Stukas87, regarding LE that I have seen, the techniques used are all over the map.  In over 2 years(and we serve a LOT of warrants) on my team I have never seen the shields come out except for barricade/hostage situations.  We never use them on dynamic entries which accounts for 98% of our missions and we move very fast.  I have been to classes, however, with other teams that incorporated them into all of their entries and the shield man handled the bulk of the clearing with the stack supporting him and their dynamic entries are, well, not very dynamic.  

I wonder if we should start some sort of Swat/ military CQB thread? Without giving anything away maybe not practical.

Having said that I have been thru a school where they borrowed heavily from police/SWAT type tactics (CQB) that transfer well into military CQB ...I think I am straying away from the topic of this thread.

My platoon leader was an E-7 with 15 years in the Marine Corps and 3 years at SOTG.

He could shoot better than anyone in the platoon, on any range, in any situation, with any weapon. He taught us how to shoot and did a very good job of it.

He'd never been in combat, or even deployed in support of OIF/OEF.

And, ironically, when the pressure was on when we did deploy, some members of the platoon found his actions lacking.

So I say no, combat experience is not required. It helps, but isn't required.

I've been to combat (OFI II 2004).  I don't have nearly the combat experience as some have but I do have a little.  

I also teach firearms to police officers(police officer myself)

I DO NOT believe that combat experience is a requirement to be a good instructor.  It can give you "credibility" as long as you have actual teaching ability.  If you don't have teaching ability, NO amount of combat experience will help.

I've known some VERY BTDT types with all kinds of experience(verifiable too!!)  A few of the people I know with a lot of knowledge can't teach for shit.

The BEST firearms training that I have been to has been in the civilian sector(including LE and non LE instructors).  I've attended some good training in the military but the civilian level training has usually been a considerable step above.  A lot of instructors came out of the military and LE and realized that a lot of firearms training left a great deal to be desired.  They then modified the techniques and improved upon them.  Along the way, a few people with no combat experience but natural teaching ability learned from BTDT types and improved upon it further.  

We also have ways of testing techniques like never before.  We now have things like Airsoft and Simmunitions where we can actually test techniques "under fire" while surviving to shoot another day.

The biggest secret to good teaching is to KNOW YOUR SUBJECT MATTER and BE ENTHUSIASTIC.  You don't have to know everything to be able to teach.  You need to know WHAT you are teaching and then teach it with the attitude that you absolutely love what you are talking about.  Your students will pick up on that and learn from you.

All good teachers consider themselves full time students as well.  As soon as you stop learning, you might as well stop trying to teach.


Good article and thanks to the OP for posting.

Isn't necessarily a qualification, or disqualification.

I'm sure plenty of folks have made it out of gunfights based on dumb luck, and plenty of folks have gotten killed in gunfights who did everything right.

However, like anything, a credible author or instructor should either cite his source, or his first hand experiences.

Sometimes folks get FAR too wrapped up in theorizing.  Folks who can't speed reload a pistol in less then 3 seconds will spend hours on end debating on the internet about why you should or shouldn't practice speedloads.  

If some folks spent half the time practicing that they spend theorizing about practicing, they'd be better off.

No. But sure dosent hurt.

In general I'd say it is not required, but in certain circumstances I would say that the experience is what drove them to create/revise the material.  Look at what SouthNarc does with ECQC.  If the guy hadn't been an undercover narc his exposure to criminal attack techniques would be considerably different.  Homie McSaggingpants isn't going to attack me in the Wal-Mart parking lot like he would a uniformed cop.  His TTPs would probably be much more similar to attacking the undercover narc he thinks is a crack head.  Likewise, Osama Jihadibomber's ambush tactics in Iraq are not something I'll likely ever face as an average CONUS joe.  

In the end, we can learn a lot from both so choose based on instructional history, affiliation & reputation, not on some claim of having been there, done that, and can make you like me for only $1999.98.

A supplementing question to this discussion could be, "Is it necessary to have teaching experience to be an effective firearms instructor?"

We've all experienced teachers who knew the subject but who couldn't teach for shit.

Starting at the first grade all the way through college, and into our professional lives.

