View Full Version : Difference in Training Programs Style and Focus
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-13-08, 01:17
Looking at taking some classes. Looks like Vickers, Viking and Magpul are the the three most mentioned here. Not to start a back and forth arguement, but what is the difference between them, say for a carbine class. I have the Magpul DVD, so I have a feel for that. As Travis say in the DVD, I'm a Hobby Shooter, so that would be my frame of reference.
Thanks!
If you read some of the AAR's, or even scan through some of the pics from the classes, you'll begin to see the different approaches.
Checkout CSAT's website, and Paul Howe's articles...the compare that stuff to what you heard and saw in the MagPul DVD. Look at how Howe loads his carbine in the LWRC Future Weapons clip on youtube, and how he loads it in his promo on his sight...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHreIMu1d6M
which I hear is exactly how I hear he teaches in his classes. Compare that to what you saw in the DVD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LILq8uQFoec The differences are huge.
Look at Larry and Paul's carbines...then look at Haley and Costa's in the DVD. Look at their choices of slings, vert grips, etc.
Look at the round count in the DVD, versus what folks are saying they shoot in LAV's and Howe's courses.
I know the MagPul guys post here, so does Greg Hamilton from InSights, LAV of course, dunno about Viking Tactical or Spartan Tactical..... so I'm not gonna get into which I think is "best", or who I would spend money with first.... I would say though, look long and hard at the pics/ vids/ articles/ AAR's from some of the folks mentioned...and go from there.
Iraq Ninja
12-18-08, 07:17
Don't be too quick to judge a teacher based on what you see, be it good or bad. There are often more than one approach to solve a situation. What I look for in a teacher is experience and wisdom.
I have no need for instructors, just teachers. There is a big difference between the two. All the names mentioned so far are good to go in my book. But then, there are places like Front Sight that do not interest me at all.
Don't be too quick to judge a teacher based on what you see, be it good or bad. There are often more than one approach to solve a situation. What I look for in a teacher is experience and wisdom.
I have no need for instructors, just teachers. There is a big difference between the two. All the names mentioned so far are good to go in my book. But then, there are places like Front Sight that do not interest me at all.
Why do you say that?
I firmly believe that an instructor/ teacher should practice what they preach. If they don't it makes you question why they don't.
I agree that there are many ways to solve the same problems. However, I still believe that some ways ARE better than others.
If you look at IPSC shooters.....the vast majority shoot with the same grip on their pistol, and reload the gun in exactly the same fashion. That you have so many shooters arriving at the same method, speaks to how well it works.
When you look at the same thing WRT instructors...that you have 20 year vets from one of most highly trained military units beating the same drum, I think it gives their techniques some added validity.
Not questioning what you see an instructor do is dangerous, IMO.
Ive been trained various ways, and many over more than a decade
One says no dont do that, another says thats the way
Just pick what works best for you and use it
Blinking Dog
12-18-08, 09:18
Checkout CSAT's website, and Paul Howe's articles...Look at how Howe loads his carbine in the LWRC Future Weapons clip on youtube, and how he loads it in his promo on his sight...
That method of loading is indeed what Paul teaches in his classes. He had good reasoning for why he does it that way, and I have adopted it in my technique. Doesn't really add much time to make sure you have a round chambered.
Paul is great. Like LV, Paul spent a lot of time in Delta. I think Paul's experience in Somalia made a lasting impact on how he does things. I think you could boil his philosophy down to simplicity and replicability. He's all about using a technique that can be transfered across weapons platforms...or in other words, doing the same thing over and over...muscle memory I guess. And not getting caught up in gimmicks or equipment...just what you need to get the job done.
He's the real deal, and he has a great training facility.
Iraq Ninja
12-18-08, 13:14
Why do you say that?
Well, because I wasn't sure what your point was in comparing CSAT to Magpul Dynamics. I have trained with Paul and I liked what I learned from him. I haven't trained with Haley and Costa, and only seen the DVD. I see no problems with what they are doing.
Yes, there are better ways to run a weapon, or solve a problem related to a firearm, but only in terms of the context of the situation.
