How Much Training is Enough?

M

matthew temkin

Moderator
I have been thinking long and hard about this topic.
When I teach my armed guard classes I assume that most of them will not seek out additional training so I try to give them as much as I can withing 20 hours or so.
Someone recently sent me this PM and I think that his ideas cover a lot of common ground.
So..here it is...

Matt...Of course, safety, i.e. safe gun handling is the top priority. Which guns are best for their defense needs. I suspect you and I will not agree on this, but I'm simply not a revolver fan as a defensive weapon. They need to understand the operation of various types of guns including DA/SA revolvers, DAO revolvers, DA/SA semis, DAO, and SA semis. They need to know the proper use of safeties and the different types. Hopefully this will help them identify a suitable gun for them.

Holsters - if they are going to carry, they need to know the wide range of holsters and carry methods.

They should learn how to determine if a gun is loaded or not, how to store a gun both short term and long term, how to properly and safely clean a gun, how to properly lube the gun, of course defensive shooting, I think as much of that as can be accomadated should be.

They should learn how to load and unload their gun, but I would set speed reloading at a very low level. I just don't believe they'll be reloading in a gunfight. That's why I don't favor revolvers, they just don't hold enough ammo.

They need to know the difference in defensive ammo and range ammo.

They need know proper shooting stance and grip.

I think they need to learn basic tactics, esp. using concealment and cover and how important it is to stay there and not let the BG lure them out into the open.

They should get some experience shooting around cover/concealment and should at least see a demo about penetration and why first hand why inside residential walls are not cover.

They should be able to identify trouble spots in their homes, places they can't see and places that would provide cover like book cases filled with books and file cabinets filled with paper with emphasis on they have to have the books and paper to stop a bullet.

It might be a good idea to ask them to bring a sketch of their home floor plan so you could go over specific features of their homes.

A light. It's probably not important to have some kind of tactical light. I think sometimes average, non-gun people are a little intimidated and baffled by all the high speed low drag terminology and gear. They just need to think about how they would manage a gun and light if they had to and proper uses of the light. The most important thing to me, is to have a light and know someway to use it with their gun without producing a UD.

For outside the home, how to identify and avoid a threat or threat area, how to respond to strangers that approach them and especially that one may try to get their attention while another tries to come up from a blind side.

Of course emphasis on E&E - evade and escape - only fight if they have to.

Mathew, I don't think you'll have much success with moving while shooting. It's just too much at this level. I'd suggest move and shoot instead.

Emphasize the fallacy of shooting it out with a BG in close quarters. Emphasize how many shots it may take to neutralize the threat and of course where shots need to go.

I think esp. important is to help them understand BGs do not think like GGs. You have to make them realize the nature of the threat.
 
(as many of us participate on many forums, and I find Matt's posts interesting and certainly deserving of comment, I have copied the same response I offered at another forum..... in this case, it agrees fundamentally with Mark's response....)

Matt,

I don't think a professional instructor should ever label some objective level of training as "enough"..... the goal should always be to get better or make our students better... for me, that usually means more efficient in an ever expanding variety of endeavors. The list of skill sets you outline are common ones that we think of, but there are always others that could come in handy or ways of combining them in training and development. The focus of training should start with fundamentals and expand constantly as comfort levels are increased..."Train most of the time for what is most likely to happen," but you shouldn't limit yourself to the fundamentals only.

I start all my courses with a short speech about "Safety, Comfort and Competency"... part of that presentation is the fact that Competency is the responsibility of the student and that I feel it is irresponsible for an instructor to set an objective performance level as a goal at the beginning of the class. Without working with the students, an objective goal set could be below the current ability level (and therefore not push the student or motivate them) or beyond their capabilities (leading to an eventual sense of frustration, despite the fact that the student's skill may have increased in some way). My goal is for all of the students to improve significantly during any course as individuals.

(Added after further thought) : I also think it is important to progress from mimicking mechanics and/or processes to understanding principles and concepts and how to apply them in context... for example: the answer isn't "how many shots to shoot" it is to understand that you can never know how many shots it will take and develop appropriate training and response models that incorporate that fact.

It is up to the student to decide when they feel they have invested enough time and effort in their training....but, if they ask me if they've trained "enough", my answer will always be "no". I may run out of things to offer a student at some point, but that still won't mean that they have trained "enough." Everyone should be constantly striving to better themselves or they are wasting potential. As Gandhi said, "learn like you are going to live forever....."*

Earlier this evening I started reading a book about tactical training published in 1995 that I have owned for about 6 months.... I should have read it 12 years ago...but, I didn't know that until about an hour ago. If I had assumed that because I knew "enough" to have successfully brought a book on the same topic to market, I wouldn't have taken this opportunity to learn more and get better at my job.



