Accountability for Missed shots in LE Qualifications

[AMC]

Looked through several related threads but didn't find the info I was looking for. As the thread title suggests, what I'm looking for is how your agency deals with missed shots in your in service qualifications. For example, I know that some agencies have a '100% hits somewhere on the silhouette' standard for qualifying, while others score a miss as a negative point. Our own Sheriff's Department does this, but we currently do not. Our standard is 75%, or 27 out of 36 rounds somewhere on the 'bowling pin' silhouette. We'd like to move towards 'accountability' in this area, but this seems to be the one area of LE where 'accountability' is a bad word to some people. I was recently contacted by someone from the Tuscon AZ PD regarding this same issue. They are apparently researching Best Practices in regards to Quals and accountability, but I have no idea when and if their info will be made public.

So, if your agency has a standard that addresses missed shots during an in service qualification, please PM me with the details, and if you don't mind, your contact info. If you wish, that can be totally confidential. I'm not going to post any of this on the forum, it will be for internal deliberations around modernizing our own training and qualifications. Thank you in advance.

[Lon]

There’s a mandatory course/target/grading scale in Ohio. All LEOs shoot that as a minimum. You can do more, but no less. It has +1/+0/-1 zones. So you can have your required 20/25 hits but still fail if you have one in the -1 zone.

[Lon]

Greg Ellifritz has it posted over on his site.
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Semi-Auto-Pistol-Qualification.pdf

[psalms144.1]

On the Federal side, the FLETC "standard" qualification counts off-silhouette shots as "0"s - so you lose 5 possible points. Of course, since it's a 60 round, 300 point qual with a passing score of 210, you can get PLENTY of "0"s and still pass.

If I were king for a day, any shot off silhouette would be a hard FAIL.

[El Cid]

If I were king for a day, any shot off silhouette would be a hard FAIL.

I wish that was every agency’s standard. Especially when we consider almost all shoot from no further than 25 yards.

[AMC]

I'm aware of several agencies nearby us that use a 100% hits on the silhouette standard....all of them shoot out to 15 yards only. Our standard is 75%, but we do shoot at 25 yards. That is increasingly rare these days. 15 yards is the CA POST minimum....which means it's treated as the maximum by most agencies. As I said in my first post, folks talk a good game about 'accountability', but it's all bullshit. That's Admin talk for "How can I blame this on someone else?"

[BN]

There’s a mandatory course/target/grading scale in Ohio. All LEOs shoot that as a minimum. You can do more, but no less. It has +1/+0/-1 zones. So you can have your required 20/25 hits but still fail if you have one in the -1 zone.

34789

I'm in Ohio too. This is the target. Anything in the light grey is +1 point. Anything in the dark grey is zero points and anything else is minus 1 point. You need 20 points to pass. Times are liberal, but it's pretty easy to fail if you throw a couple of shots clear off the target. I put the lines of an IDPA target on so you can see the scale.

[Lon]

34789

I'm in Ohio too. This is the target. Anything in the light grey is +1 point. Anything in the dark grey is zero points and anything else is minus 1 point. You need 20 points to pass. Times are liberal, but it's pretty easy to fail if you throw a couple of shots clear off the target. I put the lines of an IDPA target on so you can see the scale.

Thanks for overlaying that. Never compared them before.

[BN]

Thanks for overlaying that. Never compared them before.

:) I never had either until a few minutes ago.

[John Hearne]

I've heard, but can't confirm, that the U.S. Secret Service scores any hit off of the silhouette as a fail.

[rathos]

Any shots that miss the silhouette not only get docked the points for that round (10 points) but an extra ten point penalty is added. In the daylight rifle qual all rounds need to be in the 10 ring at 50 yards. Anything outside of that is an immediate fail. On night quals or inside of 25 yards for the rifle rounds off the silhouette are also given the extra ten point penalty.

[KeeFus]

Seriously, how many cops would fail a qualification if we failed them with a missed shot? Talk about being short staffed!

Not arguing against it...I think it’s a good thing...but my admin would never go for it.

[BobM]

Seriously, how many cops would fail a qualification if we failed them with a missed shot? Talk about being short staffed!

Not arguing against it...I think it’s a good thing...but my admin would never go for it.

