A Discussion on Types of Trainings

[Pami]

All of Lars and Shay's posts on the OODA loop and subsequent discussions got me thinking... just how many different types of trainings are there? What are the benefits of each one?

I understand that taking classes from different instructors is beneficial for several reasons. Even if the basic premise of the class is exactly the same, the approach to the lessons taught may be completely different. Or, the approach could even be the same, but there may be some fundamental piece to the puzzle that gets added with a new instructor.

My lead in to this is going to be more pistol based because that's what my limited experience has given me so far, but I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks, as well.

To start off with, you have classes like your NRA Basic Pistol course which essentially teaches you very basic gun safety rules, the two main types of pistols used in modern self-defense (semi-automatic and revolver), how to field strip and clean the gun, loading, grip, stance, basic marksmanship and some minimal shooting.

"Fighting Pistol' classes seem to cover a broad spectrum. At a minimum, they teach you to draw from your holster and marksmanship from various distances. Hors d'ouvres type courses throw in additional shooting positions (kneeling, standing, prone..) and some worst-case-what-ifs (shooting from retention, weak hand, one-handed...). But you're still relatively "safe" because you're shooting at a paper target that is ultimately not aggressive, unless you're standing in a breezy bay.

Moving on to Force-on-Force type trainings, I'm beginning to understand these cover quite a broad spectrum, as well. They can start on a very basic level with a very limited threat/stress level such as what the Fighting Pistol classes offer, except you're shooting paintball guns at a live person instead of a paper target. They can move into several days of intense real-world scenarios where a person intends to do you actual harm (all within the safety guidelines of being at a training rather than in the real world).

I also know there are courses that focus on major medical trauma and how to deal with those situations. I know that some courses focus more on accuracy or speed, and others really make a point to drive home the importance of mindset. There must be courses that are geared more toward competition shooters, while others focus much more on self-defense.

So look at this as a discussion starter. What types of trainings are available, which ones do you like, and why? I know there are a thousand options. I'm curious to know what they are, and why you like or dislike them.

 

[Tinman]

No one really seems to want to tackle this, so I’ll pitch my 2 cents in.

The first type of training as I see it is the fundamental manipulations. For you collegiate types we’ll call this the 100 level courses. This would be your NRA classes, your “basic” handgun, or handgun 1 level classes. Same applies for other weapon systems or defensive skill sets. This is where we teach the basic mechanics of say the reload, trigger control, sight alignment, even the presentation. Unfortunately, this is where so many people stop. They believe because they can now draw, and hit a target, that’s all they need to know.

Next we progress to the “advance” level classes. Keeping with the college theme, these are the 200 level courses. These are really just what I would call basic tactics classes. This is where we become less concerned with the fundamentals of actually squeezing the trigger and hitting the paper, and more concerned with movement off the line of force, target focus vs sight focus, use of cover, and other issues. You have to be able to shoot, and hit the target before we get here, or you’ll be hopelessly behind the curve and just frustrate yourself. This is where much of the open hand training seems to stall. Once we’ve learned how to punch, and then how to use that punch in a fight, what else is there to learn right? Sometimes at this level we see at least a passing nod to the mindset issues, and what the Tactical Response guys referred to as “principles of personal defense.” Generally, it’s not really driven home (most cases anyway).

Next we get up to the 300 level courses. This is what I would call the truly reality based (man I hate that term it is so over used) concepts. Generally, we are no longer limiting you to one defensive discipline, or scripting your responses. This is where a lot of the FoF stuff comes in. Although some is used in the 200 series classes, the FoF really comes into it’s own when you open up the playing field a bit with experienced role players and skilled practitioners allowed to respond they way they feel their character (for the role players) or they (practitioners) would naturally respond. This is also where a lot of the integrated defensive classes come in. These are classes that are designed to help you develop bridge skills between your different hard skill sets. This is also where we see a substantial increase in the mental issues associated with the violent confrontation address. If I had to guess, I’d say that this is probably less than 5% of the training that goes on in the industry right now. Thankfully for those of us who love this stuff, that is slowly increasing. These are the think warriors classes, and are generally not for the faint of heart or mind. I’ve seen great offerings from Rangemasters, Tactical Response, SouthNarc, ITOG, USSA, Karl Rehn, and a select few others. This is also where I would place events like the NTI.

