Demonstrating as a trainer

[38supPat]

Second, lets say you have multiple Instructors helping with a class so you are safely able to demonstrate live fire. You demonstrate a shooting technique and you happen to shoot poorly for whatever reason, have a squib load, or misfire, the students would then lose confidence in your ability to properly instruct and would likely worry they too will have a malfunction. On the other hand, let's say you shoot brilliantly, the students may then think you are "showing off" or " may feel inferior" to any shooting they are able to do. Either way, you have nothing to gain and only much to lose.

I think we are all capable of having less than stellar range days. That's her point, nothing more nothing less. No one can invariably control everything. They do preventative maintenance. Both are accomplished shooters, with handgun and rifle, and I've shot with them both.

An example, I was the most knowledgeable student in the class in regards to hand loading and long range rifle shooting. During classroom breaks, there were lots of discussion about long range shooting as most of the class and the instructors were interested. So in essence, we chatted a bit about the type of shooting I like to do and what kind of rifles I shoot, including the accuracy potential of those rifle. Upon the completion of the live fire qualifications, we were allowed to do a little shooting on one of their many personal/private ranges. I was asked if I would break out some of my rifles to shoot. The lead instructor was also a long range shooter (high master) and wanted to check out the guns. Some of the folks in the class might have been calling me out, I don't know, but they wanted to see what the guns could do. I brought enough ammo to share with everyone. I got down behind one of my rifles in the prone position and fired a 5 shot group at 100 yards with a cold foul barrel. I guess if my performance would have sucked, everyone witnessing would have questioned my general skill level with a long gun (which is why the instructors do not advocate live fire demos). For people that don't know me or the groups in which I travel, I'm sure some of my claims might have sounded a little outlandish. I didn't feel any pressure to perform, I knew what my rifle, load, and myself are capable of doing on command. Below is the 5 shot group shot. Again, cold foul bore, cold shooter. Distance 100 yards.

Was this during a handgun course?

[kgunz11]

Combination pistol, shotgun, rifle. Why?

[38supPat]

'Cuz the pics are the same but the story is different here:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...mp;hl=cold+bore

To many folks, this isn't very important, to me it is. I will not accept a rifle that does not put the first round precisely into the desired POI with the very first shot. I always foul my barrel after cleaning and leave it in that state, and I confirm often that my CBS goes where it needs to. It's the sign of a properly built rifle. If your CBS does not fall in with the proceeding rounds fired, you at least need to know where it is and if it is repeatable.

Wednesday I was participating in a basic rifle course and upon the conclusion we were able to take our personal rifles and fire them and share with others. I got my .308 bolt gun out of the truck that was built for me by John Whidden and fired a CBS group on a playing card at 100 yards with it.

This 3 shot group was witnessed by 12 others. Notice the POI was on the tip of the heart. Having a 22 power NF scope helps in precisely aiming at a specific point, aim small miss small. All three shots were taken from the prone position with a bi-pod and rear bag. It measures under a .25 MOA, somewhere in the teens, easily covered by a dime.

John, Matt should have bought this rifle while it was for sale. I sold the 7WSM so I get to keep this one.

[kgunz11]

No Sir, same story, same class, same pics. Nothings changed. Same 12 people in an NRA Instructor level course. We did pistol, shotgun, and rifle in a contiguous 1 week class.

[Duane Thomas]

I once shot an IDPA match on a cold winter day when I had a combination of pneumonia and bronchitis so severe that just breathing (shallowly) was actively painful. Now, some may question my sanity for this. Frankly, I had similar thoughts myself. But I did it. Mostly I wanted to know how well I could shoot when I was in that lousy a physical shape, basically one step out of a hospital. "If I can still rock now, I'll know that even when I'm cut down to a fraction of what I am normally, I'm still good." This was my thought process. Because anyone can do well when they're fit and well-rested and in perfect health (well, apparently not everyone but you get the point) but how about when we're sick? I looked at this as a golden opportunity to find out.

Did I shoot as well as I could have normally? No. Did I win the match? No. Did I still beat the vast majority of shooters at the match? Yes. Then I went home and spent the next few days shivering in bed with a combination of fever and sweats, and a mental state, that was fairly hallucinogenic. You never really appreciate what the phrase "sheets soaked through with sweat" actually means until you've experienced it.

