Have you attended formal tactical firearms training?

[Crusader103]

Have you attended any formal tactical firearms training? While all are welcome, I am specifically interested in further comments on additional training you may have attended outside of military/law enforcement.

I’m curious as to why you see or do not see the need to attend formal tactical/defensive training. If you have attended (or will attend) training was it a local course or distant? Are you self-taught? Books, videos, magazine articles? Basically, I see a lot of emphasis placed on the guns and gear but the same people that pay big money for the equipment don’t always want to invest in their skills.

Many of you know that I am an instructor that generally only provides advanced level instruction (not much intro or CCW type courses), which is where my curiosity comes from. My classes tend to fill quickly but I know that for every person that does attend, a hundred more shooters don’t seek out training.

 

[Rio Laxas]

I have attended formal firearms training classes and find them to be a very valuable investment. They have all been local so far, but I plan on going to Gunsite 250 next year. Some of the classes have been invaluable and some have been a big disappointment. The ones I consider to be great have taught practical defensive firearm skills in a straightforward manner. The ones that I have not liked were advertised as teaching such and then in reality seemed to emphasize the more high speed, low drag tactical skills or have devolved into too much airsoft. For the record, there is nothing wrong with these skills or kinds of classes, but I don't find them particularly applicable to me or my lifestyle. It can be a challenge to determine which classes will emphasize the former and which emphasize the latter.

 

[lawson4]

I've trained with John Farnham and several others. It was worth every penny.
This is in addition to the LEO training I get on a regular basis. Every instructor will give you new techniques and insights.

Rick

 

[Ledgehammer]

My first class was an advanced level course here local. I then dcided to do Massad Ayoob's 40hr course here in Florida. I felt both were well worth it. Though Ayoob 's course may be what you consider to be on the pricey side. The hard part is explaining to your wife that you're taking a weeks pto to take a tactical course.

 

[A.H. Fox]

All I need to know about tactical combat I learned in Baghdad and Afghanistan. Except for the part where my "boss" said I needed to be a wee bit more sensitive from time to time.

 

[CornCod]

I learned a bit in ROTC and in Law Enforcement, but didn't learn any fancy "trick" techniques.

 

[Zombiphobia]

a fancy trick is to toss a flash grenade in the house before you enter it.

J/K but seriously, I've got some military training down for MOUT, probably about as tactical as it gets. I've heard the Front Sight school is really good.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

Cost, lack of free time, and the fact that I don't own what most would consider a "quality defensive sidearm", have all kept me from taking any defensive or instructional classes. I certainly would not be opposed to getting instruction in the future (I especially think a tactical driving course would be a lot of fun and very useful), when I have the opportunity.

 

[230therapy]

Every one of them were good. The first five or so just got me up to speed (mostly Level 1 and 2's from various people). The rest were polishing and adding new skills. At some point you'll find yourself watching the instructor teach. Then it gets even better because now you can teach your friends for free.

I highly recommend that you go to different instructors to get multiple points of view.

The single most difficult class I ever took was SouthNarc's ECQC course (shivworks.com). However, it was also the most valuable since it was all about the fight. There was no being wishy-washy like in NRA courses. Weapons are weapons and people try to kill other people for trivial things like shoes, street corners, and $10 worth of drugs. It was tough and required intense focus. It's one thing to be attacked by two men when lightly sparring...and 100% more difficult when they come at you full speed with 75% strength hits (the gear allowed for it). Fast draw? Forget it...the darn gun will glue itself into the holster while that big gorilla bears down on you...and you get struck from the side because you forgot to move and check your blind spot for the other guy. Since they now knew about the gun...they went for the gun. Learning to handle that is worth the price of admission alone. Well, that and all the bruises and shooting.

Buy two training courses next year if you can. Go to a rifle course to make you dangerous to the government and a handgun course to make you dangerous to criminals out of uniform.

Be sure to research the instructor. Many of them have after action reports on various forums (AARs). M4carbine.net, ar15.com, 1911 Forum and others have reviews. Once you have a large body of information, you can then pick and choose with confidence what will work for you. You will also discover that your assumptions are usually wrong. Many things we do on the range at 30 feet are not very effective at five feet (and vice versa...point shooting from the hip at a target 20 yards away may not be the best response).

If I could recommend a beginning course of study it would be (assuming no knowledge):

1) NRA Home Firearms Safety (good to attend every decade as a reminder).

2) Any Level 1 handgun self-defense course (covers MINDSET, the draw, basic movement, malfunction clearance, basic burst fire, etc). NOT NRA courses. Look at FPF Training's "Concealed Carry for Self-Defense" for an idea of what to look for.

3) Any Level 2 course that covers advanced movement, retention and so on.

4) "Point Shooting Progressions" with Roger Phillips. It's really a course about movement. Movement is your only defense in most cases, unless you're wearing body armor at the time of the attack.