Now on to the big dogs, the 400 level classes. These don’t come around often, and when they do, the attendance is generally a very high level group of individuals. These are generally specially tune curriculum for a given mission, or training goal. Some of these I’ve seen are specific vehicle defense courses, I’m not talking about the we sit in a static vehicle and bang out the window here this would be wrecking cars, evasive driving, shooting from moving and non moving vehicles, extraction and evac from disabled vehicle etc. I’ve also seem some very specific active shooter response courses that cover the gambit from hasty team organization through rapid entry and building clearing. These are not the kind of courses just any old somebody can pony up drop the cash and show up. Generally you only find out about them after the fact, unless your eligible to sign up.

That’s about it for the formal training end, then there’s the stuff you have to do on your own. There’s the dry fire practice to refine a given basic skill set, there’s the personal range time spend honing your fundamental skill sets, or working on a particular trouble spot. Next up would be organized shooting events that allow you to practice your skill sets on drills or scenarios set up by someone else (this would be your competitions, weekly shooting programs, or training groups). Next up would be your visualization training. This is what I have referred to in the past as “gaming it out” determining different situations, and appropriate responses. Finally, would be full on sparring / role playing with additional training partners. This is an important aspect to make sure that your skill sets will hold up under the very real pressure of a thinking breathing adversary. This last one requires a huge amount of safety precautions, and some special safety gear, so is probably best left to the training group environment at a minimum.

One of the best things you can have is a willing and able training partner. Someone to attend classes with, and help maintain the knowledge base. It’s that two sets of eyes are better than one theory. You also begin to develop a comfort with that individual so some of the necessary safety precautions don’t seem quite so unusual.

As I said, just my , I’m sure someone will differ with my definitions, but there it is. Hope it helps and makes sense.

Tinman….

 

[JetGirl]

It's kind of hard to discuss something that can be so subjective.
Instructor Bob's idea of "tactical training" may be something completely different than Instructor Larry's idea of "tactical".
Who's idea is the right way for you to train? And once you take that instruction, are you ready for someone else's "advanced" class if your foundation class was very different?

 

[Tinman]

Maybe I'm wrong, if so please disregard my last, but I thought she was just looking for some different ideas of kind of what was out there. So I pitched out some stuff.

You are correct, course definition and "level" is very subjective. That's why most instructors require you to start at their level 1 and work through the whole program. This is also why it is critical that you try different instructors. More than just for the sheer technique differences, there is a different orientaion to each instructor colored by their background and training pedigree.

As far as who's idea is best? Your's is the only one that matters. Everyone learns differently, progresses at different pace, retains and organizes information in a different way. Sure you will find some instructors you just click with, and things make sense, others might as well be speaking Hindi. That's just a compatability issue between their teaching styles and your learning styles. Having said that, I have always said (those who know me would attest to this) I take something away from every class I take, no matter how bad the instructor, and there is something I discard from every class, no matter how good the instructor.

The issue of are you ready for someone else's advanced class? If you've taken 1 basic course from instructor X, you're probably not ready to pony up to instructor Y's advanced level (there are exceptions to this when the instructors know each other and share common training practices). But if you've got 2 or 3 courses under your belt over a range of skill sets, it's probably a faily safe bet that you're ready for the "200" level courses most anywhere. Likewise, once you've secured a few of the more advanced classes, you'll probably be accepted in any of the "300" level courses. Now the 400 level stuff, that'll only come when you've sampled enough of the high level instructors that you're name is out there and around as a solid student. Then again, you probably wouldn't gain enough to justify the cost until you had that kind of training under your belt anyway.

I hope that helps a bit. Like I said, just my opinions, I'm sure other will vary.

Tinman....

 

[Pami]

Tinman, thanks for the response. I was starting to be discouraged.

