Choosing a Firearms Instructor

When you decide to take a firearms training course, what criteria do you use to choose which one to take? Is it the content of the course? The cost of the course? When the course is available? Or, what the qualifications of the instructor are? When you take your first course, the factors that guide you are probably a combination of the content of the course—i.e. what you want to learn or get out of the course—, when it is available, and the cost. Little thought is probably given to the qualifications of the instructor. Indeed, information about the instructor’s qualifications may not even be available other than that they are “NRA-certified”, etc.

If all you are interested in is getting your concealed carry license, instructor qualifications and course content are probably of little concern as long as you get the course completion certificate at the end of the training so you can get your license. This is unfortunate, because your instructor’s qualifications can make the difference between a meaningful exchange of information, knowledge, and skills or just “filling a square”. Upwards of 95% of the individuals that take firearms training never bother to continue that training by taking other classes to advance their skills. As a result, it is important to get the best quality of training as possible especially if this is going to be the only class you take! This is very frustrating for me as I know there is a lot more to learn about how to competently use a handgun than can be taught in the standard 8 hours of training required to obtain an Ohio Concealed Handgun License (CHL)—the amount of training required by many other states is even less. Ohio law defines the minimum content of the course and what topics must be covered. Unfortunately just covering the mandated minimums takes nearly the entire 8 hours, especially when the class is made up of individuals that have little or no previous experience with handguns.

Recently Dave Spaulding, one of the top firearms instructors in the U.S.—who just happens to live in the Dayton area—went on a Facebook “rant” regarding the current state of firearms training (see https:// www.facebook.com/PanteaoProductions/). (I have trained with Dave before and I very much respect him. Even his “rants” are well thought out and logical.) Dave was frustrated by an individual that questioned his credentials as a firearms instructor when he had no military background. As Dave points out, the primary weapon used by the military is the rifle, while the primary firearm for armed citizens is the handgun. So, if you want to learn how to use a handgun, why wouldn’t you want to seek training from someone that is an expert in the use of a handgun? As Dave says, the handgun is the primary weapon used by law enforcement and thus firearms instructors with a law enforcement background are much more likely to be an expert with a handgun than someone coming from a special ops military background is. (I’ve been in classes with some former special ops veterans and I wasn’t all that impressed with their handgun skills.) However, the vast majority of law enforcement officers are far from being experts in the use of the handgun. Indeed, their duties are such that for most of them the only times their handgun is used is during annual training and the training standards used by many police departments is pitifully weak. (I am aware of at least one former police officer that claims to have been able to successfully pass his annual firearms qualification training while wearing a blindfold!) A step up would be a SWAT-experienced officer as they spend much more time training with their firearms, but most SWAT teams primarily use the rifle or submachinegun rather than the handgun. An officer that served as their department’s training officer would likely be the most qualified in the use of the handgun. In addition to Dave Spaulding, Greg Ellifritz (from the Columbus area) and Tom Givens (from Tennessee) fall into this category and they all have excellent reputations as firearms instructors.

While it may be very glamorous to take training from some special ops combat veteran, the reality is their skill set has little resemblance to what the armed citizen may be confronted with. Instead of learning essential skills that apply to their real world environment, students that seek “highspeed, special ops” instructors are often “wannabe commandos” that never were in the military and want to live out their video game-inspired fantasies. This is fine, but you need to take it for what it is and realize that it won’t help you confront a mugger at midnight if you find yourself in the bad part of town after spending time in a local pub.

Dave was also frustrated by those individuals that seem to think they can get all the firearms knowledge they need off the Internet. While watching training videos does have some value, it is nothing compared to what can be gained from hands-on instruction from a competent firearms instructor. Indeed, it is that hands-on training that is essential in developing the muscle memory needed to properly employ a handgun during a high stress violent encounter. Of course, just because someone can shoot well does not mean they are good at teaching others how to shoot. Skills and experience in public speaking, teaching, adult learning techniques, and the use of presentation materials are also essential instructor qualifications. Indeed, I think they are even more important than being able to shoot tiny cloverleaf-size groups at 25 yards are.

Training provided by highly qualified firearms instructors is not cheap! They are in high demand and often travel a lot to provide their training courses rather than operating from a “fixed base”—the exception being training schools such as Gunsite, TDI, Thunder Ranch, etc. As a result, in addition to their time conducting the training the price they charge for their courses must cover their travel expenses, supplies they provide, classroom and range rental, etc. A cost of $100-400 per day per student is not out of line for these top notch instructors.

A pet-peeve of mine is the firearms instructor that never or rarely seeks training from other firearms instructors to improve their own skills. Such instructors have stagnated, in my opinion, and are unable to incorporate new concepts or techniques into the training courses they offer. As time goes on, the training they provide tends to become less and less relevant. Those instructors that do seek regular training must include the cost for that training in the price they charge their students so they can recoup previous training costs and save for future attendance at training classes. Maintaining firearms instructor skills is not cheap and most instructors only teach part-time. For the top notch instructors it is a full-time job and their only source of income so that also factors into the price they charge.

A final concern that I have is with those instructors that offer “high volume, low cost” classes. While the cost per student is low, and thus attractive to many, the large number of students that must comprise each class to cover all the instructor’s costs limit the amount of individual attention each student is given. It also limits the number of student questions that the instructor will be able to answer within the allotted time for the class. Instructors that offer lower student-to-instructor ratios must necessarily charge each student more to cover their operating costs, but it also means each student will get more one-on-one time from the instructor. What is the right ratio? One instructor for every 4 to 6 students, especially for live fire training, is probably about right. So, the next time you consider taking a firearms training course—or when one of your friends ask you about your recommendations—factor in the qualifications of the instructor. Better training will be the result. Your life or the life of someone you know could depend on it!

Gary Evens is a NRA-Certified Instructor and Range Safety Officer.