NRA instructor course

[100Xkid]

Looking to expand my resume this year.
Does any know when the next pistol course is going to be and where?
Thanks
100X

 

[IndyGunSafety]

We will do a couple RSO courses over the winter, and a full schedule of instructor courses in the spring. (Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection In and Outside the Home) I highly recommend getting the RSO cert if you are going to teach. It adds credibility to your teaching as well as a measure of safety.

 

[Spike_351]

We will do a couple RSO courses over the winter, and a full schedule of instructor courses in the spring. (Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection In and Outside the Home) I highly recommend getting the RSO cert if you are going to teach. It adds credibility to your teaching as well as a measure of safety.

What classes would be needed to take an instructor course?

 

[David Rose]

What classes would be needed to take an instructor course?

None.

What are you hoping to get from this course. I ask because I followed the same path a few years ago. I thought it was the best way to get into instructing. Turns out the NRA will certify almost anyone. I've seen literature from the the NRA claiming from 45-65,000 instructors. I belive it. When you are done you are certified to teach an awkward, old, and subpar curriculum (if you've taken any modern defensive firearms training you'll understand what I mean). Then you're left with a choice, be true to the curriculum, or make up your own and slap the NRA logo on it. Neither is a place you want to be. At this point I only offer the NRA course to those required by an insurance company to take it (some armed security companies). Otherwise I can't think of a person for whom the NRA Basic, Personal Protection,... is the best choice.

Now here come 45-65,000 other NRA instructors to tell you how great and exclusive thier certification is. Or who does it he cheapest. Good luck.

Dave Rose

 

[NIFT]

An NRA teaching certification will not cause people to flock to you for instruction, and there is, certainly, a lot of room for improvement in the NRA instructionial world. As with any pure service, results are highly variable and depend a lot on the quality and dedication of the instructor.

Randy DeWitt at Indy Gus Safety, in my opinioin, is the best NRA Training Counselor from whom to get NRA teaching credentials. He has high expectations of both himself and the people coming to him to become NRA instructors. Randy is very loyal to the NRA--sticking close to the NRA "sheet of music."

As far as the tens of thousands of NRA instructors, that may be true, but there are not many "active" NRA instructors, defined as those posting class listings on the NRA Instructors web site. Even fewer make a concerted effort to offer comprehensive training at a high level of professionalism.

As Mr. Rose stated in his first sentence, the first thing you need to do is some soul searching to answer the question of why you really want NRA teaching credentials. If the reason is just to pad your "resume," then your time and money, most likely, would be better spent on other things.

 

[VERT]

As an NRA instructor I will say that I am both a supporter of the program and also recognize the weaknesses. Like NIFT has already mentioned it is really up to the dedication of the instructors. I have had the privilege to interact with several NRA instructors and for the most part I can say that most are very knowledgeable. The NRA curriculum is an excellent starting point for novice shooters to begin their training. I especially like that the course material is suitable to present to a wide range of people. We have had students from all walks of life and ranging in age from 18 - 70.

Basic Pistol is not a defensive handgun course. The goal is to teach firearms safety, discuss safe storage, shooting fundametals, and basic firearm manipulations. It is a course designed to introduce people to handguns and emphasizes target shooting. Please understand that people take this course expecting a defensive handgun course or to satisfy training requiments. So it is not uncommon that a class will take on that theme, but we should always stay within the prescribed lesson plans.

Basic Personal Protection is NRA's introductory curriculum for people wanting to keep a firearm for self defense. It is not uncommon for trainers to have different opinions about how guns should be deployed during a more serious situation. These debates are good and allow sites such as INGO to have a whole sub forum devoted to the discussion. Does the NRA lessons lack is some respects? Sure because an oganization can't please everyone. Do the NRA lessons provide solid information that will serve as a basis for the next level of training? Again Yes.

