Training Method

[ramzar]

But you haven't explained why that experience means anything apart from bragging rights or basking in someone else's "glow of awesomeness".

I train a lot, with a lot of different people. If I am instructed properly in a technique, and then witness (video) 2 or 3 other "Tier1" guys using that same technique in the same way ... do I need to meet them personally to make that observation? That's smacks oddly of hero worship.

Firearms training is not just about watching the techniques of these instructors via video. Let them explain the reasons for a technique/drill, demo it, allow you to perform that technique/drill and give you proper feedback and diagnosis. You're missing the last part unless HAL 9000 is giving you interactive feedback.

Once you have gone through these cycles you can better judge the "awesomeness" of the instructors but more importantly whether the techniques/drills best suit your personal needs.

[ZombieTactics]

Firearms training is not just about watching the techniques of these instructors via video.

I don't believe I implied otherwise. I'll be training this weekend with experienced law enforcement from one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. ... guess that's not Tier 1 enough though ... even though it's much closer to my personal AR/AO.

Let them explain the reasons for a technique/drill, demo it, allow you to perform that technique/drill and give you proper feedback and diagnosis. You're missing the last part unless HAL 9000 is giving you interactive feedback. ...

Let me try to understand this clearly, and you tell me where I have misunderstood you.

• The experience of getting instruction from Tier 1 instructors is really important.
• According to the only objective definition given, "Tier1" really just an accounting designation. According to your earlier definition, it's just a term of endearment.
• So, it's really important to to have the experience of being instructed personally, by people you like who got their paychecks funded from the right accounting bucket.
• Being instructed (even correctly or excellently), with demos and feedback by very experienced people who you don't like as much or didn't get their checks from the right money bucket is not worth as much, and not to be taken as seriously.

If that seems snarky, it's really not meant to be. It just seems to be the summation of your logic. It doesn't appear that you are really discussing the quality of instruction or relevance of any technique, but rather whether or not someone wore a uniform and operated in an environment completely unlike anything I am training to encounter.

Apologies if I am just being dense. Where do I have this wrong?

[ramzar]

Let me understand this clearly, and you tell me where I have misunderstood you.

• The experience of getting instruction from Tier 1 instructors is really important.
• According to the only objective definition given, "Tier1" really just an accounting designation. According to your earlier definition, it's just a term of endearment.
• So, it's really important to to have the experience of being instructed personally, by people you like who got their paychecks funded from the right accounting bucket.
• Being instructed (even correctly or excellently) by people who you don't like or didn't get their checks from the right money bucket is not worth as much, and not to be taken as seriously.

If that seems snarky, it's really not meant to be. It just seems to be the summation of your logic. It doesn't appear that you are really discussing the quality of instruction or relevance of any technique, but rather whether or not someone wore a uniform and operated in an environment completely unlike anything I am training to encounter.

Apologies if I am just being dense. Where do I have this wrong?

You take a compilation of posts from various posters and then jump to your own conclusions.

The instructors I mentioned I did not fish out of murky waters. The overriding reason to attend classes with them and others is to get the full cycle of instruction (I'll repeat below):

Firearms training is not just about watching the techniques of these instructors via video. Let them explain the reasons for a technique/drill, demo it, allow you to perform that technique/drill and give you proper feedback and diagnosis. You're missing the last part unless HAL 9000 is giving you interactive feedback.

Once you have gone through these cycles you can better judge the "awesomeness" of the instructors but more importantly whether the techniques/drills best suit your personal needs.

Without this for every one of those instructors you have no objective talking point other than the usual endless cycles of misdirection, out of context quoting, twists of words, exercises in wordplay, etc.

[ZombieTactics]

You take a compilation of posts from various posters and then jump to your own conclusions. ...
... you have no objective talking point other than the usual endless cycles of misdirection, out of context quoting, twists of words, exercises in wordplay, etc.

Not really. Perhaps we're just not in sync. If my presentation of the particulars is "out of context" or otherwise flawed ... please show me how and why.

... The instructors I mentioned I did not fish out of murky waters. ...

Did I say otherwise?

