USPSA as a skills development tool for LE

[GJM]

During the winter months, one of the local monthly matches I shoot is near the border, and attracts quite a few LE and military types new to competition. I have seen enough to form some impressions. By and large, these are muscular, athletic young men, with an interest in shooting. Some are shooting duty firearms like the P2000 LEM .40, and others shooting things they feel more shootable. Today for example, within this contingent I saw a P2000 LEM, Glock 19, Glock 19 direct milled for a DP Pro, CZ P10-C and a CZ P09. Lots of expensive support gear by Ares, and similar companies.

In terms of match placement, excluding one dedicated LE shooter, the new LE guys are shooting 20-40 percent of the match winner. So what is going on. Their stances look good, and they are definitely some of the physically strongest guys at the match. They do lots of aiming, and actually spend too much time aiming. Their main problem, though, is trigger control. OK on close open targets, but heads, partial and especially targets with no-shoots are a big problem. If I was a hostage, I would not want to be standing below the bad guy the LEM shooter is targeting, or standing to the left of a bad guy, when the good guy is right handed and has a Glock. Even with targets nailed to stationary wood slats, no shoots are getting shot two or three times, when in proximity to a shoot target.

Also, once these guys start shooting they seem to loose track of everything besides the target in front of them. As a result, they approach new target arrays with one or two cartridges in their pistol, and nearly 100 percent shoot to slide lock. Some have problems with the slide stop, and time after time, shoot dry without realizing it before getting a click. They almost all holster way too fast, without a sense of where their body is, and what a potentially dangerous maneuver is holstering a loaded gun.

USPSA, like other shooting sports with a timer and score is clearly a game. However, these guys are seeing targets at the match that in many instances are harder than any targets they have shot, in more complicated arrangements, and with a clock running. They are also being exposed to very high level shooters, even if most are old and fat, like the typical USPSA enthusiast. If I was in charge of developing these guys, I would strongly encourage that they shoot some USPSA to learn how to press a trigger and handle their gear, and then overlay that with real tactics consistent with their organization.

[Clusterfrack]

Four of the top USPSA shooters here are LEOs. 3 GMs and an M. They sometimes bring fellow officers to matches, and while these guys are new to USPSA, they usually place at least in the middle of C class, and in some cases better.

I have heard some stories that are consistent with what you saw though. One of the GMs said something like “I wish all my guys could shoot at the C class level, but not many can.”

[secondstoryguy]

Although I shoot regularly at work I haven't shot competitively in many years. The reason is primarily time management. With the job and a family I think a lot how to best spend my very limited free time. Attending a match in the central Texas area is an all day event especially when you consider travel time. I can hit the range at work, get some good trigger time in, and be done in several hours...with almost all that time being behind the gun running drills. If I spend the time to go to a match I'm getting about 10 minutes of actual shooting if that.

Do you think spending an entire day with only minutes being actual shooting is worth it from a time management standpoint?

I've heard some say that they occasionally attend matches as a skill assessment and to stress test their techniques which sounds like a better plan.

As a side note, do most LEO guys you see run their duty gear?

[GJM]

Do most LEO guys you see run their duty gear?

Depends. The high level (A, M, GM) USPSA LE guys typically shoot USPSA specific gear. Others a mix, with battle belt type rigs common, but a few with their duty rigs.

[DpdG]

Disclaimer: I am one of those C class guys, so I'm only marginally qualified to talk.

Before getting into competitive shooting, I shot near-max scores on the department qualifier, but it was an unrealistic test of technical shooting abilities. For the purposes of the qual course, any hit on a FBI Q was counted, without regard to placement. The entire course of fire was shot static on a square range, times were very generous, and no bonus points were awarded for fastest time. Finally, the course required only a few rounds from the 25y line. When I started shooting competitively, I immediately went to the gray zone. It wasn't until I started shooting a local 2-gun league that I realized what I didn't know and where to spend my training time/effort.

Based on what I see when instructing at the state wide academy, I believe most LE shooters probably have similar issues. Unfortunately, academy level training is largely about passing the qual and those shooters who pass get little to no extra instruction to improve beyond minimum passing. In this day and age, administrators have determined shooting proficiency is lower priority than a multitude of other, more publicized topics.

[AMC]

Okay. Complicated problem with a complicated answer. Folks need to remember, first, that cops aren't professional "shooters"...they're professional gun toters. Shooting skills are only one skillset among many that an officer needs to be successful, and an infrequently used one. That said, it's one of the most critical and important skillset, from both a legal and moral standpoint.

As others pointed out, in most agencies firearms training is abysmal or non existent. In my own agency, there is no (as in zero) sustainment training post basic academy. We "qualify" twice a year (70% passing, POST minimum). Beyond that, it's up to the individual. And most don't realize what they don't know, so they don't seek out training.

As for USPSA, yes I think it can be useful, especially in the absence of anything else. I compete in USPSA Production, mostly as a way to get extra trigger time on my service pistol, and as a way to improve my shooting skills. It's a great way to do that....you'll be challenged unlike anything you'll encounter in most LE training. I also do it because it's fun, and I really enjoy the people I've met in competition. It'd be great if my department had a program along the lines of Pat McNamara's TAPS program, applying competition based training principles to tactical shooting....but they don't. So...I compete. Do I think others should? Absolutely. I took it as a clue when both Frank Proctor and Mike Pannone told me, " Hey...you wanna improve? Shoot USPSA." Clue noted.

[JHC]

In terms of match placement, excluding one dedicated LE shooter, the new LE guys are shooting 20-40 percent of the match winner. So what is going on. Their stances look good, and they are definitely some of the physically strongest guys at the match. They do lots of aiming, and actually spend too much time aiming. Their main problem, though, is trigger control. OK on close open targets, but heads, partial and especially targets with no-shoots are a big problem. If I was a hostage, I would not want to be standing below the bad guy the LEM shooter is targeting, or standing to the left of a bad guy, when the good guy is right handed and has a Glock. Even with targets nailed to stationary wood slats, no shoots are getting shot two or three times, when in proximity to a shoot target.

Also, once these guys start shooting they seem to loose track of everything besides the target in front of them. As a result, they approach new target arrays with one or two cartridges in their pistol, and nearly 100 percent shoot to slide lock. Some have problems with the slide stop, and time after time, shoot dry without realizing it before getting a click. They almost all holster way too fast, without a sense of where their body is, and what a potentially dangerous maneuver is holstering a loaded gun.

USPSA, like other shooting sports with a timer and score is clearly a game. However, these guys are seeing targets at the match that in many instances are harder than any targets they have shot, in more complicated arrangements, and with a clock running. They are also being exposed to very high level shooters, even if most are old and fat, like the typical USPSA enthusiast. If I was in charge of developing these guys, I would strongly encourage that they shoot some USPSA to learn how to press a trigger and handle their gear, and then overlay that with real tactics consistent with their organization.

This makes perfect sense I think. They must get the hits so whatever it takes to get the hits they have to try. Whether they have the skill and trigger control etc or not.

And fights unfold one fight at a time that may be the only fight or just the beginning without any concept of an array of bad guys to engage from different positions and planned reloads.

Then there is Dr. No's arguments that USPSA matches are 80% moving. And good moving for a match means pre-planning.

There have been arguments here re whether moving is part of shooting but I sensed those back and forths were talking past each other.

I think competition shooting for the professional gunman is great but IMO his/her ideal (if honing fighting attributes is the primary objective vs competing) would be to let each stage surprise them. Don't walk it, don't plan it. Improvise through each stage.

[Peally]

It's great for testing your fundamentals. Most people that shoot long enough understand its strengths and weaknesses as far as building fighting skills.

[Artemas2]

In terms of match placement, excluding one dedicated LE shooter, the new LE guys are shooting 20-40 percent of the match winner. So what is going on. Their stances look good, and they are definitely some of the physically strongest guys at the match. They do lots of aiming, and actually spend too much time aiming. Their main problem, though, is trigger control. OK on close open targets, but heads, partial and especially targets with no-shoots are a big problem. If I was a hostage, I would not want to be standing below the bad guy the LEM shooter is targeting, or standing to the left of a bad guy, when the good guy is right handed and has a Glock. Even with targets nailed to stationary wood slats, no shoots are getting shot two or three times, when in proximity to a shoot target.



I have also seen this with LE but also many first time to newer shooters. I think some of the resulting hits on no-shoots or "hard cover" are a mental or visual failure more than a skills failure. They think too much and concentrate on the thing they don't want to shoot or worry about missing, instead of focusing on what they need to shoot.

