This stuff is interesting to read. I see pretty advanced competitive shooters lose dots in nonstandard positions. Every time there is a standards stage that makes people shoot one handed, it is a fun shitshow to watch and be a part of. I've seen Carry Optics GMs lose dot on support only shooting. Those 16-24 transition courses, are they pretty much about picking up the dot on a static, straight ahead of you target, or there is more to it?
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
You raise an important question. Nonstandard positions can wreak havoc on dot acquisition unless it is trained out.Originally Posted by YVK
There’s a reason you were #1 and I was #5 out of all the shooters in our division on that one-hand/weak hand biased USPSA classifier that you and I shot a couple of weeks ago, and it was purely due to finding the dot without drama when shooting that way. In my case, that was driven by proper training (from Erick Gelhaus). In your case it was talent.😆
I too was impressed by the number of train wrecks on that stage from otherwise superb competition shooters. The difference might be relative to one’s motivation to apply the skills needed to deal with the non-competitive environment. Your average competitor isn’t necessarily spending much time on that particular skill set. I sure hope that cops do.
More good stuff. I agree with most of it.
My concern is NOT the 1% that shoot, or care, or train. They will do great regardless of what gun they're given.
Our obligation is to the other 99%. My position is that if a tool doesn't help the officer then it's not a good tool for the job.
It has to benefit the majority of our tribe.
The same is true for non-firearms topics; if a handcuff technique involves 23 steps and 16 hours of training....it might be the "best" technique but doesn't help our people at all.
We have to be honest and separate "How it is" from "How I wish it was."
Like Scully said… “The truth is out there… but so are lies”.
I’ve thought for days how to reply to this but there are numerous facets to address and I simply don’t have the motivation. I’m disheartened with the original post. The “truth” has been out for some time. There’s the Norwich study, Sage’s white paper, the KR Training Study, and numerous departments that have implemented programs. My old department has accumulated a lot of data and information and has been pretty good about disseminating it to any LE that asks. Any firearm instructor who is asking if dots are good at this point simply hasn’t done their homework or has an agenda. They certainly haven’t invested in really trying out the concept for themselves to see if it has validity.
There’s so much information here on the forum alone that the original post had me perplexed. To see some of the follow up statements such as an instructor stating that dots are a fad is also a bit frustrating… It’s like hearing that criminals are putting dollar bills on windshield wipers to attack people when they open their door to get it. Is it real… the “truth”… or is it lies?
I’m not sure if I want to know who it was so I can avoid ever having to waste my time training with them or if I don’t want to know so I don’t have to worry about investing the mental effort.
There are a lot of things broken about LE training and there are a lot of things that have advanced and are good. Dots are one small part of the overall picture. It was said in this thread a while back that semi-autos weren’t a game changer… maybe not but where are the revolvers now? You mentioned the 99% but what does that really mean? (The studies I mention above along with lots of data is available to support the advantages -and disadvantages - of pistol optics for the unmotivated and underperforming).
I just don’t know where to start with this.
That dots are going to help the people who already do fine with irons to do possibly better with the dot. And only as involves hit rates.
The staff who have issues will continue to be bozos. I see people at matches blue screen and start point shooting when they can't find their dot for whatever reason. Despite the back-up irons on their guns. These are match people; the non-gunny cops won't do better.
He may also be referencing everything else that, frankly, matters more. Dots help with accurate shooting. They do not stop poor grips causing malfs, popping off a single-handed round while looking away and shrieking (recent Chicago clusterfuck), failing to remediate the user-induced stoppage while flagging traffic (same incident), poorly maintained guns, the "gum wrapper in the shotgun barrel" crew from spilling nail polish on the optic lens and deciding that enough clear glass remains so fuck it, letting batteries go dead, taking calls from the Good Idea Fairy to fiddle with the brightness, etc. Nevermind tactics, scene management, and decision making.
Then we can look into the crystal ball via hundreds of years of institutional reality: after the shine wears off, brass will cut the sustainment training. All of the problems in your firearms programs will stay the same as they ever were.
As for the OP, I'd say its a good thing to rattle the cage and gut check people. If dots reduce stray rounds buzzing around, that is cool. If they up qual scores to reduce time and money spent on remediation on just the administrative level of H.R. stuff, also cool. But to what degree will they reduce that public hazard and are they an actual game changer in the grand scheme? Or will a lot of cops continue cocking up and winning through luck and the grace of God as they often have but now with a bit more potential accuracy?
I've been retired coming up on two years. For the last 5 years I was there, firearms training in its entirety for non-swat officers was centered around passing qualification. And the qualification course for Ohio isn't all that difficult. . . Courses with plate racks were introduced when one of the staff started shooting 3 gun as a hobby. But they center around the timer, tactics be damned. Having a range staff that views their position as a place to sit and chill until the next swat training day is beyond frustrating. We are an urban agency with over 1,000 sworn officers. The last time our swat team had a shooting was in 1995. Our patrol officers on the other hand, tend to have about 3-5 a year. But those who are tasked with training don't feel it's necessary to train the masses.
I have enough time on a RDS that I feel it's value is worth the transition. But there is a transition process that needs instruction and follow up practice to make the process a successful transition. For people like me with "mature" eyes, the RDS is a game changer.
But as we all know, most LEO's are not, "gun people". The gun is one tool among many that they carry. Firearms training gets lumped in with inservice training and all the other training days that most officers feel forced to attend. This is why I strongly feel that it's incumbent upon the range staff to make sure the appropriate training is being provided. And it's imperative that the supervisor overseeing the training has enough pride and work ethic to make sure his/her staff are doing what should be done.
But if the individual officer doesn't care, and the trainers don't care, then the RDO equipped pistol will just be one more thing that get's lugged around on the duty belt.
We’re actually moving the other way. We still shoot quarterly but standard qualification is now only twice a year instead of every quarter. We now have a list of certain training topics which must be addressed and documented each year in addition to the two qual scores. There is significant flexibility in how they are addressed so the “commanders intent” is that they be addressed as part of actual training.
If one is losing the dot shooting one handed, more dry-practice is required. I had this issue when I was relative new to the dot, but remedied it with a little effort. To your second point, a well thought out LE transition course should incorporate non-standard firing positions (rollover prone, supine) because LE could easily find themselves shooting from non-traditional positions.
Last edited by Kyle Reese; 12-01-2023 at 04:38 PM.
Exactly. One handed shooting is part of our qualification course and we work it regularly in quarterly drills. We also do non standard positions and one handed manipulations at least once a year because they are perishable skills.
Maybe you should add unrealistic expectations to your list.
Red dots can make good shooters better, particularly under realistic conditions such as low light and when one or both parties are moving. They can also help level the playing field for those with older eyes or other vision issues.
But if you have a bunch of s**t bag, officers and s**t bag, instructors, red dots are not a magic wand that’s going to fix everything. In my experience, those who bemoan red dots not being worth the trouble are s**t bags, regardless of the sighting system on their pistol.
You’ve gotta be willing to fight those administrative and political battles and retain competent people. When I started we qualified on OT before or after our shift with zero in service training. It’s been a long road between that and a full 8 hours of firearms training every quarter.
Something, something….be the change you want to see in the world.
Last edited by HCM; 12-01-2023 at 05:36 PM.
Reply With Quote