates that training is not realistic.
1) Emphasis on shooting beyond 7 yards.
Very few law enforcement shootings occur past this distance. Even fewer in the non-LEO world. While it may be entertaining to shoot further and it may improve trigger control, it is not time well spent in a time-crunched world.
2) No Integrated Options.
If an instructor does not have a background in anything except firearms, this is a real strong clue that he doesn't really understand the nature of the problem. Self-defense minded instructors should have extensive H2H training and not just a two week defensive tactics course. Actually firing the weapon is only about 1% of the problem, however most people spend 99% of their time training this 1%.
A quality self-defense program should consider many different force options including H2H, OC, contact/edged weapons etc.
3) No Force on Force Training.
See above.
If the training amounts to shooting at paper or steel targets, regardless of how complex and skillful the demonstration, there is minimal benefit received after the student learns basic trigger control.
Most instructors tend to try to develop incremental improvements in the students ability to manipulate their firearm at more and more impressive levels. These increments are very rarely a deciding factor in confrontations. The speed at which you manipulate your firearm is not the limiting factor in defensive engagements. The main limiting factor is the speed of decision-making. If you only shoot, you don't test this aspect.
At a police training conference once, Rob Leatham (perhaps the greatest shooter in the history of competitive pistol shooting) gave a demonstration where he responded to three pop-up targets and instantly mowed them down with three shots in about 1 second from the draw.
While no one would dispute that such a demo takes tremendous skill and dedication, it was a young patrolman who asked the most relevent question about the demo: "What does that show? There's no way you could identify three threats that quickly."
If you're not training against a living, moving adversary there's no realism in the training.
4) Instructor's equipment looks like it belongs in competition (i.e. speed rigs, kydex OWB) or emphasis on competition.
If you see an instructor using this equipment, you can immediately tell he hasn't put in the flight time in FOF training. If he/she had, they would have found their kydex holster constantly losing the gun during H2H and grappling situations.
They probably would have also spent a small fortune in kydex to replace all their broken holsters.
There are some exceptions to this rule. For instance, Kelly McCann has a video series where he works out of a kydex OWB but he openly states that its only so the students can see what he's doing easily. When he was active operationally he always wore a leather IWB when in plainclothes.
Instructors whose resumes are largely based on their competition success generally do not make good self-defense trainers. Competition is a highly specialized skill and has little to do with real defensive engagements.
While I enjoy competition shooting, I recognize that its really little better than playing racquetball in terms of preparing you to face real problems. I participate purely for recreation and because I like most of the folks involved.
5) No Impact Reduction Suits (i.e. Bulletman Suit, High Gear, FIST)
If an instructor isn't using one, then there isn't any real contact. If there isn't any real contact, there isn't any realism.
If you don't reach an incredibly adrenalized state, you can't expect that your techniques will hold up under stress. Thus you can't count on them. The only way to bring injury potential down to an acceptable level and still reach this adrenalized state is to use a padded adversary.
No If's And's or But's.
While I am certain this post will find its detractors, its still true. If the firearms training you've had displays any or all of these clues, it wasn't worth much past the barest novice level.
Unfortunately the vast majority of firearms training does display most of these clues. Even the impressive high dollar schools with instructors with seemingly impressive resumes and really cool equipment.
Fortunately times are changing and good training that covers the real needs of self-defense is becoming more available.
Michael Brown
He's a great trainer and an even better person.
