too many instructors have "their" own way.

does anyone who has trained with a few different instructors find that in a class an instructor spends too much time changing what you have learned from a previous instructor?

hear me out. I realize there is more than one "way" to do something,... say where to put your support hand. mag well, fore grip, on the actual forearm or now I see Magpul has developed a new way to hold the carbine. Personally I like the magwell hold.

I had an experience where I have shot a couple thousand rounds through my Glock with a well known instructor and have gotten very comfortable and good with his technique..Then I was fortunate enough to spend an afternoon with another well known instructor and he spent most of my time trying to change what I was doing to do it his way. I wasn't doing anything wrong, and he stated that but he wanted me to do it his way. turned out to be a wasted afternoon. Thank goodness I didn't pay for his time.

Different tools for the tool box.

If all the instructors taught the same thing, well why bother having different instructors?

HOWEVER, an instructor must be able to explain WHY their technique is good, and WHEN it would be preferable. They should also explain the reasoning behind it, and its pros/cons(Few ever want to admit their ~perfect technique~ has cons).

Look for example at Weaver vs. Isosceles vs. Chapman. Some people will prefer different techniques, but it is good to know all three, because different positions may warrant different arm positions.


Edit:
The "my way or the highway" instructor types need to STFU. Conversely if you go to a course, and don't even bother trying to learn or use the techniques and tactics the instructor is teaching, your are just wasting your time and money.

If you go to a class(of something teaching something good), go as a blank slate with an open mind. Do your best to learn and use the techniques presented. Then after the class, decided which is best for you. Some people will have a harder time overcoming decades of previous practice, but may find some newer training methods work better for them. Others may find that their years of muscle memory lead them to be best suited with their older, perhaps less efficient technique. Better to be a master of a less optimum technique then a novice at the ideal one.

For example I took Farnam's Basic Pistol course. We had to shoot with the high thumbs hold. I shot very well in the course teaching me that I can effectively use the high thumbs hold, and I now understand it well enough that I can teach it to others and explain the benefits and down sides. However for my personal use, I hate the high thumbs hold, and would only ever use it again if I take another Farnam course.

Yep. Plus, everything evolves. Sometimes the result is negligible, but sometimes, if you don't have painted on ears, you learn a better way to skin the cat.

Thats exactly why you need to get all the training you can, find what works for you, then get good at it. Then focus time on what doesn't work for you and what your not good at...and improve. Give it your best effort to know and be proficient in any and every type of training you can, to be adaptive to every situation you could possibly encounter...

Just my 0.02 take it how you will

I know exactly what you are saying. I have been there, done that.

Over the years, I have taken 34 defensive firearms courses from 8 different (nationally known) firearms instructors. Occasionally an instructor will teach the exact opposite way of doing something (when compared to a previous instructor’s method). Sometimes it gets frustrating.

It has been my experience that the instructors are always 100% correct and their method is the best (no sarcasm here). So how can two methods that are direct opposites both be the best? The simple answer is to find out what problem the instructor is trying to solve/address with their variation of the technique. It has been my experience that when different instructors teach different methods, they are usually worrying about solving very different problems.

An example would be Weaver vs Isosceles stances. I shoot from Isosceles more accurately and during a startle response, turning to directly face a threat is more natural. But I have tried to ingrain the Weaver stance into muscle memory because it starts with the body (holstered weapon) turned away (more protected) from the attacker and I feel the stance is better able to resist physical contact (a charge). I feel I am less likely to end up on the ground or loose my gun if I use Weaver than if I use Isosceles. Which is best, who knows? That is something that you need to decide for your self. But how can you decide, if you are not aware of the various techniques and their variations (along with their pros and cons)?

Another problem is that I have been introduced to some methods that I think are superior to what I am already doing, but they are no enough superior to justify the 10,000 reps that would be required to ingrain them into muscle memory. For me, 10,000 reps equals half an hour a night, 3 to 5 nights a week for 6 to 10 months. What I am presently doing may not be the best, but I often decide it is good enough.

You are paying the instructor for his knowledge, experience and problem solving skills. If you are not going to try to understand what he is teaching, why bother going to the class in the first place?

YMMV

One other thought, from the perspective of the trainer, it helps tremenously when everyone on the line is doing the same thing with regards to techniques when coaching, correcting, and troubleshooting. Also, don't forget that while some specifics and details vary, the fundamentals remain the same.

As a student I'll say that there are a few things that I will not give up without a damn good reason. And "because that's how we do it" is not that reason. You should have an idea of what your instructor is going to teach. If not, you've failed part of the job of being a student. You may be glad that you didn't waste your money, but you wasted your time & his time.

On a side note, the Weaver is physically inferior for dealing with an onrushing attacker. Keep your hips square or you'll end up on your back (think football lineman). If you need proof hit up one of SouthNarc's ECQC classes.

Take as many classes as you can from as many instructors as you can. And, learn everything they teach with an open mind. It does you no good to take a class and want to only use your old techniques and not try what they teach.

Over the past 20 years, my shooting method has evolved and my shooting has greatly improved since then. I'd be a fool to believe that as much as things have changed in the past 20 years that this is the end-all to shooting perfection.

Every class I take, I try everything that the instructor teaches. At every class, I hear the same thing from the instructors. They say that the method they teach is what works for them, and all they ask is that I try it. I may find that it doesn't work as well for me as my method, or sometimes I'll find that I can use all or some aspects of their method to improve my shooting

If you don't attend a class with an open mind, not only are you wasting your, and especially the instructor's time, but you are also detracting from the other students' experiences. Instead of being able to instruct everyone, they waste their time debating their technique with you.

If you won't simply go there to learn and not debate techniques with the instructor, for the other students' sake, stay home.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. While the lineman's stance may be better for you, I do not feel it would work well for me. I apologize in advance for the impending thread drift.

I come from a (1980's) traditional karate background where placing the right foot to the rear (quasi Weaver stance) was taught as a way to allow resistance to frontal impact. I never played football or wrestled, so the lineman's stance is not natural for me. It is also my impression that the lineman's (Isosceles) stance works best if both legs are used to generate forward momentum (driving into the attacker during empty hand defensive action). Something I may not necessarily want to do. I would prefer to stand my ground (or move laterally), not necessarily advance toward the attacker while trying to bring a weapon into play. After physical contact has been made and it turns into a wrestling match (FUT), I agree both feet forward (pushing) with a wide base is better.

I took ShivWorks IEK & ECQC class in Denver (2006). Craig (SouthNarc) did not object to having the right foot to the rear, he only insisted on the hips being squared to the attacker at the moment of contact. Weaver (right foot back) was not his preferred stance, but he did not see a functional problem with it. And as I am sure you experienced, nothing worked as well in ECQC as it did while theorizing over coffee. If nothing else ECQC taught me how quickly things could get ugly.

I also spent 6 years (2002 thru 2007) as a private student of Mike Janich's working on knife, stick & empty hand techniques (2 & 1/2 hours every Wednesday evening) and I can't remember ever using the lineman's stance during any of his training. Six years of weekly training (muscle memory) beats a single 2 day class as far as what my default reactions are likely to be. Probably the best thing I got out of SouthNarc's class was a better understanding of what Janich was trying to teach. Craig did almost everything differently than Janich, but they were both trying to accomplish the same basic things. Listening to Craig's explanations of the hows and whys of what he was teaching gave me a far greater understanding and appreciation of the hows and whys of Janich's methods.

As an aside, I also took all the classes Andy Stanford taught in Colorado in 2004 & 2005. I can't picture your face, but I am pretty sure we have been in class together. If I remember correctly, you are one of Steve Materkowski's guys?

Take care and stay safe.

Sounds like we just missed each other. I think I started training with Andy, SN & Steve in 2007 & started teaching w/DRT shortly thereafter. Good ol interweb- in my mind the Weaver has the whole body bladed to the point that squaring the hips (the truly important part) would be impossible without having to significantly reset your feet. If it's something more or less in between the two I can definitely see a quick shift of the hips to get them squared up for the FUT.

Eric keeps inviting me up to train with Mike & the group on Wednesdays, but it seems like something's always in the way.

Now back to your previous thread.