"Don't shoot in front of your students because if you screw up you'll lose their respect" only works as a philosophy if your skill level is so low that anything other than your A-game takes you from "barely competent" down to "actively sucks". And if you're in that category, should you really be instructing at all? I'm not saying you have to be Robbie Leatham to instruct a Basic Pistol class - but you should certainly be better than "If I have a bad day this class of total newbies will see me as incompetent."

[kgunz11]

Sigh... Duane, if you'd only seen some of the folks in my class, you wouldn't want 2 of them handling a gun much less trying to give a demo. Needless to say they did NOT pass the class. You guys see a lot of remedial level folks I'm sure. If you ARE NRA instructors then you'll know the class is not designed to teach people to be competitive shooters, just halfway proficient in handling a firearm and basic safety. The safety aspect being the most important part. As some of the most successful NRA Instructors and TC in the NRA, this pair sees all kinds of folks. They will pass some that only have remedial handgun abilities themselves. Those are the people they don't really want to encourage to do live fire demos. You don't see the trees for the forest because you are accomplished shooters. These guys are training people that barely know their way around a handgun how to give a lesson plan out of a book for people with even less experience.

Would the NROI give a RO class to a group of shooters that JUST STARTED shooting USPSA and hand them timers to RO for the Nationals? Wait... don't answer that.

I've tried to make my point and I'm unable to. If you were a TC for the NRA, would you want a bunch of people out there that were newbs themselves trying to SHOW someone how to be proficient with a handgun or would you rather they concentrate on RANGE SAFETY and demonstrating technique according to the handbook. I understand why these TC's do what they do, I was there and saw the kind of folks they have to deal with first hand. After having said that, if you don't see it now, you're just not going to. Become an NRA Training Counselor and start establishing NRA Instructors. After 20 years of doing it, you might see why they teach what they do.

[Duane Thomas]

I've tried to make my point and I'm unable to.

I do see your NRA TC friends' point. But I also see it as a very limited point, that only applies in their own situation.

The NRA trains how many people through their Basic Pistol course every year? Thousands, certainly. Tens of thousands? Quite possibly. Their primary emphasis is on making people safer. This is an admirable goal, and certainly there are many people in this country who are safer because of the NRA and its training programs. Some time in decades past the decision was made that the way to get enough instructors to deal with the volume was to pass any instructor who wasn't grossly unsafe. Once you have made that decision, it is but a small step to, "We can't let our instructors shoot because the students will realize how bad they are and lose respect for them." And really, if all your instructors are trying to accomplish is making people safer, do they really NEED a decent level of shooting skill?

Or perhaps the decision was made first to focus on basic safety and leave any sort of real marksmanship training a far, FAR distant second, and after that came the realization they didn't really need instructors who could shoot. And from that, once they began passing instructors who couldn't shoot, sprang the "instructors shouldn't shoot" mindset. Whichever came first, whichever led to the other, the end result was the same.

Okay, I can argue those were bad decisions. But I can see how, in that situation, those decisions could get made. Believe me, I would much rather see this sort of thread talking about how NRA pistol instructors are, as a group, head and shoulders above the rank and file shooter skill-wise, and how their instruction teaches good, solid, basic technique, than see a thread talking about how NRA pistol instruction is a joke to anyone with even a modicum of skill, and how even an incompetent pistol shooter can become an NRA instructor. But that's not our reality. I accept that. I'm not happy about it, but I accept it.

Where I have a real problem is when those people then turn around and try to tell me, or any other skilled instructor, that, based on their own low standards, when I use my skill level to help my students learn, I am doing something wrong or unprofessional or unsafe. You say I can't see their point because I'm a good shooter. Not true. I can see their point - in their situation. The problem is not that I'm judging them by the standards of a good shooter. The problem is they don't understand that the rules that apply in their situation absolutely do not apply to instructors who have a decent level of shooting skill.