[Zincwarrior]

n playing IDPA in Houston, we often had police attend, in their full gear. I was always amazed how they could carry that. In Austin, the county sheriff's marksmanship team will run in USPSA and in IDPA carbine matches we have here. Good shooters, fully embracing the gaming aspects of it (I think one is a Master level). They will even bring their kids out for the IDPA matches.

[octagon]

If as the OP states USPSA for LE development tool is the objective or intent then there has to be considerations in multiple areas. Score has to be adjusted if the shooter is using duty gear, using cover more carefully,not doing a walk through or pre planning movement and locating targets and any other factors that have an effect on performance. Comparing the performance of a regular USPSA shooter to a new LE shooter is going to be skewed and LE scores are going to be poor in that comparison. If however the is a comparison of regular USPSA shooter and LE shooter who is also a regular USPSA shooter and both are using the same parameters then a more accurate assessment can be achieved. Having a LE category where there are no walk throughs, you must use duty gear, and cover must be used more carefully for all those that compete in the category would be a good step toward adjusting realities of performance and a better training/practice/testing method.

That said any LEO could gain improvements in participating with any equipment in any class with skills and gun handling but less overall crossover of application for regular LE use than a LE class with more closely regulated skills.equipment and procedures.

I have seen the same poor LE performance in driving when participating in Autocross and trackdays. I can't say racing because I don't know any other LEOs racing to compare with regular competitors. This is with equipment being equal (i.e no one was using police cars) but again what relevance does Autocross and Trackdays driving have with regular,pursuit and emergency response driving? Not a huge amount but the base skills may be there. This is more relevant because LEOs drive, make emergency runs and get in a lot more pursuits than they ever will get into shootings/gunfights. As others have stated in this thread and others LE admin. prioritize training and what is trained differently than others believe they should and the line officers pay the biggest price for this unless they use their own time and money to seek out their own training/practice.

IPSC,USPSA,IDPA,GSSF and other competition are part of the solution to improvement in firearms skills but primarily a smaller part if parts aren't adjusted for closer tie to actual LEO use. They are more accessible than force on force or 270-360 degree simulators which would be even better for training/practice/testing LEO skills. Paintball,airsoft,VR and video games can play a part as well.

[JodyH]

During the winter months, one of the local monthly matches I shoot is near the border, and attracts quite a few LE and military types new to competition. I have seen enough to form some impressions. By and large, these are muscular, athletic young men, with an interest in shooting. Some are shooting duty firearms like the P2000 LEM .40, and others shooting things they feel more shootable. Today for example, within this contingent I saw a P2000 LEM, Glock 19, Glock 19 direct milled for a DP Pro, CZ P10-C and a CZ P09. Lots of expensive support gear by Ares, and similar companies.

In terms of match placement, excluding one dedicated LE shooter, the new LE guys are shooting 20-40 percent of the match winner. So what is going on. Their stances look good, and they are definitely some of the physically strongest guys at the match. They do lots of aiming, and actually spend too much time aiming. Their main problem, though, is trigger control. OK on close open targets, but heads, partial and especially targets with no-shoots are a big problem. If I was a hostage, I would not want to be standing below the bad guy the LEM shooter is targeting, or standing to the left of a bad guy, when the good guy is right handed and has a Glock. Even with targets nailed to stationary wood slats, no shoots are getting shot two or three times, when in proximity to a shoot target.

Also, once these guys start shooting they seem to loose track of everything besides the target in front of them. As a result, they approach new target arrays with one or two cartridges in their pistol, and nearly 100 percent shoot to slide lock. Some have problems with the slide stop, and time after time, shoot dry without realizing it before getting a click. They almost all holster way too fast, without a sense of where their body is, and what a potentially dangerous maneuver is holstering a loaded gun.
^^^ Mirrors my observations almost exactly.

Here's what I've observed (most the ranges I compete at are within 1 hour of FLETC and the last match I attended was at Fort Bliss).
Two of the best shooters I know are USBP FLETC instructors.
Ones a high M (flirting with GM) and the other is a high A (flirting with M) Limited shooters, both shoot STI's in USPSA.
Their stagecraft and gunhandling definitely reflect their classifications.

The majority of USBP guys I've shot with were really solid on muzzle and finger safety, excellent safety awareness while the gun was out.
Proactive gunhandling is not in their vocabulary, they react to everything. If there's a activator popper and a drop turn array they'll invariably run dry immediately after the activator and not get a shot off on the DT.
The guys who put the rounds downrange through their LEM P2000's like the BORTAC guys are really fast and accurate, solid C shooters on classifiers (mostly slowed by the duty holster and especially the mag carriers otherwise they'd be B's).
The guys who don't put in the range time suffer from "El Snatcho".
They all have really bad habits when it comes to re-holstering. It's pretty obvious that their training/qualifying is rushed on the re-holster side of things because nobody takes the time to relax before slamming the gun back into the holster.
The USBP guys are all excellent rifle shooters, I cannot remember a single one of the dozens I've shot with who wasn't solid with his M4. Kudos on their carbine program.

When it comes to local LE and Mil guys...
The few good ones are usually really, really good. The rest are usually fair to poor shooters and horrible gunhandlers (about like the general population I guess).
It seems to be feast or famine on the PD/Mil side.
The worst thing about local LE and Mil is their complacency.
Their safety violations aren't due to ignorance, quite the opposite in fact.
Their safety violations are often due to arrogant complacency which is far worse than just ignorance.

On the BP side of things I think it's a reflection of their training and qualification procedures where the emphasis is on a safe static line of shooters being qualified to a mediocre accuracy standard with generous time constraints.
On the PD/Mil side there's too much "I'm the only one professional enough..." attitude.

[Sal Picante]

If as the OP states USPSA for LE development tool is the objective or intent then there has to be considerations in multiple areas. Score has to be adjusted if the shooter is using duty gear, using cover more carefully,not doing a walk through or pre planning movement and locating targets and any other factors that have an effect on performance. Comparing the performance of a regular USPSA shooter to a new LE shooter is going to be skewed and LE scores are going to be poor in that comparison. If however the is a comparison of regular USPSA shooter and LE shooter who is also a regular USPSA shooter and both are using the same parameters then a more accurate assessment can be achieved. Having a LE category where there are no walk throughs, you must use duty gear, and cover must be used more carefully for all those that compete in the category would be a good step toward adjusting realities of performance and a better training/practice/testing method.


In my respectful opinion, I don't agree:

I think that removing all the tactical/etc aspects and focusing solely on gun-handling and shot placement levels the playing field considerably and removes ambiguity. I.e. you either shoot and hit the targets reliably or you don't (and get penalized). In the past 10 years running a larger club, we've seen a lot of officers compete. Most get into at at a casual level. They recognize the game for what it is and try to learn to run the pistol subconsciously. I've rarely heard it to actually be detrimental to actually street performance for the average beat cop, but I'll admit that my data set is fairly small.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in summary, is that USPSA and IDPA are what they are: They're venues to experiment with gun handling and get good trigger time with "skin in the game". Trying to bend it to some "no walk through", "use cover", subjective thing is where it becomes useless: what are the benchmarks? What constitutes an acceptable run? (This is famously the beef with IDPA rules: cover calls, etc...)

[JodyH]

If as the OP states USPSA for LE development tool is the objective or intent then there has to be considerations in multiple areas. Score has to be adjusted if the shooter is using duty gear, using cover more carefully,not doing a walk through or pre planning movement and locating targets and any other factors that have an effect on performance. Comparing the performance of a regular USPSA shooter to a new LE shooter is going to be skewed and LE scores are going to be poor in that comparison. If however the is a comparison of regular USPSA shooter and LE shooter who is also a regular USPSA shooter and both are using the same parameters then a more accurate assessment can be achieved. Having a LE category where there are no walk throughs, you must use duty gear, and cover must be used more carefully for all those that compete in the category would be a good step toward adjusting realities of performance and a better training/practice/testing method.
We get a lot of LE participation in our "local rules" "Concealed Carry" matches (think freestyle IDPA) where the disadvantage of using duty gear is minimized.
The good competition shooters are good competition shooters no matter their LE/Mil/Civ status.
The biggest breakdowns I see on the LE side is again reacting to the gun/scenario/targets instead of being proactive.
Jumping around a corner with the slide locked back on empty is a common occurrence (when you consider they do get a walk-thru and they know there's going to be targets around that corner, it's even worse).