-RJP

*-I also try to exemplify the second half of that quote from Ghandi, "... live like you will die tomorrow."
 
Thanks for the responses.
As with many others I am a perpetual student of all aspects of self defense.
Which I have been studying since I was 12 years old. ( I just turned 55, so it has been awhile)
I have quite a few friends who are in police work--many as instructors--and we meet quite often to compare notes.
I have given a lot of free point shooting instruction to military and LE officers which was repaid by them sharing their insights with me.
I also teach for free at police conferences which allows me access to the other course being presented.
I am also an avid reader of books, magazine articles and internet venues of self defense/tactics and have watched more VHS/DVD's than I care to admit.
I also attend formal training as a student and find it rewarding being on the other side of the whistle--especially when one finds a gifted teacher who teaches good stuff.
Nothing special in the above, BTW, since it also applies applies to many others on this and other forums.
But--we are the exceptions.
I love to train and research but I am fully aware that many do not share my passion.
And they still need quality instruction.
Therefore, there must be a limit where we can feel comfortable that our students stand a fighting chance in most situations.
The thread starter is a PM that I received on CombatCarry forum in response to my question.
In my armed guard classes I begin with the history of handguns--from flintlocks to semi autos--and then go into gun safety, gun cleaning, basic marksmanship, use of cover, point shooting, ammo selection, holster selection, weapon retention, taking a suspect at gun point, how to interact with responding police, basic H2H skills, the importance of awareness, use of O.C and I finish up with either FOF with airsoft or use of two Shoot-Don't Shoot videos.
We also cover the legal aspects of self defense and I try my hardest to show them how dangerous it can be to take action that they really have no business getting involved in.
If time permits I will also include the basic use of the pump action shotgun.
All of these topics, BTW, are included in the States extensive course outline for training armed guards.
I would love for my people to avail themselves of more training, yet I understand that for many this will not be so.
Which is the same, I am told, for many police recruits.
So in this imperfect world I can sleep at night knowing that I have done my best to prepare them for the worst.
 
Understood, Matt... One of the challenges I have with the book and video work is often deciding when "enough is enough" in terms of topics or depth in any given presentation. Similarly, I also end up in lengthy discussions in the forums sometimes because of my interest in constantly developing a point, as opposed to just saying "enough"!

I find the same thing with some of my staff and adjunct instructors when they are teaching a given course and end up wanting to cover a topic not necessarily in the curriculum for that course, but related to a student question or problem... the discipline from the instructor side to stay "on topic" has to be balanced with the ability to recognize when it is appropriate to go "off topic".

Specific to your issue, I do not teach courses that meet the CO minimum standards for CCW Permits because I think the statutes are GREAT from a RKBA view but horrendous from a training view (the statute simply calls only for a "demonstration of competency" with a firearm to a qualified instructor). If someone wants a Valhalla endorsement for their permit, they need to perform adequately in a 2 or 3 day Concealed Carry Tactics class to get our endorsement in order for me to sleep well at night.

-RJP
 
I hear you on all counts.
Funny, but neither NYS nor NYC has any training requirements for a CCW permit.
Kind of makes one scratch his head in wonder.
 
Funny, but neither NYS nor NYC has any training requirements for a CCW permit.
Kind of makes one scratch his head in wonder.
Click to expand...

NYS requires class for permit, the content is the operations of the major types of handguns, the safe operation of any handgun, how to aim, reload etc.
That's it.

Training beyond that sounds lacking perhaps, but a CCW permit only gives you a waiver from that part of Gun Law that prohibits carrying a concealed weapon. That aside, anything to do with SD actions is the same for you as everyone else.
So, required is the necessities that allow one to carry safely and operate a gun safely. Shooting and SD is not a part of CCW law, anywhere as far as I know, but not in NY State. Nor is SD Law's point the techniques of SD, it relates only to the legal requirements for SD for anyone, whatever the means are.

In that way, it is not the states' business to train people beyond the basics, anymore than it would be to teach techniques of kitchen-knife fighting for those who were trapped at home in their kitchen and used a beef-slicer for SD.

Legally, you have a right to have a tool on your person that has been known to be useful if you happen to be a victim of a lethal attack - and that's it.
 
There's a flip side to this issue, and I think it's equally important.

When you spend an hour training, you are not spending that hour doing something else.

I am also in my mid-50's, and I've found that the happiest times I have are when my life has a 'balance.' You know, living a life where my dogs still wag their tails when they see me.

For example, we have some folks in my church that just go over the edge. Some elders refer to these guys as being "so heavenly minded they are of no earthly good."

Heck, I like the smell of warm Pig Snot. (That's a Harley wax.) With a good friend with whom to swap stories and a cold beverage, I could actually live out in the garage.

