Looking at taking some classes. Looks like Vickers, Viking and Magpul are the the three most mentioned here. Not to start a back and forth arguement, but what is the difference between them, say for a carbine class. I have the Magpul DVD, so I have a feel for that. As Travis say in the DVD, I’m a Hobby Shooter, so that would be my frame of reference.
Thanks!
If you read some of the AAR’s, or even scan through some of the pics from the classes, you’ll begin to see the different approaches.
Checkout CSAT’s website, and Paul Howe’s articles…the compare that stuff to what you heard and saw in the MagPul DVD. Look at how Howe loads his carbine in the LWRC Future Weapons clip on youtube, and how he loads it in his promo on his sight…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHreIMu1d6M
which I hear is exactly how I hear he teaches in his classes. Compare that to what you saw in the DVD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LILq8uQFoec The differences are huge.
Look at Larry and Paul’s carbines…then look at Haley and Costa’s in the DVD. Look at their choices of slings, vert grips, etc.
Look at the round count in the DVD, versus what folks are saying they shoot in LAV’s and Howe’s courses.
I know the MagPul guys post here, so does Greg Hamilton from InSights, LAV of course, dunno about Viking Tactical or Spartan Tactical… so I’m not gonna get into which I think is “best”, or who I would spend money with first… I would say though, look long and hard at the pics/ vids/ articles/ AAR’s from some of the folks mentioned…and go from there.
Don’t be too quick to judge a teacher based on what you see, be it good or bad. There are often more than one approach to solve a situation. What I look for in a teacher is experience and wisdom.
I have no need for instructors, just teachers. There is a big difference between the two. All the names mentioned so far are good to go in my book. But then, there are places like Front Sight that do not interest me at all.
Why do you say that?
I firmly believe that an instructor/ teacher should practice what they preach. If they don’t it makes you question why they don’t.
I agree that there are many ways to solve the same problems. However, I still believe that some ways ARE better than others.
If you look at IPSC shooters…the vast majority shoot with the same grip on their pistol, and reload the gun in exactly the same fashion. That you have so many shooters arriving at the same method, speaks to how well it works.
When you look at the same thing WRT instructors…that you have 20 year vets from one of most highly trained military units beating the same drum, I think it gives their techniques some added validity.
Not questioning what you see an instructor do is dangerous, IMO.
Ive been trained various ways, and many over more than a decade
One says no dont do that, another says thats the way
Just pick what works best for you and use it
That method of loading is indeed what Paul teaches in his classes. He had good reasoning for why he does it that way, and I have adopted it in my technique. Doesn’t really add much time to make sure you have a round chambered.
Paul is great. Like LV, Paul spent a lot of time in Delta. I think Paul’s experience in Somalia made a lasting impact on how he does things. I think you could boil his philosophy down to simplicity and replicability. He’s all about using a technique that can be transfered across weapons platforms…or in other words, doing the same thing over and over…muscle memory I guess. And not getting caught up in gimmicks or equipment…just what you need to get the job done.
He’s the real deal, and he has a great training facility.
Well, because I wasn’t sure what your point was in comparing CSAT to Magpul Dynamics. I have trained with Paul and I liked what I learned from him. I haven’t trained with Haley and Costa, and only seen the DVD. I see no problems with what they are doing.
Yes, there are better ways to run a weapon, or solve a problem related to a firearm, but only in terms of the context of the situation.
I am not a hobby shooter, and I train because my life depends on it every day I drive out the front gate. Shooting for me has to be directly related to fighting, and not just for shooting per se. So, I don’t want a linear mindset with limitations of techniques and options. I don’t want someone to tell me that “a way” is the better way because I know that it not always true.
For instance, If you watch to video clip of someone shooting their rifle using their index finger, and then have you watch another video of someone using their ring finger, which would you consider the better way? Most of us will agree that the index finger is the best. Many people may even laugh at the idea of training to use other fingers or even their thumbs to fire their weapon.
It is part of my training. Not because someone said I should do it, but because I once had my fingers burned after being blown up by a VBIED and I could not use my index fingers to shoot with. Afterwords, I realized that it may be a good idea to train using the other fingers. This is an example of a technique based on wisdom and experience.
Thus, I prefer to seek out instructors who I feel have the real experience to offer wisdom, and I do not judge such instructors solely on what I see on a video clip or read in an AAR. I may form an opinion on what I see, but I try and keep an open mind.
I hope this makes sense 
This is the key. The job you’re trying to do will determine how you do it - this is called context. Many of the high-end carbine instructors come from a military background. They frequently have team mates and work in an environment where supressive fire and small unit tactics are permissable.
If you’re grabbing your AR while wearing nothing but your boxers after hearing the front door kicked in, the context provided above won’t have a lot to offer (outside of the obvious mechanics of shooting/manipulating).
From a non-military, CONUS perspective, you don’t see many large round count rifle fights. A lot of stateside carbine rifle shooting involve one or two shots. Again, not what the high end military guys are teaching.