This covers about 3,000-4,000 rounds of ammunition, depending upon course round counts (PSP is 1,800-2k alone. You can run with a gun in 22LR for some of it).

In any order:

Any Level 1 Rifle course (300-1200 rounds, depending). Go to an Appleseed if you cannot afford to train much with a rifle.

Any course focusing on confrontations from 0-5 feet that includes hand to hand fighting/sparring. You will find most solutions in this space do not include drawing a weapon until there is a pause and/or distance. There should be focus upon balance and body mechanics. Examples include SouthNarc's ECQC and "The Crucible" with Kelly McCann. This will typically be a low round count course since there will be combatives and Simunitions/Airsoft involved.

Any knifing course.

Any Force-on-Force course.

 

[hso]

I see a lot of emphasis placed on the guns and gear but the same people that pay big money for the equipment don’t always want to invest in their skills.

I know that for every person that does attend, a hundred more shooters don’t seek out training.

Yup, but most folks are duffers at anything that others can perfect. It also requires effort, where purchasing "stuff" is immediately gratifying with little effort (although that gratification doesn't last long and you have to do it again to feel good).

 

[wickedsprint]

I'm curious why you're essentially discounting the training provided by the Military/Law Enforcement communities. Is it because you find it inadequate? It does seem like some of my firearms training in the military was rushed merely to check a box.

 

[Iam2taz]

The courses have taken have been done very well. As a suggestion , if you need a solid instructor to start with, talk to several local gun shops. They will let you know who to contact. When I started taking courses, the same local names kept coming up. Now that I am more involved, I am looking at other courses. However, the $$$ are killer. The same national names keep coming up though.

 

[Sport45]

I answered no, and don't plan to. Unless I count the "training" received in the course of getting and keeping my CCL in Texas. I do "think" I'm ready for what I may encounter. (I hope I'm right.)

I have fire extinguishers in the house and HAVE attended several fire-fighting schools. I wonder if the proportion of trained gun owners is about the same as the proportion of traied fire extinguisher owners. Or trained drivers, for that matter. I've been through several defensive and commentary driving schools.

Probably would go to Thunder Ranch (a friend did and enjoyed the experience) if it didn't take so much time and money. I just don't think it likely that my demise will come because I wasn't properly prepared for a gunfight. If I meet meet my maker early it will most likely be because of poor dietary choices and my sedate lifestyle.

 

[Crusader103]

I'm curious why you're essentially discounting the training provided by the Military/Law Enforcement communities. Is it because you find it inadequate? It does seem like some of my firearms training in the military was rushed merely to check a box.

Oh, I'm not discounting it at all. My question stemmed more from wanting to learn the personal motivations of the individual, and steps they are willing to take, to improve of their own volition and not just as an aside to their job.

That being said, I do believe that some military/law enforcement entities are better at providing the training than others, but that wasn't really the question. The reason it seems like they are just checking a box is often because they are. On the other hand, I have seen a number of law enforcement agencies at least making a valid attempt to improve and even a few military units as well. I do see a lot of individual soldiers and police officers attending my (and others) courses on their own dime though..... sometimes at the encouragement of their agencies who flatly recommend seeking training they know they don't have the resources to provide.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I voted for "plan to in the future," but realistically it is more like "hope to some day."

 

[Sir Aardvark]

Some of the training I have recieved has had people in it who don't quite know what is going on.

By this, I mean that some people will bring to class a 1911-style pistol, and yet have no clue as to how it functions.

I have seen others bring a shotgun to class that has every single thing attached to it except for a bottle opener - it is so heavy that they can hold it in the 'high ready' position for only a few moments before they start to get all shaky in the arms - very tacticool, not very practical.

When you have classmates who are kinda new to things, it slows down the instructor because he has to send someone over to help, or, to have someone actually babysit the new person.

So, the point I'm trying to make is, try to find a class that meets your skill level.
Some instructors won't allow you to attend "advanced" classes until you shell out some $$$ for their "basic" classes, but some of the basic classes can be a pain in the butt to get through.

 

[devildave31]

I personally have not been impressed with the handgun training that I have recieved in the military. When I was in the Marines back pre-2000 ish, I was issued an M-9 because I was a crew served machinegunner. Our ranges at the time were more focused towards marksmanship. (this may have improved since 9/11, I would be interested to hear about it if so.) Since then I have been an M9 shooter in the Army NG. Our pistol ranges are slightly tactically oriented, however there is no train up period, more like here's the gun, here's some ammo, here's what we're gonna do, don't shoot yourself in the foot, good luck. Additionally, the Army goes way overboard on safety. We are issued magazines that are already loaded with specific round counts, 2,5, 7, etc. The magazines get placed on a table next to the firing line. No Mag pouches, no mag retention. there's usually one or two tactical reloads involved which is good, but they are alotted a lot of time. All in all they are just not realistic, and Personally I think the Army goes way overboard in the wrong direction when trying to balance training and safety.