I think it's just a reflection of the LE training/qualification methods.
A lot of doing everything "by the numbers" (our range is next door to the LE range and I hear the "1... 2...3... FIRE!... scan... holster up..." commands all the freakin time).
I understand the need for "by the numbers" because it's pretty much a requirement when it comes to running a safe static firing line.
Perhaps there should be more dynamic live fire training like the old Hogans Alley?

[octagon]

In my respectful opinion, I don't agree:

I think that removing all the tactical/etc aspects and focusing solely on gun-handling and shot placement levels the playing field considerably and removes ambiguity. I.e. you either shoot and hit the targets reliably or you don't (and get penalized). In the past 10 years running a larger club, we've seen a lot of officers compete. Most get into at at a casual level. They recognize the game for what it is and try to learn to run the pistol subconsciously. I've rarely heard it to actually be detrimental to actually street performance for the average beat cop, but I'll admit that my data set is fairly small.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in summary, is that USPSA and IDPA are what they are: They're venues to experiment with gun handling and get good trigger time with "skin in the game". Trying to bend it to some "no walk through", "use cover", subjective thing is where it becomes useless: what are the benchmarks? What constitutes an acceptable run? (This is famously the beef with IDPA rules: cover calls, etc...)

You read and understood what I posted wrong and misinterpreted what I said. Nowhere do I say or infer that competition as currently done is bad.wrong or unhelpful to a LEO participating in any class with any gear. I only clarified that it can be more beneficial if the competition is more reflective to street realities to the LEO. On the street you don't get a walk through, you use a duty holster and duty gun with duty ammo. You should be using cover to maximum effect and you don't know how many,where or what position or difficulty the target(threat) is going to be. In regular competition with a walk through and regular competition gear you lose this ability to stay closer to actual use. To have a better training value keep it closer to reality.

PPC,Bullseye and other forms of competition can offer some skills benefit to a LEO as well just less and less the farther they get away from what a LEO is actually likely to face in a street encounter. Any competition can be used to augment training none should be used to replace it.

[JodyH]

I can hit the range at work, get some good trigger time in, and be done in several hours...with almost all that time being behind the gun running drills. If I spend the time to go to a match I'm getting about 10 minutes of actual shooting if that.

Do you think spending an entire day with only minutes being actual shooting is worth it from a time management standpoint?

I've heard some say that they occasionally attend matches as a skill assessment and to stress test their techniques which sounds like a better plan.

The advantages of shooting competitions are you're shooting a "problem" someone else came up with. It's very easy to fall into the "training masturbation" trap when you shoot by yourself or even with a small group of friends, you setup a lot of drills you're good at so you get to go home feeling good. Sucking at a stage in a match usually means you haven't been training/practicing the skills required for that particular stage (because you suck at them and it's no fun to suck at something). I hate reloads. I don't practice reloads nearly enough. My scores on stages with multiple reloads reflect that.
I have trouble letting myself shoot something other than an A, my times reflect that when the stages are up close and the speed/accuracy balance tilts to favor speed.
Competition gives me a good evaluation of my strengths and my weaknesses and forces me to address them if I want to place better.
It also gives me ideas for drills and training to help address those deficiencies and evaluate my progression.

[secondstoryguy]

Well said, that makes sense. How often do you shoot matches?

[Peally]

If you use USPSA to train using cover and tactics, you're doing it wrong.

[JodyH]

I only clarified that it can be more beneficial if the competition is more reflective to street realities to the LEO.
I think it's rarely beneficial to mix tactics into competition, mainly because every competition problem is solved with the gun.
If every problem is a gun problem, then make the competition all about getting the gun out, hitting the targets and running it efficiently.
If you want to test tactics then something along the lines of ECQC evolutions is far better.

Either way, USPSA is shooting skill testing not training or practice and ECQC style evolutions are tactics evaluations not training or practice.

[45dotACP]

I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that many LEOs rarely do any more shooting than their (progressively easier) range quals....

And yet if you inject a single USPSA you are kilt in da streets.

Competition. Not even once.


But in all seriousness, I'm not a LEO and only a lowly CCW guy who sandbags C-class, but I have the sneaking suspicion that internalizing a trigger press/sight picture necessary to hit a target under time pressure is the benefit of a rapid fire shooting game.

That's something you don't get from Bullseye or just plinking. That's a USPSA/IDPA/ICORE/3G specific skillset because of their respective scoring systems, which are time based. Those systems birthed the ever famous Enos quote of "see what you need to see.". Meaning, see the appropriate sight picture to get the good hit...but don't over do it. This gives the shooter the incentive to find out how coarse their sight picture and trigger pressure is allowed to be at speed, based on the target they're shooting. This level of self knowledge is probably a good thing for someone who carries a gun for a living.

Especially compared to the cop who shoots 100 rounds per year.

It's never bad to get trigger time, but I suspect the most benefit is reaped by those who want to win. Because those guys are pushing the limits of their processing speed with regard to sight alignment, sight picture, and trigger control, and who have spent a lot of time refining their grip and thus their recoil control.

Of course, the big thing is getting experienced instructors with verified creds to teach you...but this discussion is kinda fixated in the USPSA skills that are useful for the streets. The other USPSA skills may be less transferrable IDK...a draw from a DOH holster is different from a retention holster, a reload from a closed top mag pouch isn't the same as a magnetic Limited mag rig. Use of cover, and other tactical stuff is outside my lane. Still...being competitive and driven in a "real fight" is probably better than being passive.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

I often hear the line that competition is unrealistic because one guy taking on ten badguys is just ridiculous and you're forced to use bad tactics.
I agree completely.

Try looking at the stages this way:

You're not shooting ten different badguys.
You're shooting one or two badguys from different positions.

Those three targets arrayed shoulder to shoulder in front of you... that's not three different badguys it's one badguy who's made two steps to the side.

Two targets in front of a wall and three behind the wall... that not five different badguys, it's one bad guy who keeps moving to different positions while you're shooting at him.
There's no real need to "slice the pie" when you're chasing the one badguy around the corner at speed.

It's just a small mental switch you can do in how you approach USPSA to free you from thinking the tactics you're using are "bad".

[octagon]

It is not an all or nothing issue. You can have benefits to fun and competition while at the same time learning and improving in areas that may help in your job. The difference is how much benefit a person can get for their job from competition if they are extremely different. The OP suggested a premise in his statement and title of the thread that USPSA may be a development tool for LE. That is the discussion. It isn't that it is 100% or it isn't 100%. It is how much, why and can it have more benefits as a development tool for LE if a class is established for LEOs or if it is kept as is how it has less benefit. Having a LEO class where the shooters use all regular duty gear and the squad of LEOs go through the same course of fire and stages as everyone else just no walk through and stricter cover use gives more benefits to the participating LEOs than using different gear and standard practices yet the time,score and overall standings can still be compared to everyone else as well as to other LEOs using the adjusted equipment rules changes. No real tactics change or are introduced to drastically change the program or how an event is run. It changes nothing for any competitor in any other class just adds a class that can benefit LEO participants more than just running stock/production with different gear and the aid of walk through planning.

[JodyH]

The "no walk-thrus" is impossible to enforce if the shooters actually help tape and reset targets like they should be doing.

[jetfire]

It is not an all or nothing issue. You can have benefits to fun and competition while at the same time learning and improving in areas that may help in your job. The difference is how much benefit a person can get for their job from competition if they are extremely different. The OP suggested a premise in his statement and title of the thread that USPSA may be a development tool for LE. That is the discussion. It isn't that it is 100% or it isn't 100%. It is how much, why and can it have more benefits as a development tool for LE if a class is established for LEOs or if it is kept as is how it has less benefit. Having a LEO class where the shooters use all regular duty gear and the squad of LEOs go through the same course of fire and stages as everyone else just no walk through and stricter cover use gives more benefits to the participating LEOs than using different gear and standard practices yet the time,score and overall standings can still be compared to everyone else as well as to other LEOs using the adjusted equipment rules changes. No real tactics change or are introduced to drastically change the program or how an event is run. It changes nothing for any competitor in any other class just adds a class that can benefit LEO participants more than just running stock/production with different gear and the aid of walk through planning.

Why is it that whenever people talk about competition shooting for cops and military types, someone always brings up tactics. Why try to make competition something it isn't? There are plenty of places to learn tactics, to practice tactics, etc, but none of those places are a USPSA match. If cops want to shoot competition as a tool to get better at automatic gunhandling, then that's awesome, but why even pretend to introduce "tactics" into it. Why isn't "getting super good at shooting and managing the gun" a worthy enough training goal?