This isn’t meant to take anything away from the great instructors that are out there, it’s a reminder to figure out what YOU are going to do with your weapon (pistol, rifle, shotgun) and find someone who teaches methods optimized for that context.
You make a good point regarding alternate techniques. It’s great to train for contingencies…I agree 100%.
However, There is simply some material out there, and I’m not talking about any 1 specific person/ organization, that just doesn’t make sense to use.
IMO, each TTP you consider needs to be examined in costs and benefits. In doing this, you typically arrive at what makes sense to do. If you were to say “well this is A way, and it works…” and not examine the costs and benefits associated with the particular TTP in question…you’re doing yourself a dis-service, IMO.
I’m simply saying that if you start asking those questions as you shop for training…then you can hopefully make as educated of a decision as possible. I for one, don’t have the money to training with 6 different companies on the same topic…so I need to be careful with where I spend my dollars.
…another little thing to keep in mind…
Some instructors may be capable of gearing a class to the group involved on the fly…
Don’t think yer’ gettin’ the same thing from a vid that you get from actually being there…
You don’t feel anything from a video…having someone tune you up is a slightly different experience in person…or, so I’ve heard…
Absolutely. The main difference there, in my experience, is that a video cannot diagnose what you’re doing. A video can’t say, “Dammit, Joe, you’re still doing the chicken wing!”
I would highly recommend Pat Roger’s course (EAG Tactical) to the original poster. I too am a hobby guy and had no training on the AR platform outside of the Army twenty years ago. Pat’s class was the first AR class I took and I learned a lot and it was a great class very, very well run and you stayed busy. I left after 3 days feeling very comfortable with the weapon and having learned a lot about the platform. I’m sure there are some AAR’s of Pat’s course on here.
Edit - Just in case it gets misconstrued, I’m not advocating one instructor over another nor am I stating one guy has the answer. I’m simply giving the guy an option to consider from a first time taking a class guy point of view. If $$ and time permit I hope to train with most of the current programs in the next few years.
As the old saying goes (paraphrase): “There is more than one path to the top of any mountain.”
There is no such animal as an Instructor who knows everything. If you ever come across one who insists that theirs is the only way, run!!
The best approach is to maintain an open mind, try every technique the Instructor asks you to and make the ones that work your own. JM2CW.
Hahaha 
+1
You guys are really lucky to have trained by and with the best of the best. Its extremely rare we get the chance to do that down here.
Not questioning what you see an instructor do is dangerous, IMO.
AMEN. Respectful Irreverence.
The main difference there, in my experience, is that a video cannot diagnose what you’re doing.
In addition to the diagnostic opportunity for instructors/teachers/coaches working directly with students, the opportunity for students to ask questions (see above) for clarifications, on related topics and express concerns are some of the most important aspects of in-person training. We often say that we could just send a DVD and save everyone a bunch of time and money if the students don’t ask questions and express concerns. Instructors should not just show up to read power-points and call range drills.
-RJP
I don’t know about that. When I trained with Paul he was all about ending the fight in the lowest number of rounds possible, given the emphasis placed on speed and accuracy. I’m not sure what targets Larry, Kyle Lamb, or Jim Smith use (seeing as they all have the same background) but Paul’s are all about CNS hits. Paul always states he’d rather be in a shooting than a gunfight because a shooting is one-sided.
LAV generally uses an IDPA target with an NRA bullseye stapled over the -0 center mass zone. As has been stated before, he is very much concerned with accuracy. LAV’s classes tend to be rather low round count.
This can be a sticky wicket so to speak. I’ve been fortunate in that I’ve trained under Pat Rogers, Larry Vickers, Paul Howe and Ken Hackathorn. In all cases it was time, money and effort well spent. There are significant and subtle differences in what they teach.
I’d say 90-95% of what I do is a direct reflection of Larry and Ken’s training.
Someone looking to improve would be well served by seeking training from any of the above, but my strongest recommendation would go to Larry and Ken.
Also I think that some of the strange things some instructors do is confidence building. Take the Marine, 500 meter target during qualification, how often is that Marine going to do a 500 meter shot with iron sights? Probably very rarely, but when they are look down the ACOG at an enemy 300 meters away, the doubt isn’t there because they have made harder shots in training/practice.
I look for a teacher that can teach.
Too much time is spent worrying about philosophical approaches and too little time on whether the instructor can convey that philosophy effectively. Wisdom and experience are of course very important, but I’ve been to top-flight instructors that had both in spades, but were otherwise mediocre teachers. That’s not to say they were a waste of time, only that by comparison I learned less than I might have otherwise.
Based on my experiences, Pat Rogers may or may not be the “best” shooter out there, but he definitely has wisdom, experience and the ability to convey it effectively to a class. You get the impression he puts a lot of thought into making you, as an individual, a better shooter. He critiques you directly, but then really encourages you as well. Pat is one of the best carbine TEACHERS I’ve ever had.
That being said, I like going to a variety of instructors, and Kyle Lamb is next on my list.