When Ohio was developing the qual course that goes with the above target, there was a lot of push back from the sheriff's association, other administrations, and a "and a large state agency" my source would not name. Apparently, the state agency was worried about their senior staff not being able to pass and the others were concerned about grievances and suits from officers if they tried to separate them for failure to qualify. The first version of that target had smaller scoring areas and the time limits on the original version of the course we're tighter.

[KeeFus]

When Ohio was developing the qual course that goes with the above target, there was a lot of push back from the sheriff's association, other administrations, and a "and a large state agency" my source would not name. Apparently, the state agency was worried about their senior staff not being able to pass and the others were concerned about grievances and suits from officers if they tried to separate them for failure to qualify. The first version of that target had smaller scoring areas and the time limits on the original version of the course we're tighter.

I like the idea of failing someone for missed rounds. That said, there would be so many LEOs sidelined it would create a crisis. Our minimum quail score is 80...on a TQ21 with 50 rounds. 10 misses x 2 points per round = 80. Keep in mind a TQ21 is just a silhouette target. One (1) scoring ring...the entire silhouette. I cannot fathom missing a target that freaking big but yet I have to count misses...and retrain them if they score below 80. I’d venture to say that if we failed people for misses I would sideline 50% of my officers. Not that they haven’t been afforded open range days throughout the year...but, as has been mentioned on this forum countless times, most cops aren’t gun people.

I mentioned our agency minimum on qualifications is 80%. The State minimum is 70%. I have watched officers from many agencies either fail or come close to failing with the 70% minimum. If the State of NC came out and said “misses mean you fail qualifications”, they would sideline at least 50% of the sworn LE in this State.

Again, I like the idea of it I just don’t think it would happen, at least not in NC.

ETA: unless I totally misread the linked PDF earlier, they only qualify out to 50 feet (16.6 yards)?

[TGS]

I've heard, but can't confirm, that the U.S. Secret Service scores any hit off of the silhouette as a fail.

I’d be super surprised. I think that’s all I’ll say in a public venue.

[JustOneGun]

Not to be a Debbie Downer but, one problem instructors have with trying to make things better in Arizona(and many other states) is the difference between AZPOST and Agency policy. Having two different standards is a real legal problem for administrators.

The big question from administrators often is, what do you intend to do with this new qualification? A great way that I think works is to identify those officers that fail your tougher standard and then to remediate them. But ultimately administrators will not want to fire someone who is passing the easier state qualification. Sadly, even the dumbest cops quickly understand this and the lowest common denominator wins out.

One of the biggest standards that I believe works is to hit the officer in the pocket book. Linking passing the qualification to eligibility for off duty work and special assignment for the year is a great motivator. The only real challenge is to get the department to sign off on more bullets for the training and have enough instructors to train them. IMO, that is the real deal killer. Time and money. One step forward, two steps back...

[KeeFus]

Not to be a Debbie Downer but, one problem instructors have with trying to make things better in Arizona(and many other states) is the difference between AZPOST and Agency policy. Having two different standards is a real legal problem for administrators.

The big question from administrators often is, what do you intend to do with this new qualification? A great way that I think works is to identify those officers that fail your tougher standard and then to remediate them. But ultimately administrators will not want to fire someone who is passing the easier state qualification. Sadly, even the dumbest cops quickly understand this and the lowest common denominator wins out.

One of the biggest standards that I believe works is to hit the officer in the pocket book. Linking passing the qualification to eligibility for off duty work and special assignment for the year is a great motivator. The only real challenge is to get the department to sign off on more bullets for the training and have enough instructors to train them. IMO, that is the real deal killer. Time and money. One step forward, two steps back...

Agreed.

Here the State allows for us to raise the standard. When we have an officer fail the first course of fire they get two more tries that same day. If they fail, by State Admin Code, we are required to pull their credentials. No gun, no badge, no car...they can’t work. We remediate them the next day and again have them attempt qualification...and again, if they fail the process starts all over again. That can go on for as long as the Chief will allow. At some point they either pass or they are terminated.

[Alpha Sierra]

If the State of NC came out and said “misses mean you fail qualifications”, they would sideline at least 50% of the sworn LE in this State. Or send them out on the street unarmed.