[octagon]

What tactics are being suggested? Using cover better? Not doing a walk through to plan the stage? What tactic(s) is being suggested by me?

[jetfire]

What tactics are being suggested? Using cover better? Not doing a walk through to plan the stage? What tactic(s) is being suggested by me?

Using cover "better" or even at all during a USPSA match and intentionally avoiding the walk through would be really dumb things to do at a match, especially if we treat "getting better at shooting" as the end goal of competitive particpation. Plus the walk through can actually help develop visulization skills and pre-stress planning skills, both of which are usefull skils to have in a mil/le environment. Skipping out on funamental parts of the game just to get better at "tactics" is dumb and a waste of time, when cops/troops are far better off practicing those tactics somewhere designed for it.

[AMC]

The "unrealistic/reflects poor tactics" argument is missing the point of cops competing in USPSA. The benefit is purely in the area of technical shooting skills/weapon manipulation. To me, this also includes thinking through problems and using target discrimination. It is not useful from a "learning tactics" standpoint, but in my opinion neither is IDPA. Those of us "using tactics" in the real world at work should be practicing.and using those skills in other venues as well.

A while back when I started going to USPSA matches with my training buddy who's also on our range staff, another of the range officers mentioned that it wasn't a good idea, because "unrealistic". I looked at him and said, "You mean as opposed to our static qualification?" He didn't have a reply. Another of the range guys has finally decided to join us, and is having a blast. Full time instructor for the last few years....but this 50 year old crusty street Sergeant can run rings around him on a USPSA stage.

[jetfire]

The "unrealistic/reflects poor tactics" argument is missing the point of cops competing in USPSA. The benefit is purely in the area of technical shooting skills/weapon manipulation. To me, this also includes thinking through problems and using target discrimination. It is not useful from a "learning tactics" standpoint, but in my opinion neither is IDPA. Those of us "using tactics" in the real world at work should be practicing.and using those skills in other venues as well.

Exactly. Let's say, hypothetically, that I was a member of the USAF Reserve and I knew I had a deployment to somewhere hot and sandy coming up, and during the course of this hypothetical deployment I'd be carrying a rifle and expected to actually use it. I could then realize that my rifle/carbine skills in areas like multiple targets, manipultions, and movement, were all a weak spot in my shootin skillset. So I could build a PCC rifle that's essentially a 9mm clone of my issue rifle, and use that to get better at the fundamental marksmanship parts of running the rifle, and then worry about tactics and door kicking when I get to pre-deployment work ups.

Hypothetically.

[octagon]

Using cover "better" or even at all during a USPSA match and intentionally avoiding the walk through would be really dumb things to do at a match, especially if we treat "getting better at shooting" as the end goal of competitive particpation. Plus the walk through can actually help develop visulization skills and pre-stress planning skills, both of which are usefull skils to have in a mil/le environment. Skipping out on funamental parts of the game just to get better at "tactics" is dumb and a waste of time, when cops/troops are far better off practicing those tactics somewhere designed for it.

If using cover better or at all is dumb than the benefit to LEOs is limited in that aspect and a negative to LEOs competing. The walk through allows for planning and visualization but eliminates surprise and thinking on your feet in the moment something every LEO has to do often. Thus another negative aspects for LEOs in the tool of development. If LEOs are doing it for development purposes it is inefficient and could be better done with time and accuracy drills in front of their peers for less money and time spent. They could use their duty gear and "compete" against others using the same equipment and standards. This doesn't add to the ranks of participants of USPSA or any other organization and doesn't offer opportunities to also try other classes(production,open,Limited etc..) That seem pretty short sighted and limiting to all sides.

How does it hurt or even affect other USPSA competitors to have a LEO class with the rules of duty gear, no walk throughs and better cover use? It takes a little more time. This could add to the ranks of shooters and improve LEO skills even more while agencies could have better skilled officers and more community interactions. Is the status quo in USPSA that they have more than enough participants and money that there is no need for possibly adding more?

[GJM]

USPSA is technical shooting practice, not tactics. When I see people try to do USPSA with good tactics, it is neither feast nor fowl, as the tactics used are just not convincing. I sometimes wonder if the “tactics” are mostly ego related, so as to avoid directly comparing performance, and prevent embarrassment. USPSA is just brutal on your ego, as other shooters who are a lot less knowledgeable, slay you regularly. I actually find that refreshing and motivating. With the advent of PCC, I have also come to understand that a carbine is a big game changer in making accurate hits fast, and an adversary with a long gun, when you have a pistol, gets like a class or two bump beyond their pistol skill level.

[HopetonBrown]

I sometimes wonder if the “tactics” are mostly ego related, so as to avoid directly comparing performance, and prevent embarrassment.

"I'm doing it tactically" is an oft heard refrain because...


USPSA is just brutal on your ego, as other shooters who are a lot less knowledgeable, slay you regularly.

... a fat, middle age plummer in a bicycle jersey just kicked your tactical ass.

[octagon]

I wouldn't be commenting in this thread or section if it was just about competition,skill building and fun for fun sake. The title and premise related to LE development. If it is just about skill building there are much better ways to accomplish that for LEOs. Timer and accuracy drills,man v man and force on force scenarios will be thousands of times better for LEOs than competing especially if the LEO is "gaming" the system, using a different gun,different holster,different mag carriers in different location,angle and spacing. different belt set up, cleats and comfortable flexible attire and ammo made for lowest recoil while making a floor limit.

I'll leave it at wastefully inefficient when considering the cost of all the added gear,time to travel to a match,cost of match and the numerous differences between it and the LEOs reality for simple skill building.

[JHC]

Using cover "better" or even at all during a USPSA match and intentionally avoiding the walk through would be really dumb things to do at a match, especially if we treat "getting better at shooting" as the end goal of competitive particpation. Plus the walk through can actually help develop visulization skills and pre-stress planning skills, both of which are usefull skils to have in a mil/le environment. Skipping out on funamental parts of the game just to get better at "tactics" is dumb and a waste of time, when cops/troops are far better off practicing those tactics somewhere designed for it.

No, not dumb. Just not you. I've shot stages that were walked and planned and surprise stages. Surprise stages are terrific raw fun and very intense. The speed problem solving of total surprises is just awesome. And that's not even tactics.

[GJM]

It is about how to most efficiently learn to press a trigger with time pressure, which I believe is 80-90 percent of what is required to shoot well. I really do think everything else can be taught fairly easily, but it is trigger pressing that the shooter has to learn mostly on their own.

[Jim Watson]

Much is made of the unrealistic walkthrough.
But the walkthrough itself is a learned skill. Serious USPSA competitors call it "breaking down the stage."
The occasional shooter can look at a stage and gain very little by it. He is still surprised to find himself facing an array of targets or to notice that his gun is empty. He will find himself outside the choreography of an IDPA CoF and no thought of how to get back in train before garnering a Procedural Penalty.

Anecdote: I recall an old gunzine article. A division of the Border Patrol noticed that they still had funding for a pistol team, even though nobody from there had been to Camp Perry much later than Charles Askins' day. So they had a talk with the local IPSC club. The club was glad to get the added attendance and income, so they agreed to leave targets set up after the match. The BP stayed after and shot through again, with peer review of tactics instead of timekeeping. Hits and misses, were, of course, still scored. Then they came back and shot again after dark with vehicle and handheld lights, this long before the accessory rail.

[JHC]

People with a strong "Competitor" theme are driven to compare.

"Competition is rooted in comparison. When you look at the world, you are instinctively aware of other people's performance. Their performance is the ultimate yardstick. No matter how hard you tried, no matter how worthy your intentions, if you reached your goal but did not outperform your peers, the achievement feels hollow. Like all competitors, you need other people. You need to compare. If you can compare, you can compete, and if you can compete, you can win. And when you win, there is no feeling quite like it. You like measurement because it facilitates comparisons. "

http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/646/Competition.aspx

Not everybody is wired the same though.

Without a high Competitor theme I don't know how someone could burn an entire Saturday on a constant recurring basis to shoot a couple hundred rounds and then spend an hour or two helping tear down. :D

[JodyH]

I wouldn't be commenting in this thread or section if it was just about competition,skill building and fun for fun sake. The title and premise related to LE development. If it is just about skill building there are much better ways to accomplish that for LEOs. Timer and accuracy drills,man v man and force on force scenarios will be thousands of times better for LEOs than competing especially if the LEO is "gaming" the system, using a different gun,different holster,different mag carriers in different location,angle and spacing. different belt set up, cleats and comfortable flexible attire and ammo made for lowest recoil while making a floor limit.