There's also a difference between skills and tactics.

A non-mil/LE person who has good teaching skills along with good shooting skills can teach just about anybody else how to shoot.

That same person with no tactical skills cannot, regardless of their shooting skills or teaching skills, teach someone how to dynamic entry a structure.

Now if you take that same skill in teaching and shooting then add a solid baseline in some other shooting "related" skill such as CQB, they can teach up to the extent of what they know.  Given proper teachin material, they can teach within the confines of "theory" and do a damned good job at it.

Now take a guy who has been on the two way shooting range, knows how to shoot and shoot well, and has been kicking in doors in the sandbox for the last few years on multiple deployments.  Lets say this highly trained individual has zero people skills, doesn't like interacting with others, has a hard time communicating, and generally doesn't teach others very well.  

No better man to have at your back, make no mistake.  But could he teach better then the non-mil/le in any fashion?  

There's that old addage that most  basketball players play because they can't teach and most basketball coaches coach because they can't play.  Both have a sound understanding of the fundamentals of game play, and how to work within and around the perameters of the rules, but one can only put it into practical application well, and the other can only teach it well.

The absolute best teacher one will have is one who is A) Has good teaching skills,  B) Knows the subject content  C) has practical experience in said skill/tactic they are trying to teach.

One can learn much from someone who only has the first two, but can glean so much more from someone who has the third.

I, for instance, understand that as a trainer, I have certian limitations.  I'm constantly working on becomming a better teacher.  Doesn't matter what the subject matter is, i'm always trying to become a better teacher.  Teaching IS a skill, not just part of the equation.  Of course I am also always trying to broaden and expand my knowledge of the subject matter as well.

Because I am skilled in shooting, I do a fair job of teaching others.  At least they have all told me so.  I still doubt my abilities and continue trying to improve regardless, but I have yet to have a negative review.  

Because I have engaged in (through my chosen line of work) and trained with and under several people who have had real life practical application of certian tactics and combat skillsets, I have a somewhat "practical" knowledge (to a certian extent), as well as "theoretical" knowledge of these things and thusly teach tactical applications to the extent of my knowledge, making sure that the students KNOW exactly where i'm comming from and that if anything, i'm just adding the training wheels on the bike, but that they have to ride that bike to much better places to learn the subject matter far better then I could ever teach.

Do I consider myself a great source of knowledge and a master of the subject matter?  Hell no!  Do I try and help people expand their mindset, skill level, and learn the basic tactics that can save their lives, as well as encourage them to move on to bigger and better things? ABSOLUTLY!    If anything, my goal is to get people interested in training for real.  Not just throwing on some gear, rolling around in the mud, taking pictures like a bunch of retard airsofters and going home to brag about actually gettin a speck of dirt on their otherwise safequeen.

My goal is to get people out there learning the basics as best as I can teach, the tactics that could help them survive, and encourage a thirst for more training and knowledge that drives them to do more.  I've had quite a few of my core training group go out into the big world of training and hit up various schools and perform excellently with no issues, and then come back and thank me for getting them ready for it.  I've also been told that what they spent money on was nothing that I hadn't trained them in for free, prior to their going.

I'll be the first person to admit that I do not have LE or Mil experience.  But I have engaged in professions and training that brought me into the world of gun handling and tactics and thusly excited my desire to learn more and then to eventually train others.  I like to think that without having actually ever been shot at, that I do an OK job of teaching.  Of course i'm always worried that I'm not doing it well enough, but if I thought I wasn't doing well at all, I wouldn't be doing it period.

As it were, I have a good friend who happens to be a good teacher, who is also Mil, and who just got back from the sandbox.  While I will maintain the mantle of basic core instruction (how to put rounds on target, reloads, transitions, weapon malfunctions, etc, etc, etc,) he will be taking over the tactics portion of our training group.  We also have a gentleman who is well versed in HTH who, while never having been Mil or LE, has trained such in HTH at very high levels, and who will be taking over the HTH portions of our little training group.

Which all makes me happy because I can finally get back to being student instead of instructor all the time.....