[Inspector71]

As a retired LE/FI, I’m all for higher standards in pistol qualification. But, I also was a union steward in the agency. You going to start penalizing my fellow troops for not making the standard ? Then, from a union perspective, I want more time “on the clock” for pistol practice/extra ammo/individual instruction from an instructor. Don’t demand my people to meet a higher standard and them tell them to practice on “their off duty time and at their own expense”.

[JustOneGun]

Agreed.

Here the State allows for us to raise the standard. When we have an officer fail the first course of fire they get two more tries that same day. If they fail, by State Admin Code, we are required to pull their credentials. No gun, no badge, no car...they can’t work. We remediate them the next day and again have them attempt qualification...and again, if they fail the process starts all over again. That can go on for as long as the Chief will allow. At some point they either pass or they are terminated.


We had a similar policy. But in all my years I never saw anyone terminated. I also never saw any put on a work improvement program. If they were willing we would work with them, even on the weekend. But often they knew the score and we would see them the following year. They would once again test until they passed.

We also had failed officers calling their chain of command and with all the complaining they would be allowed to drive their marked car back to the station. Reason, the CoC didn't want to drive out and give them a ride. Pure lazy.

[KeeFus]

As a retired LE/FI, I’m all for higher standards in pistol qualification. But, I also was a union steward in the agency. You going to start penalizing my fellow troops for not making the standard ? Then, from a union perspective, I want more time “on the clock” for pistol practice/extra ammo/individual instruction from an instructor. Don’t demand my people to meet a higher standard and them tell them to practice on “their off duty time and at their own expense”.

Unions have no standing here. There is one in Raleigh (RPPA) but they can only suggest things...there is nothing binding their suggestions.

We do offer open range dates at my agency, but that’s not the norm. A scant few of our 45 officers show up. We provide the ammo and free instructors/instruction.

[JustOneGun]

As a retired LE/FI, I’m all for higher standards in pistol qualification. But, I also was a union steward in the agency. You going to start penalizing my fellow troops for not making the standard ? Then, from a union perspective, I want more time “on the clock” for pistol practice/extra ammo/individual instruction from an instructor. Don’t demand my people to meet a higher standard and them tell them to practice on “their off duty time and at their own expense”.


You are correct. It often is about time and money. Much of the problem is also systemic from LETC all the way to retirement. The, "Improvement" to any system really needs consistency and has to start at the training center as a recruit. Getting rid of block training, etc went a long way to making recruits that not only learned but were consistent in the draw, reload, accuracy, etc. Actually teaching a recruit on how to practice(dry fire, range and dynamic) helps.

Sometimes that happens and then things change. I know 2008 took a lot of money away from training and staff numbers. That's the old 2 steps back. It takes a great leader to keep moving forward in a positive direction under the usual bureaucratic environment. Those leaders are like a force of nature. Impressive to watch.

[BN]

For the small local Ohio agencies I've been involved with, most pass the first time. The rest pass on the second try.

Biggest problems are missing the head shot and being slow on the slide lock reload because they are reloading out of mag pouches placed to be comfortable in a cruiser.

The previous Qualification was 60 rounds and had shooting on the move and low light. It was much harder to administrate because it didn't flow. The current one is much easier to run on the range.

[AMC]

As a retired LE/FI, I’m all for higher standards in pistol qualification. But, I also was a union steward in the agency. You going to start penalizing my fellow troops for not making the standard ? Then, from a union perspective, I want more time “on the clock” for pistol practice/extra ammo/individual instruction from an instructor. Don’t demand my people to meet a higher standard and them tell them to practice on “their off duty time and at their own expense”.

I agree with you. You can't hold someone accountable to a standard you have not trained them to. Hence the need for more training time, or in our case ANY training time.

The type of qualification that we are looking at adopting is used by the San Jose CA PD. Two sided threat/no threat target, and a tighter 'scoring' area, with misses counted against your score. We plan on a few tweaks to their system, but overall it offers a lot of advantages. No set course of fire in terms of number of rounds fired....you just have to have the required number of points at the end

[Erick Gelhaus]

The type of qualification that we are looking at adopting is used by the San Jose CA PD. Two sided threat/no threat target, and a tighter 'scoring' area, with misses counted against your score. We plan on a few tweaks to their system, but overall it offers a lot of advantages. No set course of fire in terms of number of rounds fired....you just have to have the required number of points at the end

Interesting. I'd like to hear, see more on this.