I apologize if it appears that I am just being deliberately difficult. It's not my intention. Your rationale appears to be little more than "these guys are awesome because I like them", and I am trying to get you to give me some reasons or something less subjective by which to judge your opinion. I am assuming from your comments that you've trained with all of them. That's a pretty impressive accomplishment, and I'd like to learn something from you if possible.

Simply repeating "these guys are great and I like them" (by whatever terms used) isn't helping.

[The Virus]

That list of guys is awesome regardless of whether or not they are liked........

[Kempfer]

My third person perspective of this conversation in a nutshell. I feel it might help give you guys perspective of where you are coming from.

Ramzar: Michael Phelps is an top tier athlete and instructor. I like to learn to swim from guys like him.

Zombie: Well my PE teacher can teach you how to swim.

Ramzar: Dude, 21 gold medals, world records... Think of what you can learn from someone who has taken that journey and succeeded.

Zombie: Yeah but the only place we swim is in local pool. I'm taking a class from this lifegaurd who watches over the local neighborhood swimming hole. That is more appropriate, he has real world experience of swimming there.

Ramzar: Going to take swimming lessons from a coastguard rescue swimmer.

Zombie: Right but I only plan on swimming in my pool, but I actually haven't swam into the deep part yet.

Ramzar: Neither have I. But I assume if I work to swim at the level of an Olympic athlete and coastguard rescue swimmer I can.

Zombie: Yeah but my PE teacher can probably swim to the deep end of the pool and back. Plus just because Phelps won some gold medals doesn't mean he is an awesome swimmer. You know who coached Phelps? Bob Bowman and he won no medals. So its just as good to take lessons from the lifeguard coach or PE teacher.

[ZombieTactics]

My third person perspective of this conversation in a nutshell. I feel it might help give you guys perspective of where you are coming from.

Ramzar: Michael Phelps is an top tier athlete and instructor. I like to learn to swim from guys like him.

Zombie: Well my PE teacher can teach you how to swim.

Ramzar: Dude, 21 gold medals, world records... Think of what you can learn from someone who has taken that journey and succeeded.

Zombie: Yeah but the only place we swim is in local pool. I'm taking a class from this lifegaurd who watches over the local neighborhood swimming hole. That is more appropriate, he has real world experience of swimming there.

Ramzar: Going to take swimming lessons from a coastguard rescue swimmer.

Zombie: Right but I only plan on swimming in my pool, but I actually haven't swam into the deep part yet.

Ramzar: Neither have I. But I assume if I work to swim at the level of an Olympic athlete and coastguard rescue swimmer I can.

Zombie: Yeah but my PE teacher can probably swim to the deep end of the pool and back. Plus just because Phelps won some gold medals doesn't mean he is an awesome swimmer. You know who coached Phelps? Bob Bowman and he won no medals. So its just as good to take lessons from the lifeguard coach or PE teacher.

Hilarious, but not really (figuratively) what I am saying. I am not arguing for low standards. I am simply questioning the means by which one makes that determination. "Tier 1" has been mentioned, but it's pretty well known that even "tier one" units don't train much with pistols, and generally don't use them much in battle except as a backup. Should their opinion count more than that of those who use a pistol as their primary weapons system, and as such have greater operational experience?

I read an article the other day to the effect that the U.S. military is sending breaching teams to be trained by LE/SWAT Team trainers ... because THEY are the recognized experts. Should I ignore that information because that SWAT guy isn't "Tier 1" enough? Clearly that's not a case of one person being an Olympic athlete and the other being a kiddie pool lifeguard.

[JRV]

Zombie we've talking about your training backgrounds as a student. You have trained with some top notch guys with a operational backgrounds.

Do you feel they were able to teach better than people without an operational background? (me being one of those) Do you feel hearing things from someone without a operational background made the concepts any less important?

[USM0083]

I think the discussion has got off track again. Who cares if someone is tier 1 or not. Some of the best instructors have no combat experience or have never fired a round in anger.

How long you have been doing something is also meaningless.

I'm here in NY running a transition course for my agency. Some of my students have over 40 years in law enforcement and have been in shootouts and have killed bad guys. They been at it longer than I've been alive, but their basic pistol skills are atrocious.

My four students today collectively have about 100 years of LE or mil experience, but I can guarantee that I have more time behind a gun than all four combined. How long you have done something is meaningless.

It is like saying that I'm an expert driver, since I've has a licence for 20 years.