Having said all of this, bear in mind that I am not in a combat arms MOS, but I think that if the Army is going to give you a weapon, and that weapon is all you have, then they owe you a little bit of good training. In my case I am lucky because a lot of people in our unit are not only shooters on their own time and money but civilian and military competitive shooters as well.

I have also had a little bit of civilian training. One of our local CCW and Tactical Shooting Schools put on a free shoot/training seminar for Military and Vets, which was one of his defensive shooting classes watered down a little bit. It dealt with close range threats at varying distances, shooting while moving, and ground shooting, which I was most impressed with. IMO the guy giving the course was very knowledgable and a good teacher to boot. I would love to get more training along these lines, money and time permitting.

 

[Big Bill]

My tactical training was with the US Army. M14, M16, M1911, hand-to-hand combat, gernades, M60 tank, etc., etc.

 

[BushyGuy]

i rather spend 500 bucks on ammo and shoot it up then spent 500 bucks for some kool-aid drinker to show me how to shoot. Anyone can learn how to shoot without training i am self taught and damn good at it.

most important part is knowing how to aim and judging your distance, they didnt have tactical training courses 50 years ago and everyone did fine.

 

[Big Bill]

they didnt have tactical training courses 50 years ago and everyone did fine

That's because everyone back then had either been in WWI, WWII, or Korea. They had been tactically trained and most were also experienced. Times have changed and guys like you and me could actually learn something, if we weren't so damned hard headed.

 

[nwilliams]

i rather spend 500 bucks on ammo and shoot it up then spent 500 bucks for some kool-aid drinker to show me how to shoot. Anyone can learn how to shoot without training i am self taught and damn good at it.

I respectfully disagree with all of what you just said, sorry.

I was a decent shooter before I ever took any formal classes, after taking my first one my shooting kills improved tremendously. I'm sorry but like almost anything in life there is no substitute for proper instruction from someone who might know just a little more than you about something.

Also not all instructors are "kool-aid drinkers" many instructors are damn good at their job and take pride in teaching people how to shoot, after each subsequent class my shooting skills improved even more and I learned new things depending on the class being taken. Some classes I learned a lot and some classes I only learned a little, the point is that I never took a class that I didn't find beneficial in some way.

I've taking classes where someone enters the class with almost zero firearms experience and by the end of the class they are making one hole groups with ease and it was the result of proper instruction.

most important part is knowing how to aim and judging your distance, they didnt have tactical training courses 50 years ago and everyone did fine.

That seems like kind of a broad unsubstantiated statement right there. Everyone did just fine but that does that mean that nobody back then would have benefited from the tactical training techniques of today? Also who's to say that everyone did just fine? Are you comparing the tactical shooting ability of people 50 years ago to the tactical shooting ability of people today? If so where is the factual data that can compare the two and prove that there haven't been any improvement in techniques over the past 50 years? I'm not saying you are right or wrong I'm simply asking what facts you are basing this statement on.

 

[JustA19D]

The US Army and all the friendly local nationals in my aor taught me how to be "tactical"

 

[MountainBear]

I'll ignore the use and misconceptions of the word "tactical." That being said, this year I attended a one-day defensive shotgun class at Oregon Firearms Academy, which was WELL worth it. Later I attended a three day practical bolt rifle class with Randy Cain. Also well worth it. Hopefully next year I will get in at least one pistol class, if not a couple, and a carbine course as well.

I came to the conclusion a few years ago that I had too many guns and should get more practice with them, along with some formal training. That and having Thunder Ranch near by, Oregon Firearms Academy nearby, and a local club who brings top trainers in every year, makes it easy to get training.

 

[effengee]

Absolutely no formal firearms training...

I was never in the military, nor do I have any urge to join the LE community.
I have nothing against going to a formal training course, for me it's a question of location, finances, and family obligation.
I live in rural Vermont, the closest training facility is like 50 miles away. I don't have $400 just sitting around, and with six kids under age 18, I don't really have a lot of extra time...

Whenever I can; I read about guns, I watch progams like "Top Shot" and "American Rifleman", I listen to professional shooters and garner from them what works for me, and I constantly practice.

I'll even go so far as seeking advice on gun forums just like this one.

I won't knock it till I've tried it, but personally, I can't justify spending the time and money on "formal professional tactical training"

 

[45Fan]

Military training MAY only get you so far, it really depends on what unit you are with, and what "extra curricular" training opportunities you are presented. Boot and Combat Training only got me so far, everything else I have picked up from training with units outside my parent unit. Combined with working with local LEO training evolutions, and any other opportunity that comes my way to get a new perspective, I beleive I am a bit better trained than the average person.