I am not a hobby shooter, and I train because my life depends on it every day I drive out the front gate. Shooting for me has to be directly related to fighting, and not just for shooting per se. So, I don't want a linear mindset with limitations of techniques and options. I don't want someone to tell me that "a way" is the better way because I know that it not always true.
For instance, If you watch to video clip of someone shooting their rifle using their index finger, and then have you watch another video of someone using their ring finger, which would you consider the better way? Most of us will agree that the index finger is the best. Many people may even laugh at the idea of training to use other fingers or even their thumbs to fire their weapon.
It is part of my training. Not because someone said I should do it, but because I once had my fingers burned after being blown up by a VBIED and I could not use my index fingers to shoot with. Afterwords, I realized that it may be a good idea to train using the other fingers. This is an example of a technique based on wisdom and experience.
Thus, I prefer to seek out instructors who I feel have the real experience to offer wisdom, and I do not judge such instructors solely on what I see on a video clip or read in an AAR. I may form an opinion on what I see, but I try and keep an open mind.
I hope this makes sense :)
John Hearne
12-18-08, 18:52
only in terms of the context of the situation.
This is the key. The job you're trying to do will determine how you do it - this is called context. Many of the high-end carbine instructors come from a military background. They frequently have team mates and work in an environment where supressive fire and small unit tactics are permissable.
If you're grabbing your AR while wearing nothing but your boxers after hearing the front door kicked in, the context provided above won't have a lot to offer (outside of the obvious mechanics of shooting/manipulating).
From a non-military, CONUS perspective, you don't see many large round count rifle fights. A lot of stateside carbine rifle shooting involve one or two shots. Again, not what the high end military guys are teaching.
This isn't meant to take anything away from the great instructors that are out there, it's a reminder to figure out what YOU are going to do with your weapon (pistol, rifle, shotgun) and find someone who teaches methods optimized for that context.
Well, because I wasn't sure what your point was in comparing CSAT to Magpul Dynamics. I have trained with Paul and I liked what I learned from him. I haven't trained with Haley and Costa, and only seen the DVD. I see no problems with what they are doing.
Yes, there are better ways to run a weapon, or solve a problem related to a firearm, but only in terms of the context of the situation.
I am not a hobby shooter, and I train because my life depends on it every day I drive out the front gate. Shooting for me has to be directly related to fighting, and not just for shooting per se. So, I don't want a linear mindset with limitations of techniques and options. I don't want someone to tell me that "a way" is the better way because I know that it not always true.
For instance, If you watch to video clip of someone shooting their rifle using their index finger, and then have you watch another video of someone using their ring finger, which would you consider the better way? Most of us will agree that the index finger is the best. Many people may even laugh at the idea of training to use other fingers or even their thumbs to fire their weapon.
It is part of my training. Not because someone said I should do it, but because I once had my fingers burned after being blown up by a VBIED and I could not use my index fingers to shoot with. Afterwords, I realized that it may be a good idea to train using the other fingers. This is an example of a technique based on wisdom and experience.
Thus, I prefer to seek out instructors who I feel have the real experience to offer wisdom, and I do not judge such instructors solely on what I see on a video clip or read in an AAR. I may form an opinion on what I see, but I try and keep an open mind.
I hope this makes sense :)
You make a good point regarding alternate techniques. It's great to train for contingencies...I agree 100%.
However, There is simply some material out there, and I'm not talking about any 1 specific person/ organization, that just doesn't make sense to use.
IMO, each TTP you consider needs to be examined in costs and benefits. In doing this, you typically arrive at what makes sense to do. If you were to say "well this is A way, and it works..." and not examine the costs and benefits associated with the particular TTP in question...you're doing yourself a dis-service, IMO.
I'm simply saying that if you start asking those questions as you shop for training...then you can hopefully make as educated of a decision as possible. I for one, don't have the money to training with 6 different companies on the same topic...so I need to be careful with where I spend my dollars.
...another little thing to keep in mind...
Some instructors may be capable of gearing a class to the group involved on the fly...
Don't think yer' gettin' the same thing from a vid that you get from actually being there...