I'll leave it at wastefully inefficient when considering the cost of all the added gear,time to travel to a match,cost of match and the numerous differences between it and the LEOs reality for simple skill building.
USPSA isn't skill building.
USPSA is probably the best TEST of dynamic handgun shooting skills.
Taking the results of that test and then using range time to correct the deficiencies is where the skills building comes in.

Competition is not training is not practicing is not qualifying is not real life

[Peally]

Practicing cover and "surprise" situations at a shooting match is like practicing underhand softball pitches at a state bowling championship.

If you want to see USPSA as a training arena for tactical situations you're going to have very few people agreeing with you. As long as it's within the rules it's all good though. How (and how effectively) you utilize a deep fundamentals test like the game is up to you.

[45dotACP]

Any LEOs out there who shoot a solid M or GM game with just their duty rig? That would be cool to see. Like the LE version of Gabe.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

No, not dumb. Just not you. I've shot stages that were walked and planned and surprise stages. Surprise stages are terrific raw fun and very intense. The speed problem solving of total surprises is just awesome. And that's not even tactics.

How does a surprise stage work JHC?

[Lon]

"I'm doing it tactically" is an oft heard refrain because...



... a fat, middle age plummer in a bicycle jersey just kicked your tactical ass.

So much this. I have an open invitation for guys to go shoot matches with me. It’s rare that someone goes to more than one after said plumber whips their ass. I think part of this is due to the fact that many cops HAVE to feel confident in themselves, even if deep down they know it’s misplaced. Why? Because we have to make split second decisions quite often and lacking self confidence makes you second guess yourself, which can be a bad thing if done at the wrong time. So instead they ignore the fact they sucked at the match, keep telling themselves, “I qualify without a problem, I’m good”. And then don’t go back because they don’t want to admit they suck and if they ignore it, it will go away.


USPSA isn't skill building.
USPSA is probably the best TEST of dynamic handgun shooting skills.
Taking the results of that test and then using range time to correct the deficiencies is where the skills building comes in.

Competition is not training is not practicing is not qualifying is not real life

Very well put. I shoot USPSA as the ultimate test of my technical skills under as much pressure as I can get without going to FoF. When I stopped chasing the M classification years ago I was at @83%. I finally decided that the big M wasn’t important any more. And I started shooting my carry or duty guns. It’s just as much fun, but the guns are cheaper. Ammo is too. I still have my gamer gear, but it usually get used less than my carry or duty gear.

I differentiate between the game (it is not a sport) of USPSA and tactics I use at work. I don’t feel that the game hinders my ability to use good tactics. Just the opposite, really. I can actually spend more time thinking tactics and less time worrying about my shooting skills because of that technical proficiency. I’ve rarely seen an LEO who is what I consider extremely technically proficient that isn’t a USPSA or IDPA shooter. I know a lot that can shoot certain drills very well, but when put into a complex USPSA stage when there’s more thinking involved they tend to choke when something goes wrong.

[JHC]

How does a surprise stage work JHC?

NTI did it big. I've seen it done on an indoor venue where shooters first entered when it was their turn to shoot. Easiest is just to not rehearse it wherever you find yourself.

But it's not that big a deal. And in general . . .

Everything is not always that big a deal PF.

Everything is not a slight to USPSA.

FoF isn't a slight to USPSA.

MMA isn't a slight to katas. ;)

USPSA is the ultimate performance shooting venue. I get it. Everybody gets it.

[jetfire]

NTI did it big. I've seen it done on an indoor venue where shooters first entered when it was their turn to shoot. Easiest is just to not rehearse it wherever you find yourself.

But it's not that big a deal. And in general . . .

Everything is not always that big a deal PF.

Everything is not a slight to USPSA.

FoF isn't a slight to USPSA.

MMA isn't a slight to katas. ;)

USPSA is the ultimate performance shooting venue. I get it. Everybody gets it.

I've done plenty of blind/surprise stages. For a while they were all the rage at the IDPA Indoor Nationals, so you'd get at least two or three of them, usually in low/no light. I'm not even saying they're bad or that people shouldn't do them, what I'm saying is that in the context of USPSA they don't make sense, because they're counter to the whole point of USPSA, which is getting better at shooting.

[Dr. No]

GJM you gotta tag me in these when you post stuff right up my alley. :)

I think the reason you see guys focus on targets right in front of them is because that's what we've trained them to do. 10 people, all in a line, looking at the one piece of paper down range they have to put holes in. A "dynamic" environment basically never exists until they start working in a shoot house, and that is very rare for the majority of all cops. Your mileage may vary by Department leadership and budget.

I've had this "tactics" argument a million times. Matches are marksmanship practice. They have absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with tactics. Tactics are what you learn with your organization and how they do business. How your team operates, and what factors exist to make you shift tactics as needed. What matches and marksmanship enable you to do is move hitting your target and running your gun into your subconscious mind, freeing up cycles for your conscious mind to solve the problem you are faced with. There was also this huge study done, and they discovered that if you put a ton of time, training, and pracitce into a subject, you tended to improve your skills with it. Weird. Anyway, when things go sideways with guns in high stress situations, those who are extremely experienced lose very little time and it does not take them off track. People who are the opposite get stuck in an OODA loop and it generally goes poorly for them.

I think the other inferred factor I see in all this is that cops are somehow better gunhandlers because they carry a gun for a living. That's like saying we're better drivers, interrogators, runners, and hide-and-go-seek players because that's what we do at work all the time. Everyone is a little different, everyone has their skill set. Every cop I've exposed to competition has come away with a new idea of what can be capable with a firearm. Some get the itch and go all in ... some don't. It's just like any other person coming out. We're not different because we deal with dirty people for a living.

[Dr. No]

I've done plenty of blind/surprise stages. For a while they were all the rage at the IDPA Indoor Nationals, so you'd get at least two or three of them, usually in low/no light. I'm not even saying they're bad or that people shouldn't do them, what I'm saying is that in the context of USPSA they don't make sense, because they're counter to the whole point of USPSA, which is getting better at shooting.

Surprise stages are completely dumb in a "competitive" arena. They have absolutely no basis for comparing skill, because it is a luck based COF. IMO, they are fun but have no place in a game where you're playing for money.

If you put a "tactical" guy in a blind COF and tell him "find the targets", he's going to work cover, pie angles, check behind him and above him, and try to clear as much as he can from outside of the structure. Speed is NOT an appropriate tactic.

[Peally]

Dr. No up in here dropping knowledge carpet bombs.

[GJM]

Any LEOs out there who shoot a solid M or GM game with just their duty rig? That would be cool to see. Like the LE version of Gabe.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Assuming you mean field courses, I think holster hardly matters, as the small delta in draw speed is hardly a factor in the overall stage. Matters more so in classifiers, but there are still a variety of start positions in classifiers.

[45dotACP]

Assuming you mean field courses, I think holster hardly matters, as the small delta in draw speed is hardly a factor in the overall stage. Matters more so in classifiers, but there are still a variety of start positions in classifiers.Some LEOs use closed top mag pouches...I'm kinda more interested in that TBH

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

Some LEOs use closed top mag pouches...I'm kinda more interested in that TBH
Most of the USBP guys have closed top mag pouches.
On classifiers it sucks for them unless they leave them open and the flap tucked behind the belt.
On field courses it doesn't make as much difference if the reloads are well pre-planned, it does make a difference on surprise flat footed reloads.
I know a B (in the 65-70% range all the time) Production shooter who only shoots from his duty gear (including closed flap mag carriers, fully locked SLS/ALS Safariland, and purple box .40 through his LEM P2000).
He'd probably be a solid A from dedicated gear.

[Mr_White]

One of the most valuable elements of USPSA or anything similar is that it is an actual, legitimate competition. Hits and time are about all that can be pretty objectively measured, creating a pretty fair competition. Decisionmaking and tactics are better attended in scenario and FOF training, where human interaction can occur and subjective judgments can be made about those elements. In timed and scored competition, the inclusion of tactics just dilutes the objectivity of the competition, and pushes tactics toward the speedier end. Which is good for when going fast is the appropriate tactic, but going fast is just one of the forms 'good timing' can take.

[Zincwarrior]

Maybe this is more of a query than a comment. I am sure dedicated LE training and range time are the most productive, but what about smaller departments that do not have the resources? As a Texan there are a plethora of county sheriffs that must patrol areas that are very sparse, and their budgets are likely tiny and stretched. What do those officers do?

