Tier 1 Instructor

**mick610** · 08-22-12, 09:06

Originally Posted by RyanB

Tiers were devised by JSOC to establish funding priorities, not as a measure of abilities. People way overthink this stuff.

ETA: Not that there isn't a strong correlation between tier and abilities wrt DA, but it comes from funding priorities.

This is more likely the definition for those of who contract for the Feds...

You can teach in a "1st Tier Operation" but not be skilled like those other guys mentioned when you are involved in a "Government Operation".

**TriumphRat675** · 08-22-12, 09:36

Originally Posted by ClearedHot

A lot of people seem to have the misconception that doctrine taught by instructors from Tier 1 units somehow makes them better operators in the 1st CivDiv.

This is smart and true.

Shooting well is sometimes necessary but certainly not sufficient to a successful outcome in a self defense incident. As or more important are things like paying attention to your surroundings and the mental preparation to use deadly force. These are things that cannot readily be taught in 8 hour increments.

Top tier military shooters spend years training. How much of that is shooting practice? Shooting is only one skill among many that they must learn. It's not much different for a civvie. Being armed to the teeth and able to shoot like LAV won't do you much good if you walk around a bad part of town staring down at your cell phone with a $20 hanging out of your fly.

**Failure2Stop** · 08-22-12, 10:05

First there were SOCOM unit tiers, then somebody tiered carbines, now we're tiering instructors too? Damn, somebody needs to make a chart.

I consider a "Tier 1" instructor to be someone that was IN a tier 1 unit (either Delta/CAG or Seal team 6/DevGru) that also delivered instruction to that unit, while they were a member of that unit.

I don't think that there is any necessity to get into the weeds about lower tier units/instructors, as the "Tier 1" aspect really is a distinct segment of the available trainers, and for those that "only tier 1 will do", tier 2 is not going to meet his requirements.

I consider a "top tier instructor" to be one that is better than most in getting the highest levels of performance out of his students. It is a function of proficiency, instruction, trouble shooting, diagnostics, and coaching ability.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

**Failure2Stop** · 08-22-12, 10:06

Originally Posted by RyanB

Tiers were devised by JSOC to establish funding priorities, not as a measure of abilities. People way overthink this stuff.

ETA: Not that there isn't a strong correlation between tier and abilities wrt DA, but it comes from funding priorities.

What is your source for this information?

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

**6933** · 08-22-12, 10:09

For me, Tier 1 means they served in a Spec Ops unit, and now that they are out, have the ability to teach and pass info. to their students in an effective manner.

Sometimes examples are just as good as a definition so here is a list of who I consider Tier 1's to be: (in no particular order)

All TigerSwan instructors
Kyle DeFoor
JDP(Northern Red)
LAV
Kyle Lamb
Pat McNamara
Jeff Gonzalez
Paul Howe
Dave Harrington
Jason Falla

**Arctic1** · 08-22-12, 11:22

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

What is your source for this information?

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

Not RyanB, but Jack Murphy of SOFREP talked about it in a blog post there:

http://sofrep.com/4650/three-sof-phrases-that-i-hate/

**Jeff Franz** · 08-22-12, 11:26

Originally Posted by TriumphRat675

This is smart and true.

Shooting well is sometimes necessary but certainly not sufficient to a successful outcome in a self defense incident. As or more important are things like paying attention to your surroundings and the mental preparation to use deadly force. These are things that cannot readily be taught in 8 hour increments.

Top tier military shooters spend years training. How much of that is shooting practice? Shooting is only one skill among many that they must learn. It's not much different for a civvie. Being armed to the teeth and able to shoot like LAV won't do you much good if you walk around a bad part of town staring down at your cell phone with a $20 hanging out of your fly.

Of course there is more to surviving or prevailing in a life or death situation. However, there are a bunch of local meatballs around here that run around chanting the "situational awareness, situational aware, situational awareness" mantra over and over, but don't ever received any training on the shooting part. They walk around at every mall and resturant in a cat-like state of readiness, looking for danger in every shadowy corner at Ruby Tuesday's and always checking the exits. But they down-play actual live fire training. As a result, when they actually start shooting, they can't hit a damn thing, even on cardboard targets that don't move and don't shoot back. Sadly, some of them are current or former military.

The doctrine taught by the top instructors in open enrollment classes is all about accurate shooting and running a gun hard with TTP's that actually helped them win by more than shear luck in real-life combat. In the more advanced classes, it's about applying fundamentals in "advanced" situations, like shooting on the move or in the dark. Many, like Ken Hackathorn, talk about de-escalation, or give tips on ways to stay safe at home or public during their classes. McNamara's TAPS class is excellent for getting students to actually think while shooting. NONE of them teach that the gun is a cloak that makes you bullet proof and invisible, so you can go where you want and do what ever you please when you get there. Furthermore, if you do shoot like LAV, don't you think your chances of survivial increase exponentially? So I just don't see how training with the best does not serve us lowly civilians to be better prepared to prevail should the bullets ever start flying. Nor do I think that since I have trained with many of the best, I am ready to go on direct action missions in a war zone. I damn sure don't let my guard down or venture into the seedy parts of town because I'm carrying and I can shoot better than most.

"Tier 1 instructors," in my opinion, are instructors that are top-notch at transferring skills to their students that will be key in helping them survive and prevail in a combat situation, be it military, LE or civilian. They are teaching cutting edge, relavant material that is proven. Their status as "tier 1" may or may not be related to what unit they served in. However, thinking of the guys I consider at the top as instructors, most seem to have served at the higher echelon of the SF community.

**MAP** · 08-22-12, 11:26

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

What is your source for this information?

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

I believe LAV said the same thing in a class.

Mike

**Don Robison** · 08-22-12, 12:03

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

What is your source for this information?

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

JSOC

I was in the 20th SOS in the 90's when it was still a Tier1 JSOC SMU. The entire Tier status was nothing more than a funding priority, but it did somewhat equate to qualification as well.
In the late 90's the 20th was pushed back to a Tier2 status and put on a level funding priority with the 160th.
It was often a point of contention between the two units (primarily in the leadership), but truth be told both units were/are highly capable and excellent at what they do; regardless if they use different approaches to the same problems.