 

[NIFT]

As an NRA instructor I will say that I am both a supporter of the program and also recognize the weaknesses. Like NIFT has already mentioned it is really up to the dedication of the instructors. I have had the privilege to interact with several NRA instructors and for the most part I can say that most are very knowledgeable. The NRA curriculum is an excellent starting point for novice shooters to begin their training. I especially like that the course material is suitable to present to a wide range of people. We have had students from all walks of life and ranging in age from 18 - 70.

Basic Pistol is not a defensive handgun course. The goal is to teach firearms safety, discuss safe storage, shooting fundametals, and basic firearm manipulations. It is a course designed to introduce people to handguns and emphasizes target shooting. Please understand that people take this course expecting a defensive handgun course or to satisfy training requiments. So it is not uncommon that a class will take on that theme, but we should always stay within the prescribed lesson plans.

Basic Personal Protection is NRA's introductory curriculum for people wanting to keep a firearm for self defense. It is not uncommon for trainers to have different opinions about how guns should be deployed during a more serious situation. These debates are good and allow sites such as INGO to have a whole sub forum devoted to the discussion. Does the NRA lessons lack is some respects? Sure because an oganization can't please everyone. Do the NRA lessons provide solid information that will serve as a basis for the next level of training? Again Yes.

Well stated, VERT!

 

[IndyGunSafety]

NIFT, Thank you for your kind words. To the OP and others, The NRA program is what YOU make it! I happen to think the basic course is the best foundation out of the gate of any program I have seen. Personal protection is again, what you make it. It is possible to teach the NRA program and still use your experience and expertise.

It's really hard to find any one course that teaches EVERYTHING! As most of you know, this is a life long learning process and those of us who teach continue to take courses to find new perspective, grow, and learn.

The NRA Basic Pistol course has been completely redone in the last couple of years. New text book, some objectives have changed, nice power point presentation. The whole thing has been modernized. But many things remain the same. That's because they WORK. The NRA programs are a great foundation to build upon. We certainly recommend people get out and get a different perspective.

The new Advance Pistol Course is a step in the right direction. There's a faction at NRA that wants to keep modernizing their programs to meet today's demands. Very slowly they are winning and things are starting to change. NRA programs aren't just for 4H and boy scouts anymore. That important work continues, but the average person who wants a firearm for personal protection can also learn a great deal from a GOOD NRA Instructor these days.

 

[David Rose]

IndyGunSafety,
So when a prospective student comes to you and says, "I just purchased a handgun for self defense and I'm looking for some training". Do you say, "WOW, have I got the power point for you. We'll spend hours talking about the function of guns you don't own or care about, and ammunition your gun doesn't fire"? Sorry, I think people deserve better than what the NRA is offering. Hopefully the NRA will catch up some day. Defending the status quo is not helping. Saying the old and new are both good is confusing. The innovations in training are meant to replace not augment the old methods. If we can do better for our students, we should.

 

[VERT]

David, I know your questions where directed at IndyGunSafety but I would like to reply.

I have personally taken the NRA BIT twice. Once in 2000 and again in with Randy in 2011. I also did the Basic Pistol Instructors Course with Randy. In both instances I found the training counselors to stay true to the NRA programs. At no time did I hear either party advocate Basic Rifle or Pistol as a defensive firearms course. I got the impression that these courses were intended to introduce people to firearms and firearm ownership. The overall objective is to create interest in the shooting sports. Safety was emphasized at all times.

So would Basic Pistol be a good starting point for a novice shooter? Yet bet! What is wrong with a safety reminder, learning terminology, being introduced to different types of pistols, and talking about marksmanship fundamentals? Just because a person does not own a particular type of gun now does not mean they won't buy one in the future. I have had several students that did not own a gun at all. If a person does not want to learn about guns they don't own then go with NRA FIRST. FIRST is supposed to be small group and focus on a specific type/platform of pistol.

I also went through the certification process for Basic Personal Protection in & outside the Home. The material is again basic and somewhat generalized. Keep in mind these programs are universal and delivered nationally. So topics/discussions such as state law will vary. The shooting sessions are still very basic and the courses are relatively slow paced. The fundamentals of the course are solid and again serve as a good base for continued training. I am of the opinion that both of these courses are due for an update or should I say some reorganization.