It actually does help a lot. I kind of started it as a "What should I be looking for?" Now that my endless supply of money has dissipated (I actually started paying attention to my checkbook again!), I'm going to be a lot more particular about what trainings I spend my money on, and I was curious what options were available. I like to look at the big picture, do what I can when I can, but ultimately have a goal to work toward, and know I need to do X before I can move on to Y. Your college-course-level descriptions were very helpful.

Annie, it is subjective, that's why I was hoping for a variety of opinions.... such as "I've taken this course with this instructor, and this is what I got out of it. But I've taken this other similar course with this other instructor, and he approached it from this perspective, and this is what I got out of it." It doesn't even have to name specific instructors or schools, I was just looking for a discussion on the different types that are available. So yeah, it is subjective, and I'm actually looking for a mix of both objectivity and subjectivity.

From my original post:

So look at this as a discussion starter. What types of trainings are available [objective], which ones do you like [subjective], and why [subjective]? I know there are a thousand options. I'm curious to know what they are, and why you like or dislike them.

 

[Jay]

I just read these posts again, and all make valid points. The one point that I don't see, is, as a potential student, (or attendee)..........

.....that student should decide ahead of time, exactly what knowledge or skills they want to learn. THEN, decide who's training regimen fits their objectives. Most instruction follows a syllabus that may not be as flexible as the student needs it to be.

Communicate with a potential instructor, and make sure the goals of both parties will be met........

 

[obijohn]

tinman take on this subject, in my opinion, is spot on. the question to ask now is "what are my training goals?". once you are realistic about that question, then you can see if you need 100 level or are ready for 200 or 300 level training. most of us won't even need any 400 level stuff.

tinman, i love the "college" analogy, mind if i "borrow" it?

 

[rhino]

Buying professional instruction (both in terms of cash outlay and your valuable time) is like buying any other consumer product. You first have to determine your needs and wants, what you don't need and what you don't want. As was mentioned, you let that assessment focus your shopping.

If you're buying a computer, it's not a great idea to wade into a catalog of computers and try to pick what computer and accessories you need. It works a lot better to determine what you need and want to do with your computer first, then you can select the hardware and software that will help you accomplish your goals.

Another thing is that training/instruction is not always about defense or interpersonal conflict of some kind. Some is geared toward different kinds of competitions, some of which have greater or lesser martial roots, but they're still games and as you progress further, the goals and techniques necessary for success may diverge significantly from those of other sports or more serious applications of firearms.

Given that, in my mind, shooting is shooting. The differences arise when you consider the application, both in terms of the difficulty of the shot (and required precision) and the nature of the scenario.

 

[Pami]

.....that student should decide ahead of time, exactly what knowledge or skills they want to learn. THEN, decide who's training regimen fits their objectives. Most instruction follows a syllabus that may not be as flexible as the student needs it to be.

Communicate with a potential instructor, and make sure the goals of both parties will be met........

That was kind of the idea of this thread, actually. I don't know exactly what knowledge or skills there is to learn. I'm trying to think of a good analogy...

You know you need to get to the supermarket, but you are at your house. You could walk. But did you know that bicycles exist? You'd get there faster. What about motorcycles? Or cars? trucks? They all have different advantages and disadvantages, but the fundamental purpose is still the same: to get you from point A to point B. I only know how to walk, but my friend has a bike, and that's the coolest thing ever. But if I spend all my time and energy only researching bikes and the differences in the different types, will I ever notice that incredibly sexy Z06 that could also get me there and would probably enjoy much more?

It's an odd analogy, but it works. When Lars and I first started really talking guns, the only thing I knew was that guns are for self-defense. When we learned that classes were offered, the only thing we thought about was safe handling of our new guns. Clearly, there's a lot more on the buffet than safety classes. Fundamentally, trainings are to teach you how to use your gun more effectively. This thread was meant to be a discussion starter on viewing the smorgasboard of what "effectively" means.

tinman take on this subject, in my opinion, is spot on. the question to ask now is "what are my training goals?". once you are realistic about that question, then you can see if you need 100 level or are ready for 200 or 300 level training. most of us won't even need any 400 level stuff.