Ever hear of a "gym rat"?

Another friend of mine just told me that he intends to "be in a tree-stand until February." Around here we refer to their wives as "deer widows."

And we all know some hot-heads who can't even finish a sentence unless they use the word "dojo."

These are all good, valid sports. Moderation in all things. Yeah, I know, I know, I'm flinching. I'll do some practicing, I promise...
 
I have a saying. I THINK it's my own, but someone may have claim to it. In any event, I thought it up myself; "If you have to ask; 'Is this good enough?', Then it's not good enough". This does not mean you cannot carry until it is "good enough", but rather you are not done as long as you wonder. Certainly, there is a level that is "sufficient" to carry, but you're still a ways from being done. I suppose if MAS Ayoob asks you to for advice, or tells you to stop coming to his classes because there's nothing more he can do for you, you could consider that to be "enough".
 
Great points, Tourist.
Whenever I am away from my family--be to train, to teach or to hunt---I do have a twinge of guilt.
Balance in life is everything.
 
A wise man once told me, "A wise man it is that knows that he does not know."

How much training is enough? Ask any combat veteren if any or all of the training they received was adequate for the reality of actual OTJ training.

You can only teach so much. Students can only learn so much in a classroom. Those who choose to learn and seek out knowledge will better understand Louis Pasteur's famous quote, "Chance favors the prepared mind."

Or so I have come to understand, how ignorant I am.
 
As Baba Louie already stated, training can only do so much.
I once asked my dad..who was a Ranger in WW2 and was extensively trained by the British Commandos..if the training prepared him for actual combat.
He thought about it for a few seconds and then said that all it did was to give him enough instincts to survive his first few firefights.
In other words, it was actual combat experience--along with a lot of luck..that got him through 15 months of steady warfare.
I know a lot of folks think that more training = a better outcome in a confrontation, but that is not an automatic given.
 
I've been mulling this over since you posted it, and it sure seems to me that the question of whether someone has been "trained" or not is probably not the right question to ask -- because it's not a one-time event. It's a continuous process.

We all know that shooting is a perishable skill and that regular practice is a good preservative. This is true of training as well.

A lot of the basic instruction has no expiration date because it is simply a matter of academic knowledge. Learn the color codes once and you'll probably remember them forever. Brains remember stuff better than muscles do!

But the most important aspects of defensive gun use are the physical skills. These physical skills are very perishable, so they must be learned thoroughly and practiced regularly. Ideally, once learned, these skills should be practiced often enough that their use is entirely natural no matter what the circumstances. The goal is to know the skills so well that they can be done almost on auto-pilot, leaving the mind free to handle more important matters such as planning the specific tactics which will allow the intended victim to get away from the assailant.

I am not talking about super-secret "advanced" techniques. I am talking about smoothly and consistently being able to perform the basics: a safe and efficient draw from concealment. A smooth and controlled trigger press without jerking. Good trigger finger discipline. Controlling muzzle direction regardless of distractions. Using the safety or decocker when appropriate. Efficient reloads -- which is really another iteration of safe gun handling and is a good measure of how familiar you are with your firearm.

So even though there's really a short list of tasks a defender may need to perform during an actual encounter, the skill to perform those tasks must be overlearned to begin with, and kept fresh in the person's mind so he or she is physically able to perform those tasks on demand under extreme stress. Advanced training requires students to perform these basics faster, more often, or under more stress, but the basics remain the same no matter how many additional possibilities come into play. Multiple targets, targets that move, targets in low light, downed positions, shooting from behind or around cover -- all of these intermediate to advanced skills really depend on successfully applying the basics despite distractions.

By this point, it should be obvious why I said that training is not an event, but a continuous process. There can't be "enough," simply because the basic skills are so perishable.

If you have a really really really apt and motivated student, you should theoretically be able to show him how to do all the basic skills just once, and he would then be able to take himself to his home range and practice those skills perfectly forever with no further input from you.

That's a nice fantasy.

People being human and fallible, a more realistic understanding is that most people will need to be exposed to the basic skills multiple times, and from multiple instructional directions, in multiple circumstances, before they are really equipped to practice the skills usefully on their own. And even then, bad habits will creep in, and need to be caught and corrected. The sooner you catch those bad habits, the less difficult it will be to remove them.

How much professional training is enough? There's no one size fits all answer to that. Students are different, practice regimens are different, the basic ability to hold onto what you know is different. And (dare we say it?) instructors are not all equally efficient at communicating the basic skillset to their students.