[JodyH]

Maybe this is more of a query than a comment. I am sure dedicated LE training and range time are the most productive, but what about smaller departments that do not have the resources? As a Texan there are a plethora of county sheriffs that must patrol areas that are very sparse, and their budgets are likely tiny and stretched. What do those officers do?
I know of two deputies in Loving County, Tx. and a TPWD "Park Ranger" from way south that shoot as many matches as they can.
Their gun handling is far and above what I see from guys in much larger, better funded departments who only participate in in-house training/qualifications.

[AMC]

It seems paradoxical to many people, but the fact is smaller agencies tend to spend much more on training their employees than large urban ones. From an economic output standpoint, it makes math sense....fewer cops, fewr dollars needed to train them all. In terms of long term economic concerns, and political damage/loss of community trust, it's a massive management failure.

I have been pushing private sector training on my guys for years, as well as competition, because our agency provides literally no training after the academy, and continues to promote ludicrous firearms myth as fact. Only a handful have pursued either over the years. They'll spend tons of money on guns, gaming consoles, TVs, shoes, whatever. But not training. Hey...it's their funeral. And I guess the city will pay for it, so....they got that going for 'em.

[Gio]

I am a USPSA GM, full time LE, formerly a SWAT team leader, and primary firearms instructor for SWAT. I also teach shooting and tactics to state and local SWAT teams. In my opinion:

1. As others have said, if you're practicing tactics in USPSA you're doing it wrong. You should learn how to shoot, move, shoot and move, and do general weapon handling at a subconscious level, which will free up your brain power in a "real world" situation to focus on actual tactics and decision making and let the shooting part just happen. Shooting and training for USPSA is the best way to develop this subconscious ability in the shooting world in my opinion.

2. I get the best bang for my buck using similar guns to my work guns. I shoot a Glock 17M/19M at work, and a gen4 34 in USPSA. I still use a USPSA inner/outer belt, fiber sights on my competition guns, and light trigger work. This is more of a personal preference because I find it hard to dry fire and train 90% of the time on a USPSA specific gun like a 2011 or CZ and then shoot a Glock for duty at a comparable level. When I use a G34 for USPSA, despite the slight differences, I can pick up a 19M or 17M and shoot it within an almost imperceptible performance difference.

3. I use several different holster setups, including a USPSA DOH, Safariland ALS and JM AIWB and OWB. I've never had an issue training on one and using another. I can generally make the mental adjustment based on the situation I'm in. I've never drawn on a subject from my ALS gear or concealment gear and accidentally reached for my USPSA DOH holster instead.

4. LE officers/firearms instructors generally fall into the "big fish in a small pond" trap. They can outshoot everyone in their agency, but at best they may be comparative to a C class level shooter. Then they get put in a position to write policy and training curriculum for their department and they just don't know what they don't know. They also fall victim to firearms training marketing hype like some of the instagram/youtube personalities that seem to be landing contracts to train LE departments but have no actual shooting credentials besides making videos on the internet. When these officers step into the competitive shooting world, they get more perspective on what high level shooting actually is; and if they are dedicated enough, they can work to get to that level themselves, which will change their perspective on how to train other officers.

[BN]

USPSA shooting will also teach you to think on your feet. Even the best gamers have had plan "A" go awry and had to go to Plan B,C D or F. ;) Testify!! ;)

[Dr. No]

I am a USPSA GM, full time LE, formerly a SWAT team leader, and primary firearms instructor for SWAT. I also teach shooting and tactics to state and local SWAT teams. In my opinion:

1. As others have said, if you're practicing tactics in USPSA you're doing it wrong. You should learn how to shoot, move, shoot and move, and do general weapon handling at a subconscious level, which will free up your brain power in a "real world" situation to focus on actual tactics and decision making and let the shooting part just happen. Shooting and training for USPSA is the best way to develop this subconscious ability in the shooting world in my opinion.

2. I get the best bang for my buck using similar guns to my work guns. I shoot a Glock 17M/19M at work, and a gen4 34 in USPSA. I still use a USPSA inner/outer belt, fiber sights on my competition guns, and light trigger work. This is more of a personal preference because I find it hard to dry fire and train 90% of the time on a USPSA specific gun like a 2011 or CZ and then shoot a Glock for duty at a comparable level. When I use a G34 for USPSA, despite the slight differences, I can pick up a 19M or 17M and shoot it within an almost imperceptible performance difference.

3. I use several different holster setups, including a USPSA DOH, Safariland ALS and JM AIWB and OWB. I've never had an issue training on one and using another. I can generally make the mental adjustment based on the situation I'm in. I've never drawn on a subject from my ALS gear or concealment gear and accidentally reached for my USPSA DOH holster instead.

4. LE officers/firearms instructors generally fall into the "big fish in a small pond" trap. They can outshoot everyone in their agency, but at best they may be comparative to a C class level shooter. Then they get put in a position to write policy and training curriculum for their department and they just don't know what they don't know. They also fall victim to firearms training marketing hype like some of the instagram/youtube personalities that seem to be landing contracts to train LE departments but have no actual shooting credentials besides making videos on the internet. When these officers step into the competitive shooting world, they get more perspective on what high level shooting actually is; and if they are dedicated enough, they can work to get to that level themselves, which will change their perspective on how to train other officers.


I think we just became best friends.

[AMC]

I think we just became best friends.
Amen I say to you....Amen.

[John Hearne]

In terms of match placement, excluding one dedicated LE shooter, the new LE guys are shooting 20-40 percent of the match winner. So what is going on. Their stances look good, and they are definitely some of the physically strongest guys at the match. They do lots of aiming, and actually spend too much time aiming. Their main problem, though, is trigger control. OK on close open targets, but heads, partial and especially targets with no-shoots are a big problem. If I was a hostage, I would not want to be standing below the bad guy the LEM shooter is targeting, or standing to the left of a bad guy, when the good guy is right handed and has a Glock. Even with targets nailed to stationary wood slats, no shoots are getting shot two or three times, when in proximity to a shoot target.

Most folks are going to be limited by the quality of their initial training. If your initial training is poor, you will struggle forever. It isn't that you can't overcome poor initial training but that most people won't do the work necessary to do so. The results you are seeing are a combination of training by mediocre non-SME's and low standards. Most departments' training programs are incredibly inbred, rarely seeking outside training of any quality, and most instructors can't shoot that well by our standards.

Have you looked at a Transtar target lately? Being able to hit the 3-5 ring on a Transtar, which will get you qualified, requires almost no trigger control as we understand it. The instructor minimum for a lot of those folks you mention is a 255/300 on the CITP course which is shot a bullseye pace.

Edited to add: When I went through basic, I already had an E-Ticket with the Colonel's signature and I had shot a clean school drill. I ended up shooting in the high 280's (out of 300) by the time I was "trained." Yes, the program made me a worse shot. I wasn't the only one.

[gtae07]

But in all seriousness, I'm not a LEO and only a lowly CCW guy who sandbags C-class, but I have the sneaking suspicion that internalizing a trigger press/sight picture necessary to hit a target under time pressure is the benefit of a rapid fire shooting game.

That's something you don't get from Bullseye or just plinking. That's a USPSA/IDPA/ICORE/3G specific skillset because of their respective scoring systems, which are time based. Those systems birthed the ever famous Enos quote of "see what you need to see.". Meaning, see the appropriate sight picture to get the good hit...but don't over do it. This gives the shooter the incentive to find out how coarse their sight picture and trigger pressure is allowed to be at speed, based on the target they're shooting. This level of self knowledge is probably a good thing for someone who carries a gun


It is about how to most efficiently learn to press a trigger with time pressure, which I believe is 80-90 percent of what is required to shoot well. I really do think everything else can be taught fairly easily, but it is trigger pressing that the shooter has to learn mostly on their own.

I'm not a LEO either but this is why I've started trying to get into competitions, at least as my work schedule allows. It's a chance to move and shoot, and do it under pressure. And there are other people there to apply pressure beyond the clock.

"Competition is rooted in comparison. When you look at the world, you are instinctively aware of other people's performance. Their performance is the ultimate yardstick. No matter how hard you tried, no matter how worthy your intentions, if you reached your goal but did not outperform your peers, the achievement feels hollow. Like all competitors, you need other people. You need to compare. If you can compare, you can compete, and if you can compete, you can win. And when you win, there is no feeling quite like it. You like measurement because it facilitates comparisons. "
I'm not necessarily a super-competitive guy at the macro level ("I'm going to win this match"), but as with triathlons and such where I'm also slow, I'll get more competitive on the micro level ("I won't win, but I can beat that guy"). That's what motivates me.