We don't have an 'any miss is a fail' scoring system. And we shoot back to 25 yds, both qual & training.

[jnc36rcpd]

I considered proposing a no-miss policy back we we carried SIG 226's and required an 80% qualification score I abandoned the idea because even good shooters occasionally throw one. In the real world, that is potentially catastrophic, but I'm not sure how much good would come from the policy. Most of our people seemed to take shooting seriously and I didn't think the no-miss Q course would really help.

[AMC]

Interesting. I'd like to hear, see more on this.

We don't have an 'any miss is a fail' scoring system. And we shoot back to 25 yds, both qual & training.

Their target is available through Action Target. It's the SJPD-SDS target. Requires a 180° target Turner system. We have one, and it's finally working after three years. Command has been asking for Shoot-Don't Shoot to be integrated into training and Qualifications. This will allow that. The target scoring area is not the whole silhouette, and is so faintly marked you can't see it beyond 5 feet. Forces shooters to concentrate on getting good solid hits.

The idea of no set course of fire ("when the target turns, fire five rounds center mass"), where the shooter has to fire at the pace that THEY can make accurate hits, and are totally responsible for ammo management, and will continue to shoot as long as the threat is present, also strikes me as a more positive reinforcement of real world shooting habits. When we have it up and running, I'll shoot you a PM and you can come see it.

ETA: or you could just call the originators in SJ and go give it a run. They were darn hospitable to us last year when we went to try it out.

[TGS]

The idea of no set course of fire ("when the target turns, fire five rounds center mass"), where the shooter has to fire at the pace that THEY can make accurate hits, and are totally responsible for ammo management, and will continue to shoot as long as the threat is present, also strikes me as a more positive reinforcement of real world shooting habits.

That all sounds good for training, but as I understand it the purpose of a qualification is exactly to have a set, known course of fire with objective task, standards and conditions applied to everyone so it's legally defensible.

Training and qualifications are two separate things.

If I'm reading correctly what you wrote, this entire qualification idea is going to go straight down the shitter as soon as someone brings up the fact they were held to a different standard than their coworkers, or that the task, standard and/or condition is essentially changing each time they qualify...….and then you'll have whatever the legally mandated minimum is forced down your throats by someone else fixing the problem who's only concern is to keep the entire apparatus from grinding to a halt.

Forgive me if I misread, please offer correction(s) as necessary.

[AMC]

That all sounds good for training, but as I understand it the purpose of a qualification is exactly to have a set, known course of fire with objective task, standards and conditions applied to everyone so it's legally defensible.

Training and qualifications are two separate things.

If I'm reading correctly what you wrote, this entire qualification idea is going to go straight down the shitter as soon as someone brings up the fact they were held to a different standard than their coworkers, or that the task, standard and/or condition is essentially changing each time they qualify...….and then you'll have whatever the legally mandated minimum is forced down your throats by someone else fixing the problem who's only concern is to keep the entire apparatus from grinding to a halt.

Forgive me if I misread, please offer correction(s) as necessary.

There will still be a minimum passing score, with a required number of hits in the scoring area, and without enough misses off silhouette to bring you below passing. Similar to the Ohio qual in that respect. It's just that we won't require you to fire X number of rounds at a set stage....just get the required number of rounds by the end.

You'll have to engage at each distance, but only with the number of rounds you can accurately deliver. Some guys are worried about shooters 'gaming' this, but in our current qual, you can miss all four rounds 25 yards and still pass.

The 'standard' will be the same each time....how many rounds it takes to achieve is up to you.

[TGS]

The 'standard' will be the same each time....how many rounds it takes to achieve is up to you.

Ok, so I read it correctly. That's precisely the issue of using this as a qualification. That isn't a standard.

I've said my piece otherwise, so I'll just leave it here.

