The instructor

[sspro2340]

1. What do you guys/gals look for in a solid instructor?

4. What is your favorite part of training?

Since I am in LE my favorite part of any training is how it relates to my everyday life. What tactical things I need to consider and how to go about implementing them.

This is very important to me as well. So you would probably be looking for more classes oriented around LEO scenarios correct? More tailored to night time engagements and getting in and out of cars or engaging around cars?

5. What is your least favorite aspect of training?

The only part I dislike about training is standing in line if there are a ton of students. I was in a 20 person class once, there were three lines, 7, 7 and 6. When you got done you stood around for ten or fifteen minutes shooting the shit.

Consider yourself lucky, we have about 50 students and we run one person at a time through a "combat course" which is similar to an IDPA course, while the rest of us stand around and wait about 3+ hours to shoot the course once. Then we do it again at night...

[Voodoo_Man]

This is very important to me as well. So you would probably be looking for more classes oriented around LEO scenarios correct? More tailored to night time engagements and getting in and out of cars or engaging around cars?

5. What is your least favorite aspect of training?


Consider yourself lucky, we have about 50 students and we run one person at a time through a "combat course" which is similar to an IDPA course, while the rest of us stand around and wait about 3+ hours to shoot the course once. Then we do it again at night...

50? **** that mess.

The most students per class I will ever take is 12.

While all that stuff is important, night shoots and in/out of cars, the "stress" of a situation is much more important to me.

LE or MIL scenarios are fine since they tend to bleed over into one another and having experience running a scenario which is MIL may translate over well to LE, but possibly not vise verse.

If the instructor knows his stuff, he will find each students maximum performance level and bump them up a notch every time. The most I have ever learned in any class is when I had to perform to a level beyond that which I thought I was able.

[JSGlock34]

1. What do you guys/gals look for in a solid instructor?

Professionalism.

Ability to teach and coach.

Relevant experience. This can be military, law enforcement, competition or industry. In my experience, the best have more than one, along with an open mind that is willing to try a better technique regardless of the origin.

A low instructor-student ratio and small class size. I've taken courses with 8 students on the line and a course with over 20 students on the line. Guess which one was more conducive to learning?

Emphasis on safety. You can tell a lot about an instructor by his safety brief. Is the instructor prepared to handle an emergency?

2. What are somethings that you dislike or flat out can't stand about instructors?

Some instructors have a casual attitude towards safety, weapon handling and muzzle discipline in the 'administrative area'. I've heard some talk a great game about 'big boy rules'. The problem is that the instructor doesn't know me, my level of training, or that of the other students. A proper safety brief dials everyone in before stepping onto the line and sets the tone for the course.

I am leery of instructors with excessively customized equipment. Impress me with your skill, not your gear.

Instructors can establish credibility by demonstrating a technique, but that blade cuts both ways. I remember one instructor who gave a lecture on weapons maintenance. He pulled out his personal weapon, which was so neglected that he was unable to field strip it. Eventually, he summoned an armorer to punch out the pins, and then proceeded to continue. He lost all credibility with the class.

3. How important is the (so to speak) real world experience oriented instructors?

To some extent, this is dependent on the type of class.

If we're talking a marksmanship course, my only question is "can the instructor teach me to shoot faster and more accurately?" If the answer is yes, then whether or not the instructor is a combat veteran is irrelevant to me. I've taken courses from former members of elite military units and from successful competitors. Truthfully, I learned more about shooting from the competitors.

Many of these same elite military units invite competition shooters to instruct their members. They're not invited to teach tactics - they're invited because they can shoot.

Now, if you are seeking instruction in tactics or mindset, then I expect the instructor to have relevant 'real world' tactical experience in law enforcement or the military.

This is definitely a place where the instructor needs to be 'self-aware' and understand their strengths and their limitations.

4. What is your favorite part of training?

Improving myself. Learning drills and standards that I can take with me and continue to use to build my skills. Hanging out with buddies.

5. What is your least favorite aspect of training?

Travel, expense and time away from family.

[Voodoo_Man]

Ohh yea, forgot another big one.

Humor.

The instructor needs to have a good sense of humor. If they do not then the class turns into this overly-professionalized "sir" this type crap.

[W2IYW]

3. How important is the (so to speak) real world experience oriented instructors e.g. ex-this, ex-that, 17 tours in this and that, etc, vs the encyclopedia type instructors, e.g. spent few years in military but didn't spend a day out of a green zone or as a cop, and has just dedicated massive amounts of time to R and D?
In short would you prefer a guy with a lot of experience but just tells you this is what I did and this is what I feel got me back home vs. the guy who researched the crap out of the guy who did years in combat, and others, then methodically came up with a training regiment? (sry this one is so convoluted)

Most of the posts above responded to this as just "how important is experience", but you phrased the question as a dichotomy. Personally, I don't think this has to be an either/or decision. As others have noted, there are instructors who've 'been there and done that', and supplemented their experience with research and exposure to other techniques. This seems to me to be the ideal, and one would need a well considered reason to settle for an instructor that does fall into the either/or break-down.

[Nippy]

A few questions for everyone:
1. What do you guys/gals look for in a solid instructor?

I look for someone that is more like a coach or a teacher that has genuine interest in seeing you get better.

2. What are somethings that you dislike or flat out can't stand about instructors?

Obesity, lack of interest in the students performance and instructors that clearly talk out of their box (i.e. teaching about gun fighting when they have never been in one).