I agree 100%. But what are my goal options?

Another thing is that training/instruction is not always about defense or interpersonal conflict of some kind. Some is geared toward different kinds of competitions, some of which have greater or lesser martial roots, but they're still games and as you progress further, the goals and techniques necessary for success may diverge significantly from those of other sports or more serious applications of firearms.

Given that, in my mind, shooting is shooting. The differences arise when you consider the application, both in terms of the difficulty of the shot (and required precision) and the nature of the scenario.

This is the nature of what I was hoping this thread would explore.

I admit it started from my own selfish desire to "view the catalog," but I thought it might help other readers, too, which is why I brought it up instead of tackling the couple of people I know are training junkies. More than once from the few classes I have taken, I have heard, "I've been shooting for twenty years and never took a formal training." At the end of the class it was, "I've been shooting for twenty years, and today there were a few things I never thought about, such as what happens if my strong hand can't shoot for some reason?" I doubt I'm the only one who is relatively uninformed as to what kinds of trainings are available, so I was offering this thread as a reference, but also as a jumping point to discuss different options as well. Maybe I was hoping for too much? That happens sometimes.

 

[obijohn]

I agree 100%. But what are my goal options?

the sky's the limit, actually. from reading your posts, it seems to me that you are interested in:

the safe operation of your firearm.
defensive use of firearms.
action competition.

sound about right?

you've gotten off to a great start with the first by taking the nra pistol course. with the second by training with shay at the ingo training day. the third by investigating competitive shooting.

where to from here? by involving yourself (and lars) in competive shooting, you will further all three interests. competition, on it's own is satisfying and fun. just remember that the only person you have to beat is the one you were at the last match. by competing, you will further your skills at the safe manipulation of your firearm. you will also, by forcing yourself to perform under the artificial stress of timed competition, make yourself a better defensive shooter. you may also learn some "bad" habits as you progress and begin to "game" at matches. not a bad thing, just be advised. so that is one goal option. shoot more uspsa, idpa or similar matches. another goal option is to further your defensive training. there are good and not so good out there. you may attend a class only to learn some things NOT to do. just keeping it real.
for me, i don't have the time and the gumption to compete at more than the social level. gone are my days of trying to run with the big dogs. i'll teach my son the game and live that dream with him. my current goals are to continue to seek quality training and to become the best teacher that i am able to be.

i guess i rambled a bit, but i hope this helps. maybe i'll see you at a match or another ingo training day or dinner and we can chat on this subject. you are fortunate in that you are literally surrounded, on this board, by trainees and trainers that will freely and candidly answer your questions.

 

[Tinman]

Obijohn,
Feel free to pirate the analogy, I stole it from my college days anyway.

Pami,
Now that I understand your goals for this thread, and I think everyone seems to be fairly accepting of my definitions of the class levels and structure, I’ll throw out my thoughts on training goals and directions.

I want to break out and make one BIG comment here. Traumatic medical care, and general first aid training should occur at the earliest stage possible. I have used my medical skills probably 100 times for every time I had to even touch a defensive tool let alone employ one. Can’t stress this enough, general first aid, CPR/AED training followed by a good 1, 2, or 3 day trauma care class specifically designed to deal with injuries of a violent confrontation.

Keeping with the higher education theme, to me it should progress much like you would in any college endeavor. You’re going to start with one or two 100 level courses. This would be the “safe and responsible handling stuff.” This is your NRA courses, John and Vicky Farnam’s basic pistol, or any of the several reputable “local” guys that frequent this board. I generally advise people to look for solid local guys with a good pedigree and solid reputation at this stage. Not that the big schools aren’t worth it, but you can save a lot of coin while you get your mechanics worked out by running several times with a local guy verse one big weekend away.