[WobblyPossum]

While I would love to live in a world where all LEOs were trained to a high enough standard that an agency could afford to sideline anyone who tossed one off target, that’s not the world I live in. The VAST majority of LEOs are not trained to a level where they can pretty much guarantee never missing the target on a qual. You’d probably have half your agency sidelined on any given qual at most of the agencies I have experience with. I’m a fan of scoring systems that penalize shots off target by subtracting points such as the previously mentioned Ohio state qualification. You can tailor the amount of points subtracted for a miss to your unit or agency requirements. I think that a specialized unit such as a SWAT team or a felony warrant unit can afford to have a higher qual standard where a single miss is a failure because being on a specialized unit is not a job requirement for everyone and not making the cut doesn’t mean you risk getting kicked off the force.

[AMC]

I'd rather keep this thread on track. I'm looking to see how common accountability for misses in qualifications is, and how that is done. I'd rather not debate the merits of this or that qualification or standard.

I will note, however, that the qualification we would be basing ours on has been in use by that agency for several years, in one of the largest departments in the state, in a very litigious region, and has survived several legal challenges. Maybe I'm not doing a bang up job of explaining it.

[Grouse870]

100% here. You get three tries on qual day/night if you throw a round off the silhouette or don't make the score it counts as a fail. If you can't pass within the 3 tries You have to go to remedial training within 2 days with a different instructor. Have to shoot 400/500 or 80% you can lose points if you don't make the time either. Its a 50 round course. We are changing our qual to 25 yards for this year but the standards are the same.

[Coyotesfan97]

My agency’s miminum qual score on the AZPOST course is 220. The AZPOST standard is 210. There are seven shots at the 25 on the course. Three from the draw and four from ready gun. The time limits are very generous. So using AZPOST standards you could miss all seven and still pass. We use a modified TQ19 target. Any miss outside the line is five points off.

Our patrol rifle qual requires all shots in the silhouette. Any round in the snow is a DQ.

[mark7]

At my shop and at the college based police academy where I teach, target misses are just minus 5. As long as you get a passing score you're good to go :rolleyes:

One of our guys or gals did this to the target stand at 15 yards and of course denied doing it.

34869

[LtDave]

I've heard, but can't confirm, that the U.S. Secret Service scores any hit off of the silhouette as a fail.

AZ DPS SWAT uses that standard. Regular troopers just have to meet the minimum score.

[Chemsoldier]

One thing that irritates me in qualification is when some shooters deliberately do not engage at a particular distance to save rounds to fire extra shots at an "easier" distance. You see it in US Army rifle qualification, where some Soldiers do not even attempt the 300 meter engagements to save rounds for extra shots at the closer targets.

Maybe, something a little less than "any miss is a DQ" and more than the status quo would be that a shooter would get an automatic failure if they fail to get at least one hit at a given distance in the course of fire. There are some COFs where out of 50 rounds there might be only 6 at 25 yards for instance. Incentivize the need to practice at all distances.

[KeeFus]

One thing that irritates me in qualification is when some shooters deliberately do not engage at a particular distance to save rounds to fire extra shots at an "easier" distance. You see it in US Army rifle qualification, where some Soldiers do not even attempt the 300 meter engagements to save rounds for extra shots at the closer targets.

Maybe, something a little less than "any miss is a DQ" and more than the status quo would be that a shooter would get an automatic failure if they fail to get at least one hit at a given distance in the course of fire. There are some COFs where out of 50 rounds there might be only 6 at 25 yards for instance. Incentivize the need to practice at all distances.

When I was in the Army that was a common problem.

In LE, the way we have addressed it is to start them at the 25 yard-line and then mark the targets (people hate shooting at the 25...and it’s only 10 rounds...). As a matter of fact, when I developed our 2019 day pistol qualification, I intentionally started them at 25 to alleviate that problem. It also helps to have a manageable group of shooters with at least two instructors. Catching them cheating and they fail that CoF and have to re-shoot. Then it’s only you and that person on the line and it’s easy to count the shots.

[Hdmotorcop]

I've read through the four pages of posts. While I'm not a firearms instructor at work, I do have some questions here.