I shared your opinion (and still do somewhat) but after seeing the diversity of people who attend the NRA classes I think there is a lot more positive to say about the curriculum then negative. Unfortunately there are "NRA certified" instructors out there that do not present the materials as they are intended to be presented. That does not mean that instructors are not encouraged to share experiences. Please remember that being NRA certified does not make a person a professional firearms instructor. It simply means that a person is certified to present the NRA curriculum. It is expected that this will be done in a professional manner. Similarly just because a person is NRA Certified does not automatically make them a good instructor. (Heck I will be the first to admit that I am have faults as an instructor, but I work with a great team of people. Each of us have strengths and weaknesses.) I will also say just because a person is a high level competitor or a LEO does not automatically make them a good instructor. I have taken classes with all of these different groups and it is interesting how people's style, opinions and perspectives differ. (Some of which I agree and disagree with.)

And no I am not defending the Status Quo. I am both a supporter and a critic. But for now the NRA is the most recognized organization that is trying to create a universally recognized training program that is applicable to a wide variety of people.

I am very interested in hearing your opinions about the faults in the NRA programs. I mean this with sincerity! What do you feel are the weaknesses and why?

 

[Jackson]

IndyGunSafety,
So when a prospective student comes to you and says, "I just purchased a handgun for self defense and I'm looking for some training". Do you say, "WOW, have I got the power point for you. We'll spend hours talking about the function of guns you don't own or care about, and ammunition your gun doesn't fire"? Sorry, I think people deserve better than what the NRA is offering. Hopefully the NRA will catch up some day. Defending the status quo is not helping. Saying the old and new are both good is confusing. The innovations in training are meant to replace not augment the old methods. If we can do better for our students, we should.

Doesn't this depend on what the student wants or needs to learn to accomplish his/her goals? If general familiarity with firearms is the goal, the NRA courses might be just the thing. If defensive use of arms is sole aim, then starting someone in a FoF training environment may be the best. It gets them straight in to context and lets them understand the problems first hand before committing to a training doctrine and methodology. At some point in either path, proper marksmanship and gunhandling fundamentals will need to be taught. The goal of the student and their starting point need to be considered.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

IndyGunSafety,
So when a prospective student comes to you and says, "I just purchased a handgun for self defense and I'm looking for some training". Do you say, "WOW, have I got the power point for you. We'll spend hours talking about the function of guns you don't own or care about, and ammunition your gun doesn't fire"? Sorry, I think people deserve better than what the NRA is offering. Hopefully the NRA will catch up some day. Defending the status quo is not helping. Saying the old and new are both good is confusing. The innovations in training are meant to replace not augment the old methods. If we can do better for our students, we should.

Seriously? That is one of the most asinine responses I have ever seen on these boards. First of all our courses spend a great deal of hands on time in the classroom loading (with snap caps) dry firing and clearing a wide variety of handguns so the student is WELL ROUNDED and EDUCATED in the operation of a nice array of revolvers and semi autos, and INCLUDES their own gun if they brought one. In no case do I EVER recall talking about ammunition that is not used in any defense gun made. Then the student gets at least 2 hours of live fire with a variety of firearms including their own if they brought one.

Also, if a student wanted to they could take the First Steps pistol course which is SPECIFIC to their gun only. We try not to do these courses because we want to promote total education not just specifics of one firearm. We want people well rounded. They will thus make much better purchase decisions and will be able to make future purchases with some experience under their belts. We call this being "Armed with Knowledge".

We taught well over 1000 people the NRA Basic Pistol course alone last year. We offer many other courses as well. Many of these people had never even touched a real gun before. We also trained dozens of instructors to present these programs. Please tell me what you think (in your infinite wisdom) is a better developed and readily available program for teaching the knowledge, skill and attitude necessary for the safe ownership and operation of a handgun, and has the national credibility and infrastructure needed for such an endeavor and I will bow down to your extensive professional firearm education and experience and do it your way. (Insert purple where needed)

Please educate those of us who clearly know nothing about adult education or firearms training. We are all waiting....

Mr. Jackson:

Regardless of their goals, the fundamentals must be sound first. I would never suggest a person with no experience take a force on force course before learning the fundamentals. However once the fundamentals are solid the next step possibilities are endless, and include some very solid programs from the NRA.

 

[NIFT]

Regardless of their goals, the fundamentals must be sound first. I would never suggest a person with no experience take a force on force course before learning the fundamentals.

I don't have a skunk in this fight; so, I will simply agree wholeheartedly with the above. Exceedingly few handgun owners have a solid grasp of the fundamentals. There is no shortage of the Dunning-Kruger effect. For those just starting out, who don't, yet, know a bullet from a bucket or a trigger from a chigger, the NRA Basic Pistol class--from a good instructor--is hard to beat. It, certainly, does not deserve disparagement.

 

[Jackson]

Mr. Jackson:

Regardless of their goals, the fundamentals must be sound first. I would never suggest a person with no experience take a force on force course before learning the fundamentals. However once the fundamentals are solid the next step possibilities are endless, and include some very solid programs from the NRA.

I guess that depends on the starting point and the goals of the student. I have known shooters/gun owners with no formal training who would benefit from FoF training at the right pace and complexity. I have known many who need to develop a fundamental skill set first. My over-arching point here is that it ultimately depends on the student, their starting point, and their goals. To say any one class is where everyone should start is too broad. I do think the NRA Basic Pistol class (have not taken the others) has its place for the right students.

 

[NIFT]

Mr. Jackson:

Regardless of their goals, the fundamentals must be sound first. I would never suggest a person with no experience take a force on force course before learning the fundamentals. However once the fundamentals are solid the next step possibilities are endless, and include some very solid programs from the NRA.

I guess that depends on the starting point and the goals of the student. I have known shooters/gun owners with no formal training who would benefit from FoF training at the right pace and complexity. I have known many who need to develop a fundamental skill set first. My over-arching point here is that it ultimately depends on the student, their starting point, and their goals. To say any one class is where everyone should start is too broad. I do think the NRA Basic Pistol class (have not taken the others) has its place for the right students.

Mr. Jackson, please help me understand which shooters/gun owners with no experience or formal training should bypass fundamentals or do not really need firearm fundamentals. For the life of me, I am at a loss to think of any shooters/gun owners who should not know how to handle and use firearms safely, correctly, and responsibly, i.e., the fundamentals.

 

[Roadie]

IndyGunSafety,
So when a prospective student comes to you and says, "I just purchased a handgun for self defense and I'm looking for some training". Do you say, "WOW, have I got the power point for you. We'll spend hours talking about the function of guns you don't own or care about, and ammunition your gun doesn't fire"? Sorry, I think people deserve better than what the NRA is offering. Hopefully the NRA will catch up some day. Defending the status quo is not helping. Saying the old and new are both good is confusing. The innovations in training are meant to replace not augment the old methods. If we can do better for our students, we should.

As someone who was a new gun owner 4 years ago, with little to no familiarity with pistols, and who took the Basic Pistol Course.. I have to vehemently disagree with you.

I not only got to learn about MY new handgun, I got to learn about, and fire, other handguns as well. I feel that experience gave me a well rounded start in my gun owning journey. Because of that course I not only felt familiar with MY handgun, but if I went to the range and had a chance to shoot someone else's gun, I had a working knowledge of THAT gun as well.

I can see the benefit of training a "newb" on JUST their weapon as well, however, I think it is a rather limited paradigm to think that ALL new shooters need JUST that type of course. I wanted to learn about HANDGUNS, not just MY gun. As people are different, so should the training courses be, to fit every type of student.

Basic Pistol gave me a great Foundation to build on, and led to me taking other Training courses as well. (MDFI Handgun 1, for example)

 

[Jackson]

Mr. Jackson, please help me understand which shooters/gun owners with no experience or formal training should bypass fundamentals or do not really need firearm fundamentals. For the life of me, I am at a loss to think of any shooters/gun owners who should not know how to handle and use firearms safely, correctly, and responsibly, i.e., the fundamentals.

I didn't say no experience. I said no formal training. Formal training is not the only way to gain familiarity and basic skills. (Though I might argue it is preferred.) I know gun owners and shooters WITH EXPERIENCE but NO formal training who would benefit from FoF training. I believe there are a couple of FoF trainers around here who would agree.

I also agree that all shooters need solid fundamentals. I am not sure where you think I said otherwise. I did not say those shooters should not seek live fire training in the fundamentals. I said that it does not have to be the starting point for every shooter looking for training.

 

[N8RV]

... I highly recommend getting the RSO cert if you are going to teach. It adds credibility to your teaching as well as a measure of safety.

After decades of gun ownership, I finally decided to get some formal training earlier this year. I guess I just absorbed the entirety of my knowledge base about firearms through experience. Therefore ... most of it was wrong.

So, I saw that someone was offering an "NRA Basic Handgun Orientation" course and signed up for it. The spousal unit joined me, too. We both learned a LOT of good safety info. I also learned, sadly, that she shot better than I, even though I'd been shooting stuff for years.

Now I'm in the middle of a 16-hour defensive handgun course. I'm there not only to learn how to shoot better and how to effectively employ my handgun for self-defense, but also to observe the teaching methods. You see, I have decided that firearms instruction might make a great semi-retirement gig.

I don't want to start or own a training company. I just want to be a helper, or coach, with somebody else's name on the front door. I want to help some of these new gun owners who THINK that by just having a new gun in their house, they're now protected. Perhaps I can prevent a few from hurting themselves or others, and get them to a level where they might actually be able to defend themselves if need be.

That said -- and pertinent to the OP's question -- how much good is being "NRA Certified" going to do me? I don't need to pad a resume'. I don't want a full-time career in the industry. I don't want to do it for the money.

If I pursue enough training aside from the NRA, will that allow me the credentials to be hired someday to help train others, or would it still serve me best to take the NRA courses and jump through the hoops?

 

[jdhaines]

I'm just one person, but I'll disagree with David Rose's first half of his statement regarding powerpoint for someone new to guns. A basic pistol class explaining the truly basic parts of ownership and safety isn't a bad thing to have. I feel that almost anyone with any sort of knowledge should be passing that on to fellow owners free of charge and at every opportunity rather than forcing people to pay for professional classes in it.

My point of posting, however, is to agree with his second half. Even if we ignore the basic pistol class, the later classes on personal protection in and out of the home are about the worst classes I've ever seen. I'm an NRA instructor officially, but hate the curriculum so much that I'd never teach it to anyone. I have no doubt that the instructors posting in this thread are fantastic and have been vetted by enough previous students that disparaging them would be futile. That said...no matter how good the instructors are, the officially required curriculum they are required to teach is horrible and teaching it with good instructors is no better than putting lipstick on a pig.

The NRA should be ashamed of itself for doing such a disservice to gun owners. With their money and resources they should be at the forefront of training for every level of student from beginner to advanced. Private companies should be scrambling to either get ahold of the NRA lesson plans or find ways to out perform the NRA classes. Unfortunately, it's the exact opposite. Even the new super secret advanced handgun class that you have to be a super secret instructor for is shaping up to be no better than what Gunsite was teaching decades ago.

I know some very good people who are NRA instructors and I support them in their mission for teaching students. It's an honorable thing to do and I wish them the best of luck. But I will continue to argue that the NRA's training curriculum is designed completely around it's ability to withstand lawsuits rather than out of the honest dedication to providing paying students with good training.

After training with a few of the best instructors in the business (and wanting to train with many more!) the information in the NRA courses can't hold the jock of even the most basically vetted private company training. I initially got the certification for the credentials...if you don't need the credentials...skip it totally. I wouldn't go through another NRA class if they paid me.

 

[Jackson]

jdhaines, where do you instruct and which NRA classes have you taken? Are you certified to teach all of them? Can you provide some specifics about where they fall short or describe which techniques are antiquated?