No, mil or le experience is not required to teach much of anything.  Practical application along with good teaching skills and a solid knowledge of the skill in question though can make the instruction better.  

For instance, I have done some training under a gentleman who is Lebanese Christian.  He grew up in Lebanon fighting from a young age.  He's been shot at, and shot back at more people then %99.9999999 of anybody on this board.  He has no mil or le expreience, but his insights into combat were eye opening to say the least.  While most of use were kids playing baseball, fucking about with friends, and worrying about asking a girl out, he was a kid learning what it was like to slit throats and shoot people.    I'd happily train with him any day of the week because not only does he know the subject matter, he's put it to use for real, many times before, AND he's a good teacher.

In summary, Teaching is a skill, just like shooting.  Skills can be taught by those who are good at both teaching and in the skill being taught. In a twisted, self serving way, one can say that a good teacher can teach others how to teach......

Tactics can be taught by those who are good at teaching and who know the tactics.  Tactics is a skill that can be enhanced by practical application in the real world, hence making it so that a person who has good teaching skills, knowledge of the tactics, and who has actually used said tactics, can be an even better teacher of said tactics then one who has not used them for real. In other words, not necessary but it sure makes it better.

You're starting to sound like that 'Old spice' commercial where the guy walks round the round room saying things like "If you need it, you don't have it.  If you have it, you want more of it. If you don't have it already, you can't get it."  


To answer the question though, I think that teaching skills are as much a part of a persons personality as it is anything they have "learned" to do.  Some people have a natural ability to communicate with others and express a point or impart knowledge without sounding like a condescending ass, whereas others just don't have the patience to explain things in detail and they just "expect" people to get what they are saying.

Sure, in this case even having the natural ability is enhanced by some schooling on how to teach and even moreso with practical experience, but once again isn't completely necessary.

Insofar as how this relates to firearms instruction, I think the best thing to do is to start informal teaching first and build up confidence in ones ability to convey information in a manner that is condusive to an encouraging learning environment.  This also allows a person to find teaching points and techniques that work and ones that don't work, so the ones that do work can be enhanced and used while those that don't work can either be modded until they do or discarded entirely.

Get experience where it isn't going to cause harm or damage if you screw up, then move onto other things after your confidence in yourself and your material is strong enough.  That's what I tried to do and so far, so good.  We've always left our training sessions with the same amount of holes in our bodies that we came with, people have shown measureable improvements, and the feedback has been all positive except for the fact that some claim i'm keeping them back in the basics too much and not letting them advance fast enough for their tastes.  

First reply hit the nail on the head. I want a teacher first.

Good read.  The conclusion is about what I expected before reading it.  Not necessary.  However, other things equal, I'd prefer a combat firearms instructor[/i] who is one of the few with actual combat experience.

I would say yes, but it can be hard to get that teaching experience in something other than your intended area.  This is where a mentor is critical.  Having someone who is good at teaching your material (ideal) or in general (still very useful) can help you develop yourself as an instructor.  If that person is a SME they can fill in for you if a stud has a question you can't answer or if you can't seem to explain something just right enough for someone to get the point.  Having a mentor allows you, as a developing instructor to teach & learn at the same time which is incredibly helpful for you own skill development.

In my case I got a lot of teaching experience working for a mountain rescue team & that has helped me in everything I've tried to teach since.

I think so.  In fact, I'd suggest that teaching experience is necessary to be an effective instructor in any field.  The experience need not be formal, but somewhere along the line an instructor needs to learn how to present information in a format that the audience can use, how to recognize problems the student has and how to correct those problems, how to evaluate if  the learning/training has met the goals of the instruction, and so on.  

I have no combat experience and have been teaching cops to shoot for about 6 years now.  In todays world of police training we all have the ability to get combat experience through properly run Force on Force training scenarios. I recently attended a Simunition Instructor Course and learned a lot about myself and the training I have conducted in the past.   I didn't need lead hitting me to teach me what I did wrong.  Colored soap did just fine!  

What did I learn?  

1)  I never saw my sights on any scenario.  It was all point and shoot.  I've always trained Front Sight. Front Sight Front Sight.....but when SHTF, I never saw a Front Sight.
2) Find Cover....fast!
3) Return Fire.