I completely agree that holding to a higher/tighter is an honorable goal, but what do your agencies allow/accommodate for training & practice? Where I'm at we do a spring and fall qualification that is about 6-8hrs: Qual course, some plates with stress, rifle or shotgun, taser, ASP, some DT and MAYBE some scenarios. Usually 3-4 instructors to about 7-12 officers. Now this all well and good. I personally try to get out a couple times a month and either shoot with my boys or an IDPA night at one of the local ranges. A lot of guys don't. BUT and it's a big but..... no time afford to shoot beyond qual days and you get a 50 round box of ammo when you leave Qual to reload your mags....that's it!

No real incentive or supplement to get the guys out to shoot on their own unless they're a "gun guy".

So I think what I'm getting at is, changing up your Quals may be a good thing, but you've gotta get trigger time for your officers if you want to see individual improvement.

[Grouse870]

Easier said than done though. We have training before our qual. 100 rounds are provided as well as instructor time. It’s scheduled well in advance with reminders. And without fail maybe 6-8 people show and typically not our weakest shooters. Short of paying people to come out and shoot some people just don’t care.

[fastreb]

If someone else has better information, then please correct me. It's my understanding that police qual courses came about when lawsuits were filed and won against agencies for allowing "an untrained person" to patrol the town/city/county etc. I get the fact that administrators would love the 100% hit qual. The city could say in court, "We trained 'em to that standard. They even passed that standard six...eight...forty times straight over the last twenty years, so that miss is strictly on them. Now, pretty please Your Honor, let us out of this law-suit." Then, they can turn to the officer and say, "Hope it works out for you, bud!"

To me, a 100% can't miss qual sets the officer up for the lawsuit to be solely dumped on them when an officer, reacting to the extreme stress of realizing that someone is suddenly trying to kill them, might throw a shot off. There is no way to train an officer fully for that instance, as you can't shoot at them as they qual. We're not even talking about shotgun quals, where buckshot might be the normal issue ammo. Now, do I think there needs to be a qual? Yes! You need a standard to judge if someone is absorbing the instruction, especially since so many recruits have never shot a gun before attending the academy.

Now, having said that, my agency was conducting quals twice a year when I started more than 20 years ago. We also have 2,000+ officers. They changed the policy when ammo became scarce in the early 2000s and the price shot up for what was available. Now, if you're command level or a detective, you qual once a year. Patrol officers that qualify as expert also only qual once a year. Otherwise, it's twice a year. All stages have a time limit. An officer gets three tries to qual on qual day. If they can't do it, they are placed on non-enforcement and required to attend remedial training, then tested again. If they can't do it after that second round, command staff will determine if they are retained and given one more shot at it or terminated.

My agency uses these quals:

Flashlight pistol - 15 yds and in - 33 rds - 80% or better
Dimlight pistol - 25 yds and in - 50 rds - 80% or better
Daylight pistol - 25 yds and in - 50 rds - 80% or better
Shotgun - 15 & 25 yds - 5 rds total (3 @ 25, 2 @ 15) - 90% or better

Our issue weapons are the Sig P229R DAK and the Rem 870 shotgun. The older shotguns have 18 1/2" barrels, while the newer ones have the 14" inch version.

We have patrol rifles (AR-15 types), alternate duty guns (usually allowed only for command staff or detectives but all are DAO), and BUGs. The patrol rifles have a different qual, of course. The officers issued them also have to have qualed as Expert with the pistol. Alternate duty weapons have to qual to the daylight pistol qual course and score. BUGs are 15 yds and in - 50 rds - 80% or better.

We do offer three free boxes of ammo a year to officers to practice with and one Saturday a month the range is open on the weekends for practice. We offer the incentive of 1 bonus day to be used at the officer's discretion for qualifying as Sharpshooter (88-93) and two days for Expert (94-100).

Overall, I think this is reasonable and achievable for most officers, especially since they will have shot 1200+ rounds through the pistol and about 250+ with the shotgun as they go through our academy.

[AMC]

While I agree that some agencies use the 100% standard as a risk management tool, I don't think they do it to be able to throw their officers under the bus. Firstly, it wouldn't work. The agency still trained and armed the officer. It's the reasonableness of the training, and how thorough (or not) the training was that will count.

Again ..I'm not advocating for or against a 100% qual standard. I'm just trying to get some data on how common it is for agencies to hold missed shots accountable...somehow...in their Quals, and what are the ways they do so.