You don't feel anything from a video...having someone tune you up is a slightly different experience in person...or, so I've heard...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
You don't feel anything from a video...having someone tune you up is a slightly different experience in person...or, so I've heard...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
Absolutely. The main difference there, in my experience, is that a video cannot diagnose what you're doing. A video can't say, "Dammit, Joe, you're still doing the chicken wing!"
I would highly recommend Pat Roger's course (EAG Tactical) to the original poster. I too am a hobby guy and had no training on the AR platform outside of the Army twenty years ago. Pat's class was the first AR class I took and I learned a lot and it was a great class very, very well run and you stayed busy. I left after 3 days feeling very comfortable with the weapon and having learned a lot about the platform. I'm sure there are some AAR's of Pat's course on here.
Edit - Just in case it gets misconstrued, I'm not advocating one instructor over another nor am I stating one guy has the answer. I'm simply giving the guy an option to consider from a first time taking a class guy point of view. If $$ and time permit I hope to train with most of the current programs in the next few years.
CarlosDJackal
12-20-08, 17:36
As the old saying goes (paraphrase): "There is more than one path to the top of any mountain."
There is no such animal as an Instructor who knows everything. If you ever come across one who insists that theirs is the only way, run!!
The best approach is to maintain an open mind, try every technique the Instructor asks you to and make the ones that work your own. JM2CW.
Absolutely. The main difference there, in my experience, is that a video cannot diagnose what you're doing. A video can't say, "Dammit, Joe, you're still doing the chicken wing!"
Hahaha :p +1
You guys are really lucky to have trained by and with the best of the best. Its extremely rare we get the chance to do that down here.
Rob Pincus
12-21-08, 06:50
Not questioning what you see an instructor do is dangerous, IMO.
AMEN. Respectful Irreverence (http://breachbangclear.blogspot.com/2008/09/guest-blog-respectful-irreverence.html).
The main difference there, in my experience, is that a video cannot diagnose what you're doing.
In addition to the diagnostic opportunity for instructors/teachers/coaches working directly with students, the opportunity for students to ask questions (see above) for clarifications, on related topics and express concerns are some of the most important aspects of in-person training. We often say that we could just send a DVD and save everyone a bunch of time and money if the students don't ask questions and express concerns. Instructors should not just show up to read power-points and call range drills.
-RJP
From a non-military, CONUS perspective, you don't see many large round count rifle fights. A lot of stateside carbine rifle shooting involve one or two shots. Again, not what the high end military guys are teaching.
I don't know about that. When I trained with Paul he was all about ending the fight in the lowest number of rounds possible, given the emphasis placed on speed and accuracy. I'm not sure what targets Larry, Kyle Lamb, or Jim Smith use (seeing as they all have the same background) but Paul's are all about CNS hits. Paul always states he'd rather be in a shooting than a gunfight because a shooting is one-sided.
Jay Cunningham
12-21-08, 08:21
I don't know about that. When I trained with Paul he was all about ending the fight in the lowest number of rounds possible, given the emphasis placed on speed and accuracy. I'm not sure what targets Larry, Kyle Lamb, or Jim Smith use (seeing as they all have the same background) but Paul's are all about CNS hits. Paul always states he'd rather be in a shooting than a gunfight because a shooting is one-sided.
LAV generally uses an IDPA target with an NRA bullseye stapled over the -0 center mass zone. As has been stated before, he is very much concerned with accuracy. LAV's classes tend to be rather low round count.
This can be a sticky wicket so to speak. I've been fortunate in that I've trained under Pat Rogers, Larry Vickers, Paul Howe and Ken Hackathorn. In all cases it was time, money and effort well spent. There are significant and subtle differences in what they teach.
I'd say 90-95% of what I do is a direct reflection of Larry and Ken's training.
Someone looking to improve would be well served by seeking training from any of the above, but my strongest recommendation would go to Larry and Ken.
For instance, If you watch to video clip of someone shooting their rifle using their index finger, and then have you watch another video of someone using their ring finger, which would you consider the better way? Most of us will agree that the index finger is the best. Many people may even laugh at the idea of training to use other fingers or even their thumbs to fire their weapon.