Since the basic skills should be overlearned initially, most people who want to attain only the basic levels probably should take enough instruction to get at least to the "intermediate" level at a decently good school, and because the skills are perishable, that should be accomplished in as short a time frame as reasonably possible. After that, they should periodically re-expose themselves to instruction in the basics to make sure bad habits have not crept into their regular practice.

If you want to maintain an intermediate set of skills, you should expose yourself clear through to the advanced skillset initially, and practice a bit more often.

To maintain advanced skills requires just about continuous practice and very frequent exposure to instruction from someone who knows what they're looking at. But most people are not motivated enough to attain and then retain and maintain advanced skills. For most people, it's enough of a struggle to maintain basic-to-intermediate skills.

This is not to say that no one needs the advanced skills, or anything of the sort -- it is only to note that by the intermediate level, the basic skills have usually become well ingrained and can be practiced with higher efficiency. The rule of thumb is that you will retain less than you've been exposed to: If you've only been exposed to the basics, you'll retain less than the basics. Conversely, the more you've been exposed to initially, and the more often you practice, the easier it is to maintain what you've got without further input -- making it easier to advance when you wish.

One refresher weekend of professional instruction a year is a good goal, I think, to maintain the basic skills for most people who have reached a competent level to begin with. Unless the student is highly motivated, it will probably take a bit more than that to advance (either a longer single class, or additional classes).

Those who practice infrequently will probably need more frequent exposure to good instruction. Those who practice inefficiently, or who do not have access to a decent range where they can practice defensive skills, will probably need more frequent exposure to good instruction. Those who didn't overlearn the basic skills initially, will probably need more frequent exposure to good instruction.

For an experienced shooter, instruction basically means someone is going to help you identify and erase bad habits. If you don't practice much, or if too much time passes between instruction, all of your effort during a class will be spent on erasing bad habits, and you'll have very little brainpower left to absorb new material as the instructor presents it.

Oh, and of course -- every time you change guns, you pretty well start over fresh with most gun-handling skills. People tend to forget this. But since the goal is to be able to perform the basic skills well without conscious thought (leaving the mind free for the important stuff), changing defensive guns is not something that should be undertaken lightly. Learning a new manual of arms always sets you back, as does mastering a different trigger pull.

All of the above assumes a motivated student who really wants to improve. As you said though, most students are going to come to a single class. In that case, the best we can do is to teach the basics -- and make sure that enough of our instruction is in the academic realm that the student will remember what we said he needed to do, even after his muscles have forgotten how to do it.

pax
 
In Ca to say the training is lacking is a understatement. You can only give so much in the time that you have. I think what is helpful is having paperwork that can be given to the students that give them laws,self defence,use of force and how to takecare of and wear equipment but also give them names of schools in the area that they can seekout for further training or you can tell them that you will be avaliable for additional training and charge them a affordable fee. I view people in this industry as security guards, Security officers, armed professionals and then operators. It all depends where these people plan on going in this industry. I shoot weekly and enjoy going to different combat shooting schools but then again I enjoy shooting.their are people in law enforcement as in security who are not gun people and will do only what they have to do. Then their are those people who are hard chargin and motivated. Black water security agents are security as is private SWAT teams that contract with the government or executive protection agents it just depends on where these people plan on being on the food chain.
 
You don't stop dancing because you get old. You get old because you stopped dancing.

Think about Jeff Cooper. His own training and education continued until his passing. When advanced age limited him he concentrated on analysis of available information and events. From his own learning we all benefited.

His example is a sound one. You have had enough training when they close the lid.
 
training

Most states have training requirments for armed private security personnel, CCW holders, and cops.

There is probably a specific cirriculum that you have to follow, possibly specified practice drills, and almost certainly some sort of qualification course to be fired at the end to demonstrate some kind of proficiency.

[I taught 750+ students at the local regional police academy from 1988 to 1998 and did a little bit of training for private security officers from 1998 to 2002. (In Wisconsin, the cirriculum is identical, except that there is no requirment for security officers to receive familiarization with shotguns or rifles)

We had a specified lesson plan that we had to work off of. (Which actually wasn't too bad). Oddly enough, they eliminated the requirement for a specific qualification course, informally recommending that deputies/officers/agents just shoot their own agencies qual course at the end of training. When you have 25 or 30 recruits from 8 different agencies in the class, that just doesn't work very well . . . ]

Your focus has to be on teaching any material that's mandated. It's worth pondering the question of what additional skills you might try to teach, should you have a smaller or more proficient group than usual, keeping in mind that there is a limit on how much information a person at the basic level can absorb. (I have often been accused of trying to cram too much information into too little time.) Students with some degree of relevant training or life experience will (usually) start at a higher level, advance further, and retain more because we learn through repetition.

And with some people, all the reps in the world aren't going to help. They just shouldn't be armed in public . . .
__________________
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top