WE are not going to "have a bad day and embarrass ourselves" because at our worst we're still more than good enough. Is our gun going to malf? Well, anything is possible but it's highly unlikely because as a serious shooter we've probably chosen a gun with a great reputation for reliability, if there were any problems we have had them pistolsmithed out of existence, and that gun has worked for us, trouble-free, for tens of thousands of rounds. And if it does malf, who cares? Absent some sort of catastrophic failure, we'll just swiftly clear it out and drive on, and the students will be impressed by how fast and easily we did that. The only people terrified of having a gun malf in front of students are those who don't know how to swiftly get it up and running again.

[G-ManBart]

It's not that Bart, I don't think.

Analogy, you drink and drive you may or may not get a ticket or have an accident. You've done it 1000's of times. You KNOW you can get home ok. On your drive a deer runs out in front of you, you have an accident. It was an accident you would have had without even smelling a scotch. The fact remains you are now in an accident and there is a chance that alcohol could become a factor if tested. You KNOW you were fine to drive, but $H!T happens right?

Their stance is, if you don't drive, there is no possible way you can look like an ass and lose ANY credability. Make better sense now? And BTW, the only reason I am defending their position on this is I have a hard time putting into words why they feel as they do, which they have been able to communicate to me in person.

I think the problem with that analogy is that even if you "know" you're fine after having been drinking, you don't really know it....cause you're not. Still, I get it.

I read your other reply to Duane, and I understand what you're saying about their overall position and the level of instrutors that they often are dealing with and, in that narrow sense, I can see why they might take the approach they have. I guess my issue with it would be that their approach is often used as a benchmark for everybody else, and that's not really doing justice to the higher level instruction that's out there. If they said "hey, the NRA is providing training focused on safety and general skills and for that live fire demonstrations are generally unecessary. For higher level training on more complicated techniques there are times when live fire demonstrations are appropriate, assuming the proper safety precautions have been met", or something along those lines, it would leave the door open. Worst case is some administrative type winds up in charge of an organization that does firearms training, takes an NRA class and then prohibits his instructors from doing live fire, when it may be an extremely useful technique....hey, the NRA does it that way, and it's safe, we should too....that sort of thing.

Either way, I think it all goes back to the situation. A competent instructor, in the appropriate situation may find live fire useful for certain things. I don't think it's necessary, or helpful, in every situation, but there are some where it can be and a good instructor shouldn't be hesitant because anybody else says he should be. R,

[Chills1994]

Ergo...

If you can't demonstrate properly, you shouldn't be an instructor.

It really is that simple.

[kgunz11]

Brad, there are lots of qualified teachers that are very well versed in safe gun handling that are not USPSA/IDPA competitors and are great at teaching NRA basic pistol. I'm not talking about a competition class I'm talking about NRA Basic Pistol. I had a guy in my instructor class that was a GREAT teacher, knew the material and the lingo, he just wasn't a good shooter. Perfectly capable of teaching the info but not in doing a live fire demo.

[Chills1994]

Being a USPSA/IDPA competitor does NOT an NRA instructor make.

Being an NRA instructor does not a USPSA/IDPA competitor make.

Although.... ... if maybe some higher highers at Sedro were following along in this thread, having "certified USPSA instructors" being able to teach basic pistolcraft to the vast unwashed masses would...err... could be a really great marketing scheme. And get us way closer to the 20K membership mark. Or 25K membership mark.

cough*hint*hint*cough

Methinks that the NRA doesn't ncessarily have to be considered the end all be all of gun related umbrella organizations.

In the past, the NRA has done some dealings that I don't feel entirely comfortable with.

Furthermore, their attempts at pushing the Weaver stance in their Basic Pistol textbook just goes to show ya what a big bureacratic stuck in dogma 20 years behind the times organization the NRA is.

[AriM]

Being a USPSA/IDPA competitor does NOT an NRA instructor make.

Being an NRA instructor does not a USPSA/IDPA competitor make.

Although.... ... if maybe some higher highers at Sedro were following along in this thread, having "certified USPSA instructors" being able to teach basic pistolcraft to the vast unwashed masses would...err... could be a really great marketing scheme. And get us way closer to the 20K membership mark. Or 25K membership mark.

cough*hint*hint*cough

Methinks that the NRA doesn't ncessarily have to be considered the end all be all of gun related umbrella organizations.

In the past, the NRA has done some dealings that I don't feel entirely comfortable with.

Furthermore, their attempts at pushing the Weaver stance in their Basic Pistol textbook just goes to show ya what a big bureacratic stuck in dogma 20 years behind the times organization the NRA is.

man are you WAY off, weaver stance and tactical reloads have been proven to make you look uber cool....who cares if you can shoot well or stay safe

[1chota]

I am teaching a handgun class as a LE Firearms Instructor. We are training this year with the rest of the county and two nearby towns. It gives us more flexibility and less overtime if we do it as a group.

My range master for our dept. tells me that I cannot show the students how to shoot the qualification by live fire.

The rule is that no instuctors will shoot in front of the students. They are doing this so in case you have a bad day and don't shoot well, you will not loose the respect of the students. Also, he said you don't need to be a good shooter to be able to teach it, and you are there to teach.

I agree that in pro sports, like golf, basketball and skiing, the best teachers are not always the best athletes, otherwise they would be out there making the big bucks and not just teaching the pros. But....In shooting, I believe you need to be able to demonstrate the proper techniques and should be able to shoot well, but not necessarily be the best shooter. At our last trainers training, there were some instructors who could not group their shots at 10 yards. But, the worst shooter had a new gun.

What are your thoughts? Should instructors not live fire in front of students?

Randy

I am a firearms instructor at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy. Firstly, a firearms instructor should be an expert shooter to begin with. We do live fire demonstrations on a daily basis. There is only one way to establish credibility with your students and that is to demonstrate your shooting ability. They will pay attention more readily if you can walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

[JBP55]

I've trained leo's as a reservist on the county SO, and been an NRA Firearms Instructor since 1992. I've shot with my students in some classes and some not.

It depends on who you're teaching and what material we're talking about. While training LE, I would shoot with them to demonstrate how easy it was, not to impress...just to take the edge off their nerves. To say, "Hey, you can do this..."

I'll shoot with students that I'm training in IPSC, ICORE and Steel. You have to demonstrate techniques that can't be easily explained.

Now, if we're talking about an NRA Basic Handgun Course, then, no...I won't. No real need to unless they take a more advanced course later.

Each student is different. You have to get inside their head in a helpful way, because no two people are alike.

I totally agree with BlackSabbath.

[cyburg]

I know this is a late post on this topic, and I did not read everyone else's post.

The point here is the instructor can not show the other LEO's how to shoot the qualification course. The "Qualification Course."

This is very true. Each one of them has had the training and shoots the course however many times a year. It is an administrative procedure for score.

However, prior to the start of the course of fire they can ask a question and it is up to the instructor on how they wish to answer it.

Once the course of fire starts, it is on the shooter. If they fail to follow commands, too bad.

Remember he is not teaching a topic, he is running the line for qualification scores not advance shooting techniques.

Edited February 17, 2010 by cyburg

[GForceLizard]

I would want any instructor to shoot the course or at least demonstrate some of the courses of fire if there was a question. The point is not to see if they are fast or have amazing accuracy. If there was personal reason they chose not to shoot, like extreme age or physical problem, I would understand. A person in good health that won't do the live demo just lost my respect.

[cyburg]

The qualification course is a standard course that does not change. Everyone knows the course.

During any other firearms training I would demonstrate anything that I would ask a student to do. The day of a firearms qualification is not the time to ask questions. If a law enforcement officer has to ask a question about their qualification course then there is something wrong.

The instructor or person running the range will always explain each and every course of fire. If someone has a question they can raise their hand and the course of fire will be explained again. Each yard line is called.

It is not like I give you 50+ rounds and say ok shoot the qualification course. It is done by the book. Because you would not believe how many people will file a complaint if they did not do well and if they can prove that you did not call the line by the book, it will be you the instructor that will get in trouble.

[waktasz]

As an average C class shooter I would want my instructor to demonstrate techniques at a class. A basic pistol course is different and a demonstration is probably not needed but I'm not at the basic pistol course level anymore.

I've attended and taught at competitive driving schools and having an instructor drive your car, or driving a student's car for them is definitely the fastest way to learn or to teach.