All my scenarios were close up scenarios of 5 yards or less.  My experience may have been different if we did scenario's using long hallways.  

Needless to say I'm now working hard at getting every cop in our Dept "combat experience".  

Good Article and Great thread.... the next time a student asks me if I've ever been in a gunfight, I'll refer them here.  Definitely more proof that the industry has matured beyond the most important line on the resume being having "seen the elephant".

This was actually one of the questions that we posed to our guest instructors in the Profile Segments of the upcoming SWAT Mag TV show... There answers were also pretty much in line with the thoughts posted here.

-RJP

I'd also suggest that perhaps the best thing one gets from combat experience is the concept of simplicity and how to pare things down to what is essential versus what is important versus what is nice to have.  I don't know that it makes you a better trainer but I think it does often give one a better perspective on the gear.

From LtCol Cooper, USMCRs biographic data it does not appear he actually had much if any combat experience.  He spent his junior company grade time on ship's company (which in itself is just odd, since this was seen as a billet to let guys recuperate following seeing too much combat).  He than spent his time as a Captain at Quantico during the Korean war.  Which at the time was the period he would have been a company commander.  Following Korea he left active service and went into the Reserves, and following the standard SMCR policy participation lead to promotion for officers.

To me as long term Officer in the Marines, who knows a little about what the Corps was doing back than, seconding of Marines to what would now would be called OGAs to conduct covert operations was not something done.  Additionally when someone claims to have a ton of combat experience but it was all it a "secret" or covert capacity, I tend to be skeptical.  

This is not to say he was not a good writer, instructor and a trail blazer in the field, but just that he may not have had a tremendous amount of combat experience.

From LtCol Cooper, USMCRs biographic data it does not appear he actually had much if any combat experience.  He spent his junior company grade time on ship's company (which in itself is just odd, since this was seen as a billet to let guys recuperate following seeing too much combat).  He than spent his time as a Captain at Quantico during the Korean war.  Which at the time was the period he would have been a company commander.  Following Korea he left active service and went into the Reserves, and following the standard SMCR policy participation lead to promotion for officers.

To me as long term Officer in the Marines, who knows a little about what the Corps was doing back than, seconding of Marines to what would now would be called OGAs to conduct covert operations was not something done.  Additionally when someone claims to have a ton of combat experience but it was all it a "secret" or covert capacity, I tend to be skeptical.  

This is not to say he was not a good writer, instructor and a trail blazer in the field, but just that he may not have had a tremendous amount of combat experience.

No.

No, but it helps.

It's not necessary to have real world experience for college professors or high school teachers in the subjects they teach, but certainly some of the better ones do have that experience.  Then again not all who are great at doing are great at teaching so it cuts both ways.

Good article.

And I agree with it.

I teach basic & intermediate handgun classes and beginner carbine rifle.  I have no combat experience, but I'm a good instructor and I'm always working to get better.  

I'm a strong proponent of the "team" approach to teaching.  Multiple instructors make up for any weaknesses any one instructor may have in a given area.  And they make it more "fun" as you can deliver the segments that you enjoy and someone else can deliver areas that they like and you don't.

And, some of our staff are vets, some LEOs, and some are just Joe Sixpack civilians like me.

Ron, our retired E-9, is a wealth of information.  So is Frank, our retired Bureau agent/FLEO firearms instructor.  But I wouldn't discount Bonnie, our lone female instructor for a second just because she's young and cute and never been a cop or a combat infantryman (she is though a double distinguished expert marksman and certified instructor herself, and she's very good with nervous beginners).

So, I say do the Arfcom way:  Get both and use both.  Have the best of both worlds and give your students the absolute best you can and they will send their friends and family to take your coursework, which is the highest compliment they can give you.  Every class it seems we've got at least one or two ladies whose husbands "made" them take the class.  They aren't always happy to be there Saturday morning, but by the mid afternoon they are having a good time and by Sunday morning, they are eating it up and asking for seconds.  By Sunday night, their husbands are discovering that their wives want a new personal defense gun for their birthday - no more "hand me downs" from hubby.