I'm one of those people, unfortunately, that has a hard time getting myself to consistently practice boring, repetitive stuff (think dryfire) on my own. Doing things like FAST drills and DT just result in "repeated, demoralizing failure". What I really need is a training buddy with a compatible work schedule, who's better than me by enough to teach and motivate, but not to get bored and frustrated with me. I suspect this might be the case for a lot of LEOs too--practice and competition is time and money that they might not be able to afford themselves, may not be provided by their department, and I guess a lot of them probably just don't see the need.

[Peally]

Dryfire is like exercise, without noticeable gains and appropriate goals it's extremely hard to stay motivated. Success creates the urge to do it; if I'm having a particularly good week of drills and dry fire I'll be looking forward to it on the drive home from work.

[Gio]

Have you looked at a Transtar target lately? Being able to hit the 3-5 ring on a Transtar, which will get you qualified, requires almost no trigger control as we understand it. The instructor minimum for a lot of those folks you mention is a 255/300 on the CITP course which is shot a bullseye pace.

Training to a qualification course is one of my biggest pet peeves with LE training. On the Georgia state law enforcement course, I had a retired guy with Parkinson's and a 5 shot J-frame pass the course. Meanwhile 99% of all GA LEO recruits train only to the qual course and then shoot it once or twice a year to stay current with no additional training.

[gtae07]

Most folks are going to be limited by the quality of their initial training. If your initial training is poor, you will struggle forever. It isn't that you can't overcome poor initial training but that most people won't do the work necessary to do so. The results you are seeing are a combination of training by mediocre non-SME's and low standards.

That's probably just as true in the civilian/average Joe world. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of people ever get their initial training from top-level instructors; the vast majority of people learn what they know from a family member, friend, or whoever is teaching the "basics" class at their local range.

It would be nice if every new shooter could have a chance to learn from the true top-level recognized experts, just like it would be wonderful if every new pilot had Bob Hoover as their first instructor, or had Richard Feynman as their high school physics teacher (yes, I know they're both dead... not the point!). Unfortunately, the supply of such folks and their availability to teach basic classes in addition to their advanced ones is dwarfed by the number of people out there who need instruction.

I'm not really sure what to do about that.

[rob_s]

In my respectful opinion, I don't agree:

I think that removing all the tactical/etc aspects and focusing solely on gun-handling and shot placement levels the playing field considerably and removes ambiguity. I.e. you either shoot and hit the targets reliably or you don't (and get penalized). In the past 10 years running a larger club, we've seen a lot of officers compete. Most get into at at a casual level. They recognize the game for what it is and try to learn to run the pistol subconsciously. I've rarely heard it to actually be detrimental to actually street performance for the average beat cop, but I'll admit that my data set is fairly small.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in summary, is that USPSA and IDPA are what they are: They're venues to experiment with gun handling and get good trigger time with "skin in the game". Trying to bend it to some "no walk through", "use cover", subjective thing is where it becomes useless: what are the benchmarks? What constitutes an acceptable run? (This is famously the beef with IDPA rules: cover calls, etc...)

I agree. They are GAMES, not tactical training. It’s about the shooting, not the "real world".

I used to be one of those people that subscribed to the fallacy that I needed to shoot the games “tactically”. What I finally realized was that this was just an excuse for sucking.

[LSP552]

Training to a qualification course is one of my biggest pet peeves with LE training. On the Georgia state law enforcement course, I had a retired guy with Parkinson's and a 5 shot J-frame pass the course. Meanwhile 99% of all GA LEO recruits train only to the qual course and then shoot it once or twice a year to stay current with no additional training.

A fellow LSP instructor shot the LA POST qual course with a wrist rocket and passed, just to show cadets how really worthless it was. And that was before they made the latest dumb down changes. That target hung in the range classroom for a long time.

Most agencies I’m aware of train to shoot the state standard. Training to pass a qual course isn’t training.

[jetfire]

Most agencies I’m aware of train to shoot the state standard. Training to pass a qual course isn’t training.

Preach. I have the same gripe about the USAF M9 course - to actually make expert requires high-D/low-C class levels of shooting, since there are 15 yard headshots on the COF. However, to qualify all you have to do is hit the paper 35/45 shots, and the targets we use are HUGE. Since our leadership uses the number of qualified shooters as a metric for evaluating our effectiveness as instructors, if we get someone who really sucks at shooting, we tell them to forget about the head shots and just shoot all their rounds at the body to ensure they qual. It's frustating.

[babypanther]

My first match that I ever shot was an IDPA one with a friend I used to work with. At the time I was working for the Border Patrol, and I rolled with my duty gear. Flap retention mag pouches, mags loaded with my issued carry ammo (180 gr HST's) and the P2000 I was convinced couldn't keep up with the "gamer guns." I had a great time, shot decent, got the bug, etc etc. There was another agent shooting the match, he was a member of the sector and possibly the national shooting team, also running his duty gear. He legitimately ran his P2000 at warp speed. I was shocked, as in, oh my god the world is not, after all, flat.

Anyway, after that match I went out and bought open top mag pouches and eventually wound up here on this forum to try and unlock the secret to running the LEM like I had seen it done. I am local LE these days, and time is actually the limiting factor, not necessarily money. My work schedule conflicts with matches. I would still attend a match, but have to leave before it finished, so I'd take a hit on scores. I'm trying to get to a point in my career where I can start getting the time off.

When I shoot the match, I just have fun and shoot it. I have seen the benefits that others have noted here in this thread.

[JSGlock34]

I don't consider IDPA/KSTG/USPSA training, but competition has always been a great opportunity for me to use skills that I can seldom apply in live fire. The great majority of my shooting is limited to practice at an indoor range - I don't have much opportunity to transition between multiple targets, shoot from barricades, move between positions, shoot on the move, shoot from awkward positions, etc. My monthly matches are my chance to get out of the booth and move. There is value there.

[AMC]

Like George asked....it is a TOOL. Especially absent a really solid professional training program that actually focuses on weapon manipulation skills development, marksmanship fundamentals, target discrimination, etc., (Which let's be honest, exists in only a handful of agencies in this huge country) it is a very valuable tool. One among many that professional gun toters would be wise to take advantage of.

[mc1911]

Disclaimer: I am one of those C class guys, so I'm only marginally qualified to talk.

Before getting into competitive shooting, I shot near-max scores on the department qualifier, but it was an unrealistic test of technical shooting abilities. For the purposes of the qual course, any hit on a FBI Q was counted, without regard to placement. The entire course of fire was shot static on a square range, times were very generous, and no bonus points were awarded for fastest time. Finally, the course required only a few rounds from the 25y line. When I started shooting competitively, I immediately went to the gray zone. It wasn't until I started shooting a local 2-gun league that I realized what I didn't know and where to spend my training time/effort. [/SIZE]


Being willing and able to recognize what you don't know and dedicate effort to fixing that is, unfortunately, not a common reaction for many shooters. But it is the one reaction that is necessary for improvement.

[BN]

I think shooting anything out of your comfort zone will help you learn.

I have shot mostly IDPA in local matches for the last few years. Before IDPA started all my local clubs shot USPSA. Then in 1997 they all switched to IDPA with a different set of rules and I had to learn new stuff. Recently, USPSA has become available in my area again. Now, when I shoot USPSA, I am out of my comfort zone again. Some of my local clubs have dropped IDPA and they are using their own set of rules. (sometimes made up on the spot, I think) LOL Again, I am shooting out of my comfort zone. I've shot cowboy, 2-gun, 3-gun, PPC, longrange rimfire, etc. Put yourself under pressure by shooting under somebody else's rules. Get to where you don't need to think about the gun handling and you can concentrate on the problem solving.

If you get comfortable with your local club, then I suggest you find the most unfriendly club around and go shoot there. After all, a gunfight will be outside your comfort zone with unfriendlys. How will you do?

[GJM]

New guy in our squad at the USPSA match. Turns out, he is active duty LE, and reserve SWAT at a major metro agency. He came out because he found their training and quals very low level, and wanted to test himself. Good shooter, good gun handling, accurate, but slow by gaming standards. His initial reaction was “wow, you guys shoot fast.” Super nice guys, and he said he hoped to shoot two matches a month as a way to work on pure technical shooting. He was shooting his duty G4 17, but with Taran basepad extended magazines, in Limited minor.

[03RN]

I'm no cop but this has been very interesting. I do work part time at a local indoor range that has quite a few local cops qual at. I wish more of them would compete.

