His schedule and offerings vary, but he did a 4 day pistol/shotgun class last year at Pat Goodale’s range in WV and I believe he’s scheduled to do 2 classes there in 2010.
That 4 day class turned out to be the best course I’ve taken to date in terms of how much my technical pistol shooting improved. I’ve always struggled with trigger control/press and whatever Louis did or said to me fixed it, because I was drilling even the moving heads, at night, right in the nose by the end of the class. I also confirmed that I could run a 870 very well, day or night, in terms of both marksmanship and manipulation. Louis explained the reasons for doing X (for example, loading it from the bottom and pushing the shell along the trigger guard, every time) - many instructors just say “OK, here’s the drill. Do it.” They might give a brief explanation of the “why” but it doesn’t always sink in or convey the point in full.
To segue into a response to the general topic, obviously in hindsight I gauge an instructor by how much I improve my capability to use the firearm(s) addressed by the class, in terms marksmanship, decisionmaking and manipulation, and being able to explain the rationale for the technique to somebody else. I have been to a couple classes with a “big name” where, for example, any number of drills or exercises were shot but the purpose(s) were not always explained and the source my errors, if I made any during a drill, were not explored and addressed. Or, at least, that was how I felt afterwards. I understand that class has to move forward and the instructors don’t see everything, but some do this much better than others.
In terms of trying to find good instructors up front, I would say their background (mil/le/certifications) plays a role, but beyond a certain minimum level I don’t think it matters a whole lot. I don’t necessarily need somebody who has been a SEAL for 200 years to teach me concealed carry techniques - somebody who has worked in LE doing undercover work, but who doesn’t have as sexy a background, might actually be a better teacher in that arena. That’s just one example, but in general I try to think of what this person may have done in their professional background and whether/how it would make them better at teaching the skills to be presented in the course.
I also look at course reviews - more critically than I used to - to try to discern what, and how much, was learned. There seem to be a lot of superficial “fan boy” reviews out there that boringly review the weather, round count, interesting weapon malfunctions, and other things I don’t care about. There are a lot fewer critical reviews out there that state in detail what was done, why it was done, and how it benefited the students. The source of the review (i.e., random person versus well-informed, experience, neutral person) is relevant as well.