99% of students are genuinely great people, if the students you encounter are anything like ours.

John

Béla Károlyi produced some of the greatest gymnasts of all time, but you sure don't see him doing any round off double back handsprings in the Olympics.  

The same can be said about numerous coaching/instructor positions, i.e. football coach, basketball coach, etc. Moreover, how many times have you seen the one of the best NFL/NBA players retire to coach a team only to find out that he was absolutely the worst coach of all time.

This guy says "yes" you need combat experience.   IMHO no, not necessarily but combat experience only adds to the foundation of knowledge and teaching ability.



I'm sure this Sailor is a good instructor and he has a lot of good points, but when all the purported good "qualifications" are slanted in your favor...



––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-



How to pick an instructor





First of all, the term instructor is over used almost as much as 'operator'. In reality, you need someone who can TEACH, not just instruct or tell you to do a drill. None the less, instructor is the term most used in this business because it sounds better than teacher.



What to look for in an instructor:



1. Experience in the subject - Don't assume that just because someone has had a gun on their side for 20 years they know what they're doing. 20 years the wrong way doesn't equal 6 months the right way. What is experience anyway? In my mind, and especially in today's world, experience is doing, for real, whatever said subject is. For example, why would you pay good money for a carbine instructor who has never engaged another human with a carbine? We're dealing with life and death here. So, would you let a nurse perform open-heart surgery on your loved one? How about a CQB class from someone who has never even entered a room to face another man with a gun, let alone a man who is shooting back? Remember too, that just because someone is from a high speed unit, that doesn't give them carte blanche to teach every tactical subject or mean that they've even done it 'for real' themselves.



2. Performance - This one is simple. If a shooting instructor doesn't demo each and every drill, somethings wrong. If your unit is wearing a duty rig, and the instructor is wearing an open top, or the team shoots Glock 17s and the instructor has to shoot his 'match' gun, you just wasted money. When you're looking for some training be aware that videos are sometimes deceiving. Yeah, he's going fast, but is he getting 'A' zone hits? or just hitting the silhouette in general?



3. Teaching ability - Can the instructor actually get his point across? Or can he just shoot real well? If you're getting yelled at for anything other than safety, that's a sure fire indicator that the instructor has no idea how to correct problems. Ask around, and find out how people like the instructor you're thinking of using. The multiple tactical forums on the net (like m4carbine.net) are a wealth of info.



What to be wary of:



1. controversial background, or lack of background - For some reason, a lot of folks think that if you've been to Afghanistan or Iraq as a civilian independent contractor for a government agency that you can teach any subject dealing with warfare. This is the farthest thing from the truth. A "contractor" who has multiple deployments to Iraq for a PSD job IS NOT a master class shooter or an authority on CQB, sniping, or breaching. A good number of people jumped on the contractor train post 9/11. Where were they beforehand? My estimate is that it takes about 5 to 7 years of military service in a combat unit (obviously SO units will have more experience because of money and overall mission statement), and another 3 to 4 years of professional shooting/instructing experience to be competent enough to teach at a level that will benefit all those involved.



2. tactics geared toward an instructor's "style" - some people do things just to be differnet, or to benefit their own products. Keep an eye out for this. There is probably a reason that not everyone endorses gear specific tactics.



3. My way or the highway - if someone has limited experience, but that experience has had good results, it will be hard for them to accept or change to new or more proven methods. Make sure the instructor you pick is up-to-date with tactics.



The types of instructors:



1. A good one



2. The regurgitation instructor- one who has no experience in the subject but has landed the job. He is smart enough to know this and eventually can repeat, verbatim, a debrief that an experienced instructor gave before. Super dangerous, because he'll sooner or later think he actually knows something.



3. The smoke and mirror instructor - one who has a little experience but a good personality, and could sell water to a fish. Generally takes on the persona or teaching style of an instructor who's school he has been to in the past. Can generally critique and debrief some major points beacuse he has Google.



The bottom line- spend cheap, pay twice.



Source: http://www.kyledefoor.com/2009/08/ho...nstructor.html



___________________________________________________

There is a difference between teaching someone to shoot and teaching someone to fight with a gun, as I'm sure you know.  I think Kyle could have chosen his words a little more carefully in this post.

He had a series of posts on his site paying homage to people who really shaped him as a sailor and fighter.  One of them was Jerry Barnhardt.  I doubt he is implying that you can't learn shooting from someone without combat experience.

Edited for clarification.

There's a lot of good points to this.  I also wanted to add a few points.

1.  You're probably a civilian.  Your goal is simply to survive.  That means you neutralize the threat and get the heck out of dodge as fast as you can.  Now if you were in the military and your tactical task is enemy and/or terrain based, you may need to close the distance with the enemy in order to accomplish that particular mission.

2.  According to doctrine, you want to return fire and find cover in that order.  By returning fire, you first suppress the enemy in a way that makes him less able to effectively engage friendly forces.  You then seek cover.  

3.  You typically do not want to change your position unless the benefits far outweigh the tactical risks you are taking in order to do so.  For example, if you change your position, will friendly units know?  If their movement is relying on you providing suppressive fire or security, you've probably just made a monumental mistake.  Or worse, will they mistake you for the enemy and engage you?  My squad leaders know that they are not to move unless instructed to or unless they absolutely have to.  While it may suck staying in the same covered position and taking on more fire, the longer they stay there the more certain I am of their situation/location as well as the fact that I now I have more time to move my other squads to a more dominant position on the enemy force.  If they move without being instructed to do so, they will probably prevent me from effectively arraying my squads and optimizing the geometry of my engagement area.  This also leaves you susceptible to a penetrating or enveloping counter-attack from the enemy.

4.  You've probably heard the term "closing the distance" quite a few times in movies and such.  The reason this works in a military operation is because of the simple principle of fire and maneuver.  One element can close the distance with the enemy because another element is capable of providing suppressive fire.  Fires without maneuver is indecisive, but maneuver without fires is catastrophic.  The average shooter is nowhere near the skill-level to effectively engage moving targets while moving themselves.  Not even your standard infantry unit is operating at this level.  This type of technical proficiency is pretty much seen at the special operations units that get plenty of trigger time.  We are talking about team size elements shooting the same quantity of ammo an entire infantry battalion would over the same period of time.

In fact, if you are a lone shooter and you are more proficient than your opponent then distance is your friend.

+1.

I know of LEOs that where involved in OIS that could never be an instructor, many of them will state: "I fell back on my training." or "I just reacted instinctively because of my training.". or even "I owe my survival to what my instructors taught me."

........many a great coach in professional sports never played at the "pro-level"...probably not the best analogy, but you get my point.  

I would say that having combat experience would be a great addition to an instructors experience, and his ability to convey his knowledge and experience of being in combat, but that alone does not make him "qualified".......you still need to be able to be an instructor who can "teach" and "coach" others what you know and have learned from experience..

To expand on this, if combat experience was necessary, there would not be many instructors until after the recent war started.  It was a long time between VN and the GWOT, and there were not a lot of folks actually in combat during the intervening decades.  Out of the half million folks in Desert Storm how many were ever in "combat"?

It also depends on how you define combat.  I have never shot anyone but have been shot at.  Not due to an inability to return fire but because sometimes, no matter how much you want to shoot back it is the wrong answer.  Like when a barricaded subject starts lobbing 30-30 rounds at you but you don't have a clear line of sight on him and there are 5 hostages in the building with him.  Was that combat?

Great post Ishoot2live.

I have been teaching on and off for the past 25 years, and I agree with the author and the members of this forum, that one does not need to have "seen the elephant" to be a good/great instructor.

The guy I teach for is Ex SF, I'm a computer nerd. One of our instructors is the chair of his dept at a local college.
We all bring different things to the classroom. I study and train more to the "tactical" side of things like ARs, Magpul, etc. I had to explain to him what/who Magpul was mid last year.
He's more into the traditional shooting sports and a bit of long range stuff. I like IDPA, he doesn't really care for it. We all have ideas and topics we do well...and some we need help on.