I just started competing this year. I did some idpa and ipsc in highschool but that was 15 years ago. My 1st 3 gun comp this spring I was in the top 25%. I'm glad I've found my way back to competing as it's a great tool.

While I don't think it's ideal for training tactics you are shooting, moving, and communicating (range commands before/after the course of fire). All of which carry over. A slow fire kd qualifier doesn't replicate combat either, neither do 3 mile runs, etc

[DMF13]

It is about how to most efficiently learn to press a trigger with time pressure, which I believe is 80-90 percent of what is required to shoot well. I really do think everything else can be taught fairly easily, but it is trigger pressing that the shooter has to learn mostly on their own.+1

My biggest problem in shooting well is trigger control. My friends and coworkers biggest problem with shooting well is trigger control. Cranking up the pressure to shoot fast just magnifies any problems with trigger control for all of us.

When instructing at work and someone asks about trying to make improvements I'm constantly trying to get them to work on trigger control.

Some will put in the time to work on the boring fundamentals, including trigger control. Some won't.

I'm passionate about shooting well, but that doesn't bother me. Here's why:

Yes, firearms are an important part of being a LEO. Same is true for defensive tactics. Same is true for report writing. Same is true for testifying. Same is true for legal training. Same is true for interviewing. Same is true for . . . well you get the idea.

Cops must balance doing the actual work, with training, and having a personal life.

So while it would be great if we could all train to the level of being the next Dave Sevigny with firearms, or the next George St Pierre with DT, or the next Sam Alito with law/caselaw, etc, etc, we have to meet those other commitments. That's not possible.

My job (which is just an additional duty) is to make sure everyone is safe with their firearms, and trains to a certain minimum standard. When possible I will encourage additional training. Some will want to do that, some won't. It's a win for me, and the other FIs, if we can get people to dry fire a couple times each week. A HUGE win if we can get them to shoot a couple of USPSA and/or IDPA matches, to see how much room there is for improvement.

A big problem is many people who are passionate about firearms want everyone else to also make that their highest priority, and get upset if they don't. Maybe some of those folks post on forums such as this? ;) Then again, some who are passionate about DT also want everyone else to also make that their highest priority, and . . . well you can see where I'm going with that.

Some will want to do more with firearms, and I, and the other FIs, try to help them with that. However, if they've prioritized something else, but are safe and reasonably competent with firearms I'm OK with that too.

[DMF13]

Regarding whether shooting USPSA (or IDPA) for skill development is a good idea , I certainly think it is, including for cops.

This guy sums up the "Competitor" v. "Tactical Shooters" debate very well (Hell it's part of the video title!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmcXPc8qGic

[Lon]

This guy sums up the "Competitor" v. "Tactical Shooters" debate very well (Hell it's part of the video title!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmcXPc8qGic

Love this quote From the video: “I doubt most people would want to get in a gunfight with me.” Having seen him shoot in real life many times I would tend to agree.

[Peally]

Love this quote From the video: “I doubt most people would want to get in a gunfight with me.” Having seen him shoot in real life many times I would tend to agree.

To be fair I wouldn't want to get in a gunfight with a D class guy either, their shots are like artillery, everyone loses ;)

[JodyH]

To be fair I wouldn't want to get in a gunfight with a D class guy either, their shots are like artillery, everyone loses ;)
If I'm wearing my plate carrier give me a GM over a D every single time.
Two alpha I mock thee.
Delta delta ouch my balls.

[olstyn]

If I'm wearing my plate carrier give me a GM over a D every single time.
Two alpha I mock thee.
Delta delta ouch my balls.

How quickly do you think the GM will figure out that 2A to the body didn't have the desired effect and transition to the head? Some of them might do it before the D even gets off the first shot at your balls. :)

[heyscooter]

Regarding whether shooting USPSA (or IDPA) for skill development is a good idea , I certainly think it is, including for cops.

This guy sums up the "Competitor" v. "Tactical Shooters" debate very well (Hell it's part of the video title!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmcXPc8qGic

I present to you another take. Yes this is stereotypical, yes I'm sure all of us have seen this in way or another in real life, and yes it's hilarious.

https://youtu.be/iYGFDZkTWCk?t=14s

This thread is interesting, as it is unveiling the complete opposite pardigm of what I have been exposed to throughout my career in LE. I know there are LE competition shooters posting here and they see this as much as I do, but let me provide my thoughts.

In my opinion, the deficiencies that competition shooters see in LE shooters is really more a reflection in the training methodology that an organization is delivering, and what impression that makes on people in Law Enforcement. That methodology is affected by a lot of factors, but I would say one of the biggest is time that organizations get to train an entry level employee. PPC train up courses that most LE agencies now run are limited in their time as they schedule out all the curriculum necessary for a trainee to pass. If that curriculum focused strictly on fundamentals of shooting, I would wager that more LE employed shooters would probably have a better base in entering competition shooting. There are other modules in a training program that will get attention. I'm talking about concepts such as judgement based shooting, force on force, and other aspects that (as the OP stated) will not really give the trainee the concept of, say, speed being a factor. If you have entered LE, just gone through the minimum academy level training, and are relatively new around firearms, the methodology that was introduced to you is going to stick to you in so many ways that makes it very difficult to break out of. It's basically a big fat training scar in comparing it to competition. This resonates the most:



LE officers/firearms instructors generally fall into the "big fish in a small pond" trap. They can outshoot everyone in their agency, but at best they may be comparative to a C class level shooter. Then they get put in a position to write policy and training curriculum for their department and they just don't know what they don't know.

My last program review had a HQ guy's mind blown because it was his first time seeing a PACT timer. And that is a prime example of the issue that LE organizations exhibit - They are unwilling to change, and when change is warranted you end up in the situation like the above.


I think this has been alluded to in the thread, but the cultures and personalities matter way more in how LE treats shooting. The other LE contributors have seen plenty of this no doubt. But part of the stigma I'm talking about has very much to do with the pressure that is put on officers. If you were told every bullet has a lawyer attached to it, you will be dissuaded from pulling the weapon out in the course of your official duties. What part of that would make you want to train to be higher than the standard so you're not worried about lawyers magically appearing out of nowhere when you have to engage a life safety threat? Statistically speaking, this also eats away at the amount of people that will expose themselves to competition. The personalities don't help the image either; We've all seen the wannabe Doc Holiday officer/agent/deputy challenging every other novice shooter to some sort of skill test, supremely confident that their selfies with their TQ-15s and smiley faces on their almost near perfect qual score target has prepared them for anything because there is no other than the methodology that was given to them in USBPI in Artesia.

It's not pretty, but it exists. Luckily I think this is slowly changing. Lots of people are starting to see the benefit of competition (which has been well covered here), so the more people that may have to rely on their pistol to save lives, the better.

[Bob-C]

The LE people I shoot matches with cover the whole spectrum of shooting skill. I know of a local multi-division GM, some just starting, others somewhere between those two ends of the spectrum. A lot of them didn't shoot any more than non-LE guys before they got into matches. The ways things are done in USPSA are different from academy and routine department training, so they have to adjust, which most successfully do.

[theblacknight]

The biggest issue with LE in USPSA, and for most other people is


People are clueless about drills vs. scenarios. What competition is and what it isn't. Stages are not scenarios. I don't care what your IDPA SO says.

Those targets are not people, they are targets for scoring points. Those barrels and screens are not "walls", they are hard cover/vision barriers. This isn't Live Action Role Playing. It's a sport. The only object is to achieve your potential and eventually win.

[45dotACP]

The biggest issue with LE in USPSA, and for most other people is


People are clueless about drills vs. scenarios. What competition is and what it isn't. Stages are not scenarios. I don't care what your IDPA SO says.

Those targets are not people, they are targets for scoring points. Those barrels and screens are not "walls", they are hard cover/vision barriers. This isn't Live Action Role Playing. It's a sport. The only object is to achieve your potential and eventually win.Indeed. The things you need to win a combat oriented sport are good to have in the toolbox in combat, but they don't constitute the entirety of combat.

For instance in grappling, I need to have the ability to use distance, gripfight, dominate position, and be proficient in the use of weight to win the fight.

The cops I roll with probably won't use De La Riva guard in a street encounter, but even a relatively freshman level of skill in the foundational skills of BJJ will help them to conduct an arrest more effectively on a larger percentage of criminals.

To further the analogy, most combatives programs are some form of drilling, and if you never drill, don't expect to win. But even so, the guy who drills isn't necessarily gonna win the tournament. You just know the guy who doesn't will be more likely to lose.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk