NLEFIA Shoot house Instructor Course 5/17-5/19/2017
Location:
Allegheny County Police Training Academy
This is not my agency however the facility is located about 20 minutes outside of Pittsburgh, it is local to me and I work there as an adjunct firearms instructor. The facility has a large, 50 yard flat range, which is used for both cadets and in service qualification for various departments in the area. The facility also sports a long distance range, classroom, and shoot house. Only the latter two were used by this class. We were sharing the grounds for the first two days with a female oriented shooting class.
The shoot house itself is an Action Target steel construction style with plywood standoffs on the interior walls. I have previously used it many times, so I was familiar with its layout. It is somewhat limited however in that it is relatively small (About 60’ by 30’) and offers only one entry point. Having said that, the house has a reasonably good layout which can be set up with some challenging tactical problems. While lacking a large room to flood, or an opportunity to take a shot much farther than 10 yards, it replicates a typical residential structure. As the class went on, student’s movement paths were modified and redirected by the use of an ample supply of 55 gallon drums kept on site. The house definitely makes me appreciative of the larger houses I’ve been through, my agency is currently working on constructing a significantly larger facility in the same general area as this house that hopefully will address this.
Weather:
Someone flipped the switch in Pittsburgh this week from winter to summer. All three days were mostly sunny with temps in the low 80s. T1 and T2 had a steady breeze that made it easily tolerable. By T3 the wind had calmed and the temperature was noticeably less pleasant because of it. Although it threatened to rain on a portion of T2, nothing ever dropped during the class.
Equipment:
Due to some debate about the ballistic rating of the house that will hopefully be cleared up next month this class was pistol only. I ran an RMR equipped M&P9 which I have been using to evaluate the feasibility of a handgun optic program for my department with for about a year now. It performed without issue. As this was limited to handgun only ammunition I was fine wearing soft armor only for my time in the house. Although there were a few students wearing hard armor, I took the opportunity to lighten my load for the class. The course description recommended 400 rounds of ammunition for the course; I estimate I shot a bit less than half of that. This is to be expected in an instructor level course, and particularly in one whose subject matter is focused on problem solving not shooting.
Instructors:
This was the first course I’ve taken through the relatively new National Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (NLEFIA) but it will not be my last. I was somewhat apprehensive given some experiences I’ve had in the past with some other LE instructor associations and their curriculum both by what was taught, and the level of competence of the instructors, these concerns turned out to be unfounded in this case. Jason Wuestenberg is the director of the association and also served as the lead instructor for this course, he was assisted by Dave Jordan who is among the travelling cadre for the group. Both Jason and Dave are coppers at a large department in the southwest and their curriculum vitae more than qualified them for the subject matter at hand. Both were excellent at presenting the information and engaging to the audience, encouraging discourse between themselves and students about nearly every teaching point.
Students:
The class was marketed to, and populated primarily by LE FIs . Of the class nearly all had some background in SWAT or .mil CQB. Although not necessarily a requirement, knowledge beyond just the “hows” and into the “whys” of CQB served students well and led to a number of great sidebar conversations during the class. It was clear that the goal of the class was to enable participants to integrate their particular CQB curriculum into the context of a shoot house and not dictate that curriculum. This is a fine line to walk and could easily have diverted into a tactics class not an instructor level class if care was not taken. Nonetheless the instructors were more than happy to have meaningful discussions with the group on the merits of various TTPs.
T1
Day 1 started with the usual introductions, administrative tasks, and classroom lecture. The classroom portion took approximately 2 hours and covered basic safety protocols, shoothouse construction considerations, target selection and placement, and duties of the shoothouse instructor. Students were then briefed on the basic entry TTPs we would be using for the duration of the course we would all be using for the sake of consistency. For our purposes almost all runs in the house were completed dynamically. It was explained this was done, not necessarily as an endorsement of the method but rather because if students could learn and practice taking teams through the house with dynamic movement, than managing a slow and deliberate clear is easy by comparison.
Once the classroom portion was completed we broke outside where a safety check was completed and all firearms were rendered safe with chamber blocking. When complete we began making dry runs through the house in scenarios created by the staff. Students began by managing 2 man and 3 man entry teams individually. Because of the relatively small size of the house there was an opportunity to get a lot of reps in here with little down time. As students became more comfortable managing both their own duties and picking up points to critique the entry teams on, the numbers were increased. Students began operating in groups as the entry teams grew all the way up to a 9 man element. Emphasis was made on instructor positioning within the stack and balancing safety without interfering with the flow of the team. This was done following a crawl, walk, run learning methodology.
By the end of this students were fairly well loaded with information and we concluded the day to absorb what had been learned.
T2
Day 2 started up at 0800 hours. This was initially scheduled for a late start and a low light shoot, however after the construction of some McMansions adjacent to the range a few years ago, all firing now has to be completed by 2100 hours. With the sun not setting till at least 2000 hours this made a low light portion impractical. This was disappointing but not the fault of the instructors.
After a safety brief and a review of the material covered on T1 we got right into doing live runs with COFs constructed by the instructors. Again we started with 3 man teams and built all the way up to 9 man entries. The runs emphasized shot placement and decision making, and served as examples of what would be expected from the student designed COFs which would come later. We went on to cover modifying the layout of the house to add complications and avoid students becoming familiar and gaming the structure. Throughout the day each run would be debriefed by the individual teams, then the class as a whole. Students were allowed the opportunity to debrief their teams, who in turn would then share their observations on the instructors.
At the end of the day students were broken into groups and allowed the opportunity to develop their own COFs, which we would then run the following day.
T3
Day 3 once again began with a safety brief and review. Once that was out of the way, we immediately broke into our groups and began making runs through the house using our lesson plans. Many of the runs were quite devious in construction and posed some great tactical problems for the teams to solve. A few no-shoot runs were even included, a suggestion for all instructors to include on training days. Again, each run was debriefed individually, then collectively.
Following this, conducting shoothouse training at CQB speeds was covered and students were given the opportunity to set up scenarios and lead teams at a direct to threat pace. As before this started with small teams and grew as instructors became more comfortable managing their elements.
During down time on Day 3 the availability of trauma kits for the shoothouse instructor was discussed, and the NLEFI staff’s “bare essentials” were laid out.
The last block covered was conducting slow and deliberate clears in the house. As predicted, managing this after spending the previous two days doing dynamic entry was no problem for the students to manage, however it did provide for a new set of material to critique on during debriefs.
Class concluded with a written test and certificate presentation.
Final Thoughts
Bottom line up front- I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of instruction in this class. The instructors were knowledgeable while remaining open to input from the students, many of whom had significant experience themselves. Pacing was perfect, classes were full days with only the necessary breaks. With the exception of the inability for low light, the limitations of the facility itself were never a barrier to learning, and in some aspects minimized the down time present in most training involving the shoothouse. The NLEFIA is a young organization, and having previously been to training through similar organizations I was somewhat skeptical of what was going to be offered. If this class is representative of the growing curriculum to be offered by the organization I believe it will go far. If you can afford one more professional organization membership, your money could be spent much, much worse.
Dan
Location:
Allegheny County Police Training Academy
This is not my agency however the facility is located about 20 minutes outside of Pittsburgh, it is local to me and I work there as an adjunct firearms instructor. The facility has a large, 50 yard flat range, which is used for both cadets and in service qualification for various departments in the area. The facility also sports a long distance range, classroom, and shoot house. Only the latter two were used by this class. We were sharing the grounds for the first two days with a female oriented shooting class.
The shoot house itself is an Action Target steel construction style with plywood standoffs on the interior walls. I have previously used it many times, so I was familiar with its layout. It is somewhat limited however in that it is relatively small (About 60’ by 30’) and offers only one entry point. Having said that, the house has a reasonably good layout which can be set up with some challenging tactical problems. While lacking a large room to flood, or an opportunity to take a shot much farther than 10 yards, it replicates a typical residential structure. As the class went on, student’s movement paths were modified and redirected by the use of an ample supply of 55 gallon drums kept on site. The house definitely makes me appreciative of the larger houses I’ve been through, my agency is currently working on constructing a significantly larger facility in the same general area as this house that hopefully will address this.
Weather:
Someone flipped the switch in Pittsburgh this week from winter to summer. All three days were mostly sunny with temps in the low 80s. T1 and T2 had a steady breeze that made it easily tolerable. By T3 the wind had calmed and the temperature was noticeably less pleasant because of it. Although it threatened to rain on a portion of T2, nothing ever dropped during the class.
Equipment:
Due to some debate about the ballistic rating of the house that will hopefully be cleared up next month this class was pistol only. I ran an RMR equipped M&P9 which I have been using to evaluate the feasibility of a handgun optic program for my department with for about a year now. It performed without issue. As this was limited to handgun only ammunition I was fine wearing soft armor only for my time in the house. Although there were a few students wearing hard armor, I took the opportunity to lighten my load for the class. The course description recommended 400 rounds of ammunition for the course; I estimate I shot a bit less than half of that. This is to be expected in an instructor level course, and particularly in one whose subject matter is focused on problem solving not shooting.
Instructors:
This was the first course I’ve taken through the relatively new National Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (NLEFIA) but it will not be my last. I was somewhat apprehensive given some experiences I’ve had in the past with some other LE instructor associations and their curriculum both by what was taught, and the level of competence of the instructors, these concerns turned out to be unfounded in this case. Jason Wuestenberg is the director of the association and also served as the lead instructor for this course, he was assisted by Dave Jordan who is among the travelling cadre for the group. Both Jason and Dave are coppers at a large department in the southwest and their curriculum vitae more than qualified them for the subject matter at hand. Both were excellent at presenting the information and engaging to the audience, encouraging discourse between themselves and students about nearly every teaching point.
Students:
The class was marketed to, and populated primarily by LE FIs . Of the class nearly all had some background in SWAT or .mil CQB. Although not necessarily a requirement, knowledge beyond just the “hows” and into the “whys” of CQB served students well and led to a number of great sidebar conversations during the class. It was clear that the goal of the class was to enable participants to integrate their particular CQB curriculum into the context of a shoot house and not dictate that curriculum. This is a fine line to walk and could easily have diverted into a tactics class not an instructor level class if care was not taken. Nonetheless the instructors were more than happy to have meaningful discussions with the group on the merits of various TTPs.
T1
Day 1 started with the usual introductions, administrative tasks, and classroom lecture. The classroom portion took approximately 2 hours and covered basic safety protocols, shoothouse construction considerations, target selection and placement, and duties of the shoothouse instructor. Students were then briefed on the basic entry TTPs we would be using for the duration of the course we would all be using for the sake of consistency. For our purposes almost all runs in the house were completed dynamically. It was explained this was done, not necessarily as an endorsement of the method but rather because if students could learn and practice taking teams through the house with dynamic movement, than managing a slow and deliberate clear is easy by comparison.
Once the classroom portion was completed we broke outside where a safety check was completed and all firearms were rendered safe with chamber blocking. When complete we began making dry runs through the house in scenarios created by the staff. Students began by managing 2 man and 3 man entry teams individually. Because of the relatively small size of the house there was an opportunity to get a lot of reps in here with little down time. As students became more comfortable managing both their own duties and picking up points to critique the entry teams on, the numbers were increased. Students began operating in groups as the entry teams grew all the way up to a 9 man element. Emphasis was made on instructor positioning within the stack and balancing safety without interfering with the flow of the team. This was done following a crawl, walk, run learning methodology.
By the end of this students were fairly well loaded with information and we concluded the day to absorb what had been learned.
T2
Day 2 started up at 0800 hours. This was initially scheduled for a late start and a low light shoot, however after the construction of some McMansions adjacent to the range a few years ago, all firing now has to be completed by 2100 hours. With the sun not setting till at least 2000 hours this made a low light portion impractical. This was disappointing but not the fault of the instructors.
After a safety brief and a review of the material covered on T1 we got right into doing live runs with COFs constructed by the instructors. Again we started with 3 man teams and built all the way up to 9 man entries. The runs emphasized shot placement and decision making, and served as examples of what would be expected from the student designed COFs which would come later. We went on to cover modifying the layout of the house to add complications and avoid students becoming familiar and gaming the structure. Throughout the day each run would be debriefed by the individual teams, then the class as a whole. Students were allowed the opportunity to debrief their teams, who in turn would then share their observations on the instructors.
At the end of the day students were broken into groups and allowed the opportunity to develop their own COFs, which we would then run the following day.
T3
Day 3 once again began with a safety brief and review. Once that was out of the way, we immediately broke into our groups and began making runs through the house using our lesson plans. Many of the runs were quite devious in construction and posed some great tactical problems for the teams to solve. A few no-shoot runs were even included, a suggestion for all instructors to include on training days. Again, each run was debriefed individually, then collectively.
Following this, conducting shoothouse training at CQB speeds was covered and students were given the opportunity to set up scenarios and lead teams at a direct to threat pace. As before this started with small teams and grew as instructors became more comfortable managing their elements.
During down time on Day 3 the availability of trauma kits for the shoothouse instructor was discussed, and the NLEFI staff’s “bare essentials” were laid out.
The last block covered was conducting slow and deliberate clears in the house. As predicted, managing this after spending the previous two days doing dynamic entry was no problem for the students to manage, however it did provide for a new set of material to critique on during debriefs.
Class concluded with a written test and certificate presentation.
Final Thoughts
Bottom line up front- I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of instruction in this class. The instructors were knowledgeable while remaining open to input from the students, many of whom had significant experience themselves. Pacing was perfect, classes were full days with only the necessary breaks. With the exception of the inability for low light, the limitations of the facility itself were never a barrier to learning, and in some aspects minimized the down time present in most training involving the shoothouse. The NLEFIA is a young organization, and having previously been to training through similar organizations I was somewhat skeptical of what was going to be offered. If this class is representative of the growing curriculum to be offered by the organization I believe it will go far. If you can afford one more professional organization membership, your money could be spent much, much worse.
Dan