browningguy
Member
"It" may not, but experience shows us that instructors are necessary.
Maybe, but maybe not. Unfortunately the quality of instruction available today ranges fro good, to downright dangerous (in my opinion). I remember a few years back position Sul was all the rage with a bunch of high paid (but idiot in my opinion) instructors. They took a gun handling method that was developed for a very particular problem of military and police stacked to enter a position, and tried to teach it as the way everyone should hold their pistol, when clearing their house for example.
Everybody and their dog these days seems to be an ex-operator/SWAT/police marksman whatever. And to be honest most of the military/police tactics probably won't be of much use when you get into a street fight. I've heard tell of cases where people were trained to fire two rounds on a target, then scan for threats (by nodding their big old heads left and right a couple of times) then re-holster. And they do that all the time now, even when there is another threat target that pops up.
My opinion is that getting good at the games, IDPA or IPSC, will put you far ahead of what most instructors teach. Sure, they are just games, but it's fast, it's furious, and it's about getting good hits on target quickly, all of which will be good things to do in a gunfight. You also get to practice gun handling skills like mag changes and clearing jams, at full speed, while trying to move and make hits.
The first counter-terrorism training I had in the Navy (good lord, I just realized that was 38 years ago) was excellent. And they didn't teach us a single thing about shooting. What they taught was situational awareness and how to avoid trouble so hopefully you don't have to shoot your way out of it. The first shooting school we went to they trained us to put lead on all the targets we could see then go to cover and re-evaluate, not stand around in the open in an isosceles stance nodding your head around.
But let's be honest, it's hard to actually train like you are going to fight in the modern world. Many, perhaps most people, don't have a facility within a reasonable distance where they can do so. And many of those that do have something nearby simply don't have the money to pay for the classes, nobody is giving these things away you know. When my youngest daughter went to get her CHL I did have her take (and I paid for) a Ladies Defensive Pistol 1 class with a local instructor, she did very well. And the instructor commented on her gun handling skills and asked where she had trained previously, it was at home of course. After she got her CHL I also paid for her to go to Advanced Ladies Defensive Pistol, because she liked the instructors and I thought she learned something from them the first time. The next step is for her to shoot IDPA events, practicing trigger control, learning about use of cover and concealment, drawing, mag changes, all at speed.
I read a lot on techniques and tactics and I shoot IDPA/IPSC several times a year to keep my limited skills at least a little polished. I also go shoot at the range pretty frequently at paper targets ranging from 3-50 yards with pistols, sub-guns, AR's and hi-cap shotguns. I prefer IDPA for pistols since use of cover and concealment is a big deal, but I like IPSC because rate of fire/reloading is at a premium.
And I have adapted new techniques over the years, for example I practiced the Isosceles until I learned it's good and bad points and have adopted it for the most part, and that was after shooting strictly Weaver stance for 40 years.
My Take on the question:
Taking a class to learn threat avoidance is good.
Many pistol instructors can teach you basic gun handling skills.
Most pistol instructors aren't worth the money to teach actual fighting skills.
An instructor who is a Master level IDPA shooter will be pretty good.
Getting good at IDPA/IPSC is an excellent way to practice at full speed.
Standing in the open nodding your big old head around is bad.