3. How important is the (so to speak) real world experience oriented instructors e.g. ex-this, ex-that, 17 tours in this and that, etc, vs the encyclopedia type instructors, e.g. spent few years in military but didn't spend a day out of a green zone or as a cop, and has just dedicated massive amounts of time to R and D?
In short would you prefer a guy with a lot of experience but just tells you this is what I did and this is what I feel got me back home vs. the guy who researched the crap out of the guy who did years in combat, and others, then methodically came up with a training regiment? (sry this one is so convoluted)

Instructor must have true experience in what they are teaching. Be it national/world champion for competition or experience in the field as part of elite LE/MIL units. You see at some point the instructor had training, then real world happened and now he knows what works and what doesn't. Not just what tactics work and don't work but what type of training doesn't and does work! What became training scars, how doctrine and dogma effects the person in a chaotic and evolving environment, what skill sets need to be done perfectly at a subconscious level and what type of training helped that and what type doesn't etc.. etc..

Instructor must be dedicated full time into R&D in their relevant field of instruction.

Instructor must methodically come up with their own training regiment based on their real world experience and R&D.

Since there are many instructors that fit the above criteria and one or two new ones that come onto the scene every year... in my opinion the above criteria IS the bar. Anything less is well settling for something less. If I have to pay for ammo, lodging and gas I don't see why I shouldn't get my money's worth. Every time I have deviated from the above criteria I feel regret because I could have come up with a better way to spend +700 rounds of ammunition.

4. What is your favorite part of training?

Learning the instructors perspective on training. How his real world experience and R&D influenced his thought process on creating his training regiment. How he takes someone from where they are at to where they need to be. Anything that I can take back to home range and practice so I can improve.

5. What is your least favorite aspect of training?

Downtime. The time spent waiting for people walking back from the ready area and lunch.

[rob_s]

Since there are many instructors that fit the above criteria and one or two new ones that come onto the scene every year... in my opinion the above criteria IS the bar. Anything less is well settling for something less. If I have to pay for ammo, lodging and gas I don't see why I shouldn't get my money's worth. Every time I have deviated from the above criteria I feel regret because I could have come up with a better way to spend +700 rounds of ammunition.

I bet there's way less than you realize.

Also, many people have to "settle" because real life gets in the way. I have a bunch of guys I shoot with down here that are just never going to go to a sleepaway class because real job, life, etc. get in the way. For those guys they have to settle for what they can find locally.

Unfortunately, some people will hold the local intro-level instructor to the same standard as the sleepaway gunfighter instructor so they wind up with NO training rather than decent training. Or those that can travel jumping in feet first with and "advanced" class without ever having a foundation in the fundamentals.

This is why my partner and I are starting a company to offer 0.5-level training. neither of us are super ninja death dealers (although he's got way more street cred than me in that regard) but we are both very interested in turning collectors into shooters, and shooters into goal-oriented shooters. If they never go beyond our intro classes and our clinics because they can't travel and the 1-day local format fits them best, they'll get a healthy introduction to the fundamentals and opportunities to work on them with a metric to measure improvement. If they go on to the fully-vetted instructor for more advanced training they'll have the fundamentals of gunhandling, marksmanship and (most important to the other students) how to safely conduct themselves on a training range. The classes we're doing could be seen as an intro to training.

But we're not teaching disarms, or combat TTPs, or "gunfighting". I, at the very least, am wholly unqualified to teach that stuff. But having been to a good number of classes to find the common ground between them, run a match for 7 years, and run a practice night for 5, I am qualified to understand what most new shooters are lacking and how to prioritize fixing those shortcomings (or introducing them to the methods for fixing them) before they jump into the deep end of the pool. And with most of the big-name real-deal instructors getting away from intro classes there is a void to fill as well.

Of course, the single biggest thing most new shooters need to fix is their brain and shift it away from gear and into measurable performance downrange. That doesn't require gunfighting experience either, but it does require experience with having made the switch oneself.

[vigilant2]

Also, many people have to "settle" because real life gets in the way.

This is why my partner and I are starting a company to offer 0.5-level training.

Rob, could you keep me updated on this as I would really be interested. Locally, not much going on the South Florida area. I also
have a couple of guys I've been working with (new shooters/gun owners) and trying to impart what I've learned from my limited training, but I'm no instructor. It would also be good to have some eyes correcting me as I'm the most experienced shooter in my small circle. You may still have my phone#/e-mail. Please keep me abreast.
Thanks.

[Nippy]

Well there are about 12 or so on GGT. Plus Paul Howe, Scotty Reitz, Hilton Yam, Redback One, and you could pick a few guys that have some Panteao Productions videos. Also the two new guys I heard of this year (maybe not new to the scene) are John McPhee and Frank Proctor. So I guess to me it felt like there were quite a few as I have only trained with 7 of those folks and it will take me a couple of years to be able to take training with the rest.

I would agree though, if for logistical reasons you can not attend the optimal course competent training is better than none. I for one would then prefer someone that has taken a wide variety of training vs someone who has only taken training from one or two guys.

[Shane1]

Everyone has covered most of the answers but I wil add this.

One thing as a LEO as far as experience goes is how will training with that instructor influence any Deadly force I use. If your in a OIS, your training record will come under scrutiny, not just Agency training either but especially outside trainers. Those outside trainers may be called as witness's in your case. Just food for thought.