I thought the same as you did. But duringa Magpul Adv carbine class, at the insintance of Mr. Costa, I tried the hand forward rifle hold. Guess what, it worked for me. So by trying something different, I learned something. That is why I took the class.

YMMV,

G45

Going to courses isn't training. It's learning. You are learning different ways of doing things. Sometimes you'll get a lot of of a course. Sometimes you won't get much new info.

Once you complete the course and go out onto the range and practice what you learned....that's training.

Go to a course and soak up what the instructor is teaching. Then, evaluate it WITH AN OPEN MIND. Decide if it works for you. If not, then forget it. If it works for you, then use it and TRAIN on it!!

I have never agreed with everything that an instructor was teaching me. On the other hand, I've never gone to a training course where I didn't learn anything.

I'll try everything that an instructor wants me to try. At the end of the day, if I just can't make it work for me, I throw it out. But, I make sure that I've evaluated it with an open mind. A few times, I've found a few things that I didn't like initially but ended up adopting the technique once I had a chance to evaluate it more and try it out a little more.

Many people attend training course upon training course. They end up with hundreds of techniques that they have been taught. The more techniques for a given task you know, the longer it will take to come to a decision under stress.

So, go to training, be a sponge and soak up knowledge, test it for yourself on the range AFTER THE COURSE IS OVER, and then decide what technique works for you and then PRACTICE IT!!

Many instructors are frustrated with students that go to all kinds of courses but never practice on their own (or with a partner)

The purpose of going to different classes is to learn something new. Why go, if you're not going to try and absorb what is being taught? If you're paying me to teach you, why not try what I'm teaching?

I have, on a few occasions, had to unteach things that other instructors had taught because the techniques were unsound, unsafe, didn't work for that shooter, etc.

Do what you want when you're gone. But don't disrupt my class with "your way". If your way worked so well, you'd be the instructor. If a student can't accept that, they are free to leave.

I think ColtRifle and PSI hit the nail on the head.
As a student, I will try out the instructor's method for the length of the course - if I keep it, cool. If I dump it, at least I gave it an honest try for a few days.

When I am paying for a class, I'm paying someone to teach me THEIR method - whether or not I keep it is up for me to decide later.

Going in with an open mind is key.

I gotta agree. Going to classes you need to go in with a shut mouth and an open mind. You are paying these guys to learn their way of doing things. Would you expect to go into a karate class from a FMA back-ground and start doing stick drills?

I will also freely admit, the instructor needs to back up why he does something the way they do. There are lots of "training academy's" of all types that are monkey see monkey do and can't tell you why, other than that's the way they were taught. A good instructor can break down any drill into it's core fundamentals and principal concepts and tailor design his system to you and not you to the system.

Agreed. I was recruited by an instructor to assist him and his partner doing a carbine class. Against my better judgement, since I'd never worked with these guys, I did it.

"Their" class was basically a knock-off of Magpul's class, and the "head instructor" kept stopping the class to tell all his SWAT stories. The problem there was that he considered himself a SWAT officer since he carried a patrol carbine in his cruiser, in the small town of less than 2000 people, where he worked part time, approx six shifts per year. When students asked him questions during instruction, he would just pretend he didn't hear them.

I made myself nothing but an RSO for the day and didn't go back for the second day.

Get references to the schools you plan to attend. Just because they are small doesn't mean they are not reputable, but with all the people coming back from serving overseas, there are a lot of schools popping up now.

In a shot show vid about the AFG, Costa stated the AFG is a more comfortable grip to aid the shooter on how he shoots rather than just holding onto the side of the forearm. And if thats not your style of shooting then the AFG is not for you.

Different shooting stances and positions from different instructors are just tools to help the shooter decide whats best for him or her.

Now if an instructor told me that my position was not what he teaches and only wants me to use his because it works for him, well, he wouldnt get any nice words. My shooting stance, position, and style is combat proven.

Outside the military's "the way," every instructor, Costa included, was very, very adamant that they taught "a way, not the way." All would go some length to have you try their method, but would not bust your chops if you went back to doing it the old way. Whatever worked. Seems fair if it's your money you're spending.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.