[elSquid]

"Tier 1" has been mentioned, but it's pretty well known that even "tier one" units don't train much with pistols, and generally don't use them much in battle except as a backup..

How many rounds does the average DEVGRU or CAG operator put through his pistol in training per year? I'm curious what you are basing your statement on.

An interesting visibility point is MARSOC, who just awarded a 1911 contract to Colt. They shoot their 1911s so much that the Marines are looking to the vendor to do pistol support.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/07/20/marines-pick-colt-for-new-pistol.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=2

MARSOC operators stay on a rigorous deployment cycle, "so they fire a lot of rounds. It's a 15,000-round plus [training] work-up to a deployment," Clark said.
"It's more efficient to replace the guns over time instead of attempting to completely rebuild them."

CAG, DEVGRU? I can't imagine that it would be less, but I don't know. : shrug :

-- Michael

[ZombieTactics]

Zombie we've talking about your training backgrounds as a student. You have trained with some top notch guys with a operational backgrounds.

Do you feel they were able to teach better than people without an operational background? (me being one of those) Do you feel hearing things from someone without a operational background made the concepts any less important?

The best teacher I've ever had is Paul Gomez ... definitely not someone with a Tier1 background, but I'd submit that he was a better teacher than anyone you'd care to mention.

The second best teacher I had was a Marine Force Recon guy who probably doesn't want his name mentioned, and it wouldn't ring a bell with anyone anyway. (Rob Knows him) He'd be one of the first people to explain to me the limitations of military pistol training. His opinion was that "the military doesn't know f^^^ about pistols" ... and he'd gladly demonstrate that to anyone with any military background who'd care to challenge it. It was fun to watch the scales come off of some eyes.

It's my opinion, based upon my experience, that it's uncommon to find someone who is both an excellent "athlete" and and excellent "teacher". A lot of people have a winning personality, but the value of their awesome experience is mostly the ability to tell BTDT stories of questionable relevance. It goes something like this:

• Q: "'scuze me Mr. Warrior Sir, but why do you want me to do that??
• A: "Well, if you'd ever been in the sandbox, you'd never ask that question!
• Q: "Ummm, OK, but this is a self-defense class, so why are we using that retention position?
• A: "So yo don't send one off into your buddies arse in a stack!"
• A: "But I'm never gonna BE in a 'stack' ... so ..."
• Q: "Exactly. You need to learn from my tactical warrior awesomeness!"
• A: "But, like I said, I don't have all these buddies 'in a stack' ... so ..."
• Q: "Jeezus you ask a lot of pointless questions! It's like this: In Faloo-ja we were pinned down by ..."

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

"Tier 1" has been mentioned, but it's pretty well known that even "tier one" units don't train much with pistols, and generally don't use them much in battle except as a backup.

Where did you get that information?

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

In regards to training paradigms:
If you are a detective, swat, or military, you will want to train with a team as that is the most plausible time that you will need to use your firearm. So training with military/S.O.F./ paradigms may be appropriate

If you are a civilian, Police Officer, Armed Guard, static post, executive protection, then counter-ambush is a more appropriate training paradigm.

You obviously do not have any experience as a police officer. Police officers must focus their training on both team tactics as well as counter-ambush techniques. Much of police work is reactive but do not forgot how often officers conduct searches and stops using team tactics.

[JRV]

You obviously do not have any experience as a police officer. Police officers must focus their training on both team tactics as well as counter-ambush techniques. Much of police work is reactive but do not forgot how often officers conduct searches and stops using team tactics.

So if officers are trained equally as well regardless if they are on S.W.A.T or just a patrol officer, why aren't all LEO considered S.W.A.T if this ia the case?

[USM0083]

So if officers are trained equally as well regardless if they are on S.W.A.T or just a patrol officer, why aren't all LEO considered S.W.A.T if this ia the case?

That is not even close to what he is saying. A police officer receives training in tactics, communication, stress reactions, interactions. We also get some training in room searches and entry. One key point in training is going from condition green to red, and back to green, in an instant.

All this training, is at a basic level, however. Just like their firearms training.

A SWAT member receives advance training in all this, plus additional weapons training. They also train constantly, something your average officer does not do.

YMMV, as SWAT training varies widely.