The one issue I see with older ex .mil guys (the owner of the school) is telling all the stories he has regarding his past lives

Make the classes take FOREVER when I teach with him.

Two different things here:



Teaching someone to use a firearm: NO, combat experience is not necessary nor ever was.  A good civilian NRA instructor can do this.



Teaching someone about combat:  Combat experience is definately an advantage and instantly wins respect.  And with two wars in the last ten years getting combat or operational experience was not difficult even as a civilian (PSD) [a certain famous firearms instructor].





"Combat Instructor":  Yata yata in combat do this...



Student: Question, have you seen combat?



Instructor: Uhh no, but thats how its done...



Student: Well why not?  Its not like we haven't had two wars over the last ten years.  Gimme my money back!

There are a lot of very good points in here actually.

There's a reason why I don't do much of any story-telling in my courses.  There are guys out there who have decades of experience, and are great story-tellers, which adds entertainment value to a course, but I personally choose to get as much time in training, especially since the time is so limited on the civilian side.  We can talk over dinner later on if people want, but when I have range time, I want to take advantage of that to the fullest.

I've been doing blended learning for years because of that, where course material is sent in advance, with email homework responses required on lengthy assignments, in addition to getting a solid zero on rifles before showing up.

I have friends that attended some of the big-name instructor's courses, where they spent most of 3 days sitting around while the instructor worked hard to just make sure the 85% of students who were LEOs left with a solid zero on duty carbines, many of which were not on paper at 50 yards when they pulled them out of the trunks of their patrol vehicles.  One particular friend was pissed that he spent $800 for a 3-day course where he was ready to start walking, not mess around with zeros.  

As to experience level, everyone has walked in different shoes in this life, and the ones who genuinely work hard to share what they've learned have something that is likely to be of value to some of the students.  Since trial and error in combat is not something you can just go experiment with regularly, lots of theories become training cultures, which often get invalidated when put to test.

A good example of that is with sniper training.

In the 1990s through 2000s, we focused heavily on riding that stinking prone position, bipod supported, taking our time on a KD range in daylight, dialing our dope in, and making hits on totally-exposed steel targets.  Problem is, you rarely get the prone in the real world, time constraints are a fraction of what we trained for, and targets are often movers or partially exposed, with a bit more night mixed in.

The stalk lanes in Sniper School seemed to validate the Carlos Hathcock NVA General kill, which we later learn never happened, and some of the better courses have totally wiped the slate clean with stalk lanes and evolved into a much better training block involving urban hides, and multi-aspect FFLs for final shot, done successively, without the full crawl covering hours of wasted training opportunity.

As far as combat experience goes, would you rather take a course from:

A.  An SF guy who was a soft skills MOS before he went 18 series, went to some quality shoot schools in between 2 deployments, gained some good habits from being around professionals on a regular basis, trained a lot of foreign soldiers, has mediocre to decent pistol skills, or...

B.  A civilian world-renowned competitive pistol shooter who has also trained Tier 1 units for 2 decades, and adapted a lot of his techniques for more practical concealed carry encounters.

If you are looking to improve you CCW skillset, I think option B. will make a lot more sense.

If you are looking to improve your team-level and leadership skills in an organization where that is needed, option A. makes more sense.

If you get someone who started out in Combat Arms, then went SF or to the Unit, then you get all of the above plus a laundry list of other skills that he can draw from to fill in the missing ingredients needed to make the flavor of soup you need.

Keep in mind that gun-handling skills are a fraction of what you need to be good at in order to win a fight.

The recent actions we watched down in Dallas illustrate that better than I could ever explain with words, particularly the two pillars segment of that battle.

The best shooting instruction I ever got was from a hobby shooter who was a physical therapist by day. Damned if he didn't know how to get me to do exactly what I needed to do. Course it was Wingshooting.

as a 9 year vet with a combat tour

combat really does not matter to instruction. a great combat soldier is one who remains clear headed gets on the radio and calmly relays information to artillery, medics, and air assets.  and can give top level first aid as required.  

you can teach small arms skills but you cannot teach running full tilt in full gear to contact to cover or to aid a fallen comrade  through a fallow field covered in UXO cluster munitions.