It is part of my training. Not because someone said I should do it, but because I once had my fingers burned after being blown up by a VBIED and I could not use my index fingers to shoot with. Afterwords, I realized that it may be a good idea to train using the other fingers. This is an example of a technique based on wisdom and experience.
Also I think that some of the strange things some instructors do is confidence building. Take the Marine, 500 meter target during qualification, how often is that Marine going to do a 500 meter shot with iron sights? Probably very rarely, but when they are look down the ACOG at an enemy 300 meters away, the doubt isn't there because they have made harder shots in training/practice.
Gutshot John
12-21-08, 11:06
I look for a teacher that can teach.
Too much time is spent worrying about philosophical approaches and too little time on whether the instructor can convey that philosophy effectively. Wisdom and experience are of course very important, but I've been to top-flight instructors that had both in spades, but were otherwise mediocre teachers. That's not to say they were a waste of time, only that by comparison I learned less than I might have otherwise.
Based on my experiences, Pat Rogers may or may not be the "best" shooter out there, but he definitely has wisdom, experience and the ability to convey it effectively to a class. You get the impression he puts a lot of thought into making you, as an individual, a better shooter. He critiques you directly, but then really encourages you as well. Pat is one of the best carbine TEACHERS I've ever had.
That being said, I like going to a variety of instructors, and Kyle Lamb is next on my list.
Looking at taking some classes. Looks like Vickers, Viking and Magpul are the the three most mentioned here. Not to start a back and forth arguement, but what is the difference between them, say for a carbine class. I have the Magpul DVD, so I have a feel for that. As Travis say in the DVD, I'm a Hobby Shooter, so that would be my frame of reference.
Thanks!
I do not know anything about the Viking classes so I will not comments. I have also not attended any Magpul training, but know Travis and Costa personally and they are good guys.
I have trained with Pat Rogers as well and would recommend him.
Vickers is who I spend most of my time with and view him as the one of the best (if not the best) trainer in the country. He is also one of the tougher instructors (specifically on his accuracy requirements).
For an entry level shooter (meaning someon that has never had any formal training) I think I would go with Rogers or Magpul first and then take a Vickers class.
C4
Ive been trained various ways, and many over more than a decade
One says no dont do that, another says thats the way
Just pick what works best for you and use it
A lot of instructors say one thing or another different from each other. Some of them have ZERO idea what they are talking about and their ideas have no real world background.
When I take a class, I look at their background. If they do not have a "been there and done that" in the real world I have a hard time buying what they are selling. YMMV.
C4
GLOCKMASTER
12-21-08, 15:04
I have taken several classes from Pat Rogers and I can highly recommend him. He also stresses accuracy, safety and if you need it, he gives you a lot of individual attention. Pat brings a lot of experience to the table and knows how to deliver it to the student in a manner that can be absorbed.
I have also taken classes from Kyle Lamb of Viking Tactics, Brian Searcy of Tiger Swan and Larry Vickers. I can highly recommend all three of them because of their background, experience, personality and teaching style. They all come from the same background in the Army. All three will give you the individual attention needed that will make you a better shooter, if you listen and apply. I really enjoyed them, their classes and what they had to offer.
Pat Goodale of PGPFT (http://www.pgpft.com/pg.htm) is often over looked by people. He has the background, knowledge and personality that makes an outstanding instructor. I really enjoyed his classes that I have attended.
There are so many instructors out there that it can be over whelming choosing one. I try to spend my money wisely and I, like Grant mentioned, look at their backgrounds. However, there are some instructors out there who have not BTDT and still are very good at what they teach and how they teach it. I always go to a class with an open mind and I try to take something from each one that I attend. There is always something to be learned.
Just remember that there are a lot of ways, not really the way.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-21-08, 15:13
Thanks for all the insights and thoughts. That is really helpful. I hadn't been getting updates that anything had been posted, I don't know why, I usually do.
Lots of good stuff to look over as the kids watch Rudolph 10 times this afternoon.
John Hearne
12-21-08, 19:48
I've taken six carbine classes to date. Of these, the most useful for a beginner were Gunsite's 223 and Louis Awerbuck's Tactical Rifle.