Once you have a solid grounding in the fundamentals meaning you can draw reasonably smoothly, load, reload, fire single and multiple shots getting decent (read 8” center mass here) hits (abbreviated list for space reasons, you get the idea) your probably ready to progress. We would then continue to the “advanced” level classes. This where we get into the fighting pistol, advanced fighting pistol offerings from Tactical Response, Gunsite courses, YFA, etc. There’s way too many out there to list them all here look around and find and instructor you like and work with him / her. This is not to say that the “local” guys can’t run you to this level as well, you just have to be more discerning of their skills and abilities. This is also generally where people start getting interested in other defensive skill sets, and we would start the process over for each of those skills. This is probably where you’re also ready to throw in some different situationally specific weapon systems like the shotgun, or carbine. If your first course is a carbine course, you’re probably going to be well behind the power curve and struggle a lot. Not good for you, not good for the instructor, not good for the class.

Once again, when you can successfully complete the skill sets taught in the 200 level courses now it’s time to start testing your knowledge and skill sets. This is where we get into the dedicated FoF class work, integrated defensive work, and situational course work. This is also where you should start to look at specialty skill set courses like vehicle defense, extreme close quarters concepts, etc.

Most people will never get past this point. If you do, you probably won’t need my advice anymore because you’ll have a pretty good handle on what you know, and where you want to go next.

So here’s the short form training map as I see it:

Fundamental manipulations for the handgun (2 classes or so for most people)

Basic tactics classes (most places refer to this as level 2, or some kind of “advanced” class again most people can benefit from 2 to 4 of these)

Alternate defensive skill sets (open hand, impact weapons, knives, pepper spray, et all) (This will become a study unto itself, following a similar level 1, 2, 3 as the pistol) (this is also where I would include things like extreme close quarters shooting)

Skill set integration, and bridge skill classes (this is where the gun handling must be solid, and we need a basic understanding of the use of “other” defensive skills)

FoF classes, and dedicated skills testing events (NTI is a great example, TR’s the fight class is another)

Specialty defensive skill sets (vehicle defense, armed movement within structures, etc) (this is also where I’d hit the long guns hot and heavy)

That’s of course geared mostly towards the civilian. I would alter significantly for mil, LE work, but that wasn’t the premise of the thread.

Remember your goal. If the goal is to be competitive at some gun game, stick to course work and training specifically designed to enhance the necessary skill sets for that particular game. If your goal is to successfully defend yourself from a violent attack, look at the skill sets most likely needed for that endeavor.

Here’s an idea of SOME of the skill sets necessary for defending yourself, you’ll need to organize them by most likely for you to use in your environment (obviously if your at home most of the time and a long gun is available, those skills sets should probably move higher up the list, you get the idea).

Medical skills (first aid, traumatic medical care)
Situational awareness and unknown contact management (borrowed from SouthNarc but a great definition)
Verbal de-escalation
Open hand (striking, clinch, groundwork)
Impact weapons
Edge weapons
Other less lethal (pepper spray, taser, etc)
Fundamental gun handling
Advanced gun handling
Long gun skills
Bridge skills (in fight weapons access, extreme close range shooting, etc)
Vehicle defense
Armed movement within structures

I think that’s the meat of it anyway, wow that was a long one. Hope this isn’t too disjointed and makes some sense to you.

Tinman....

 

[Pami]

Excellent.
Thanks for ALL the advice from everyone!
If anyone else has anything more to add, please do. I just have a lot of thoughts to process before I ask the next question...like, what is my next question?

 

[Tinman]

Glad to offer my .

Hope it helped. Most people are in the same boat as you, just few are willing to cowboy up and ask the questions.

By the way, the next question is....... where did I put that check book, and when's that class start?

Have fun, and stay safe,

Tinman....

 

[Pami]

By the way, the next question is....... where did I put that check book, and when's that class start?

yeah, I'm trying hard to avoid that one, but that's what I keep coming back to.

 

[Pami]

you are fortunate in that you are literally surrounded, on this board, by trainees and trainers that will freely and candidly answer your questions.

I hadn't addressed this post specifically yet. Nutshell: correct on all of your observations. Thank you very much for your suggestions and encouragement.

And you are absolutely correct. We are all fortunate to have such friendly, knowledgeable people pay attention to this forum.