The 223 was useful because it treated the carbine as a "light rifle" and emphasized the fundamentals of shooting but in a combative context. I learned all of the classic shooting positions and learned to hit from them. We did everything from house clearing to shooting out to 400 yards. This was my first real rifle class (outside of an orientation at work) and was a valuable foundation. I'd highly recommend it as a first class because it really sets you up to succeed and offers a bit of everything.
The Awerbuck class was mind blowing. It was a low round class that emphasized hitting very, very well with the carbine. After the Gunsite class, I learned the most about shooting the carbine in this class.
I'd recommend these two classes because they seem to be much closer to the private citizen or CONUS police use of the rfiel. If I were a SWAT dude or .MIL type, some of the other classes already mentioned would be great. Again, it's all about context.
variablebinary
12-23-08, 23:47
I'm somewhat cynical after some training experiances. More and more I get the feeling some instructors are looking for something to patent and package first, rather than provide a solid base on which people can build a combat mindset and skillset
I'm starting to encounter more and more "special" reload techniques, elaborate footwork, and awkward stances as instructors seek to create a name for themselves and cool looking video highlights and photos to attract more students
Rob Pincus
12-24-08, 04:28
Var,
Examples from your training experiences, perhaps without naming names if you are more comfortable, would be appreciated.
It sounds like your "why?" questions were not being answered adequately....
-RJP
Also I think that some of the strange things some instructors do is confidence building. Take the Marine, 500 meter target during qualification, how often is that Marine going to do a 500 meter shot with iron sights? Probably very rarely, but when they are look down the ACOG at an enemy 300 meters away, the doubt isn't there because they have made harder shots in training/practice.
I have found this to be true for me, shooting 3x5" cards and 3" dots makes most other sight pictures very easy to aquire, thanks to TLG.
variablebinary
12-24-08, 16:49
Var,
Examples from your training experiences, perhaps without naming names if you are more comfortable, would be appreciated.
It sounds like your "why?" questions were not being answered adequately....
-RJP
To be honest I would rather not go into it, because it's drama.
I train with different people. Some are bullshit, some teach something I know will save my life. I filter where I need to.
Not sure if it qualifies as a necro post but I am once again finding a few minutes now and then to do something other then work.
Anyways I think I am somewhat qualified to chime in on this thread. I have taken a rifle and a pistol class from Paul Howe, a rifle class from Jeff Gonzales, a pistol class with Ken Hackathorn, a pistol class with Pat Goodale, and a shotgun/pistol class with Rob Haught.
I agree with Grant in that you want people that have real experience, are true experts in the field, and that seem to resonate with you. Yes, there are several instructors out there that have no BTDT experience and some of them no doubt are excellent instructors. If they were coming to my area and their fees were low I might take a class from them, but for any class where I need to pay for travel, lodging, car, etc. in addition to my ammo and other class supplies I am going to take a class from an instructor with legit experience.
In addition to the experience he needs to come recommended by at least a few people whom I respect. For instance if the only review I have ever read is by Gary Paul Johnston I will pass on the class. If on the other hand some people here, at 10-8, and Lightfighter like them and post good detailed and useful reviews I will look at them and see if their stuff resonates with me. Typically if the instructor is good/great they will receive compliments from other already proven instructors. For instance the Gunsite Instructor Alumni crew (Pat Rogers, Lois Awerbuck, Tim Lau, Randy Cain, etc) seem to all have their head on straight and if they say someone is good, there is a high likelihood that they are indeed squared away instructors. Yes, a few slip through the cracks like the law breaking dog shooter but if you look for current recommendations you will find no credible instructor saying that the supreme allied commander is money well spent.
That of course takes us to the next part of the instructor screening process. Unless your cousin is Bill Gates, why on earth would you blow money on an instructor with a questionable past? If they were the only ones out there it would be one thing, but instead we have people like Paul Howe, Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Jeff Gonzales, Pat Rogers etc. who have been there and done that, and then did it again. And people like Ken Hackathorn who has been teaching this stuff since it was "stuff" and also has real world experience.
Spend your money wherever you want but the screening process is not rocket science. No one is perfect and infallible, and those that claim otherwise should be avoided. Use your head and some common sense and you should be able to find some good instruction.
BTW there are several other great instructors (probably around 50 or so) that I have not mentioned. Additionally there are literally a gazillion instructors that have no business teaching, and a few that should be taken and dropped from a plane without a chute.
Hopefully this was useful to someone and not just a late night post. :)
Happy Shooting,
Dave
Additionally there are literally a gazillion instructors that have no business teaching, and a few that should be taken and dropped from a plane without a chute.
Happy Shooting,
Dave
Great post. A few years ago when ammo was cheap and I didn't have to pay for classes I was open to just about anyone. I was a sponge and absorbed everything I could. I thought any training is good training, even if it's how not to do something... I was wrong. Garbage in= garbage out. We have the knowledge of about 20 years of truly excellent technical shooting. We also have the knowledge of an 8 year running gunfight. When you put the two together, you get reality.
Training techniques at the very bottom and at the very top have been put to the test and validated or invalidated. We no longer have to "guess" what works.
I say it all the time- Why do people/units spend money and time on trainers that have a mediocre background, with mediocre experience, and a mediocre skill set, when they could spend money on trainers that have an excellent background, with excellent experience, and an excellent skill set?
If I take classes anymore I am looking for very specific things in regard to background, experience and skill from the teacher. When it comes to the shooting/gunfight realm, I want to see high level SOF experience and high level competition experience.
Heavy Metal
05-12-09, 19:55
I have found this to be true for me, shooting 3x5" cards and 3" dots makes most other sight pictures very easy to aquire, thanks to TLG.
Don't forget to add Todd to the list.
He is on my short list of those I have yet to train with but want to (except for a short guest appearance he made a Vicker's class last year).
I started playing with Todd's F.A.S.T. targets this weekend and mostly practiced the F.A.S.T. drill.
The Fast Target also makes a great target for shooting on the move using the big circle. I also used the small 3x5 to practice bullesye.
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v3879/245/104/100000025861897/n100000025861897_889_3138365.jpg
I got 19 out of 20 hits on the 3x5 at 15 meters with a G-19. The holes above were the last of two groups of ten. Two years ago, I could not have done that at two meters with a handgun. Ask Grant, he witnessed me at the begining out my long climb out of the abyss. Charitably, I sucked with a handgun. I owe most thanks to LAV and DP and the excellent instruction they have provided!
The F.A.S.T. drill is a good test to see if you are compatible with an extended slide release. I may not be unless I can force myself to keep my stong-hand thumb a bit to the left. I am debating removing it wondering if training can overcome it or whether I would revert to riding the slidelock.
And a bunch to my big libtard buddy that lets me use his farm. It is nice to have a place to practice Shooting On The Move.
I've trained with a few of the instructors mentioned.
I will admit LAV is my favourite - with Chris Costa being #2
The Magpul Dynamics classes are higher round count, and higher physical exersion. I have not discussed this with Chris, but I would beleive this is due to the short time frame and the fact that stress helps muscle memory, and short round count classes will not get the muscle memory needed.
What I'd really like to see if a 5 day combo class with LAV and Chris - Chris would warm you up, beat you up, and LAV would put you thru the ringer for accuracy, and slow you down and the cycle would continue.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-15-09, 23:36
Thanks everyone for the continued input. KevB's idea sounds like a nice way to spend a week and a crap load of ammo! During the week would be great- tell work I'm on vacation and tell the family I'm on a business trip!
Starting with a local MD class, hope to do more next summer, maybe even this fall.
Submariner
05-16-09, 17:10
Based on my experiences, Pat Rogers may or may not be the "best" shooter out there, but he definitely has wisdom, experience and the ability to convey it effectively to a class. You get the impression he puts a lot of thought into making you, as an individual, a better shooter. He critiques you directly, but then really encourages you as well. Pat is one of the best carbine TEACHERS I've ever had.
Excellent. We are paying for effective teaching. Try Louis Awerbuck as well. Few can diagnose individual shooter problems and correct them as well as he. A few years ago, he and Pat taught some classes together at Gunsite. That would have been a worthwhile experience.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.