[john c]

One thing that irritates me in qualification is when some shooters deliberately do not engage at a particular distance to save rounds to fire extra shots at an "easier" distance. You see it in US Army rifle qualification, where some Soldiers do not even attempt the 300 meter engagements to save rounds for extra shots at the closer targets.

Maybe, something a little less than "any miss is a DQ" and more than the status quo would be that a shooter would get an automatic failure if they fail to get at least one hit at a given distance in the course of fire. There are some COFs where out of 50 rounds there might be only 6 at 25 yards for instance. Incentivize the need to practice at all distances.

My agency actively encourages officers not to shoot at the 25 yard qual targets if they think they're not going to hit it. Think about it; if you're not confident of hitting a target beyond a certain distance, should you be shooing at that distance on the street? There are plenty of reason why a shooter might choose to not take longer range shots; skill being one of them. Also, your 50 year olds don't have the eyesight to clearly see the target and the sights, like the 25 years old do.

We also have a +1/0/-1 scoring system.

[HopetonBrown]

My agency actively encourages officers not to shoot at the 25 yard qual targets if they think they're not going to hit it. Think about it; if you're not confident of hitting a target beyond a certain distance, should you be shooing at that distance on the street? There are plenty of reason why a shooter might choose to not take longer range shots; skill being one of them.

Think about it, train them so they can. Because otherwise that thought process could be applied to the whole qual.

[JDD]

When I was in the Army that was a common problem.

In LE, the way we have addressed it is to start them at the 25 yard-line and then mark the targets (people hate shooting at the 25...and it’s only 10 rounds...). As a matter of fact, when I developed our 2019 day pistol qualification, I intentionally started them at 25 to alleviate that problem. It also helps to have a manageable group of shooters with at least two instructors. Catching them cheating and they fail that CoF and have to re-shoot. Then it’s only you and that person on the line and it’s easy to count the shots.

This is exactly what I do.

We have two rounds in 6 seconds from the 25. Everything else is substantially shorter ranges. I find that it also speeds the scoring at the end up dramatically, if I am not trying to figure out if there are 48,49, or 50 holes in the targets.

[john c]

Think about it, train them so they can. Because otherwise that thought process could be applied to the whole qual.

I think that's exactly what they're trying to do, which is put the thought process in place that if you can't make the shot, don't take it. There could be many reasons why an officer can't make the shot, like injury, line-of-sight, etc. Training them to be better shooters, always a good thing, doesn't take into consideration other factors about police shooting. Basically, are we testing raw shooting ability, or is shoot/no shoot decision making more important? Our qual tries to balance both.

My agency qualification is different than most others I've seen. First, there are no set round counts. You show up at the range with what you normally carry in your duty belt. If you carry more, you can shoot more; less, you can shoot less. Every time the target turns (at various distances, the targets run on a track) you shoot as many times as you can while the target faces. This simulates shooting until the target is no longer a threat. For evaluation purposes, targets at shorter distances face for less time than longer distances. Our targets are double sided; one side has a figure with a gun, and the other doesn't have a gun. The non-gun side is a no-shoot. At one point during the qual, the target charges you while faced. We have two programs for the qual, with the distances and times a bit mixed up. This is good, but after a few years, we sort of know the drill.

18 or more points passes, 17 or fewer fails. In theory, one fully loaded G17 can pass the course with no reloads. In practice, officers reload on their own, when they feel like it, during times when the target is moving. If you're reloaded when the target faces, then you miss that target.

Basically, we tell the officers to solve the problems with the tools they have on them at the time, with the limitations they're facing.

[HopetonBrown]

Sounds like they're confused about the difference between a drill and a test.

[Hambo]

Sounds like they're confused about the difference between a drill and a test.

Exactly. Pistol qualification is a pistol skill test, not a judgment test. Given how little most officers get to practice or train, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the bar is set pretty low.

On the original question our qual was contact to 25 yards. IIRC a miss was a fail, which sounds cool until the part where any hit on the target counted at 25 yards. So if you could hold minute of USPSA silhouette you were good to go.

[AMC]

I think that's exactly what they're trying to do, which is put the thought process in place that if you can't make the shot, don't take it. There could be many reasons why an officer can't make the shot, like injury, line-of-sight, etc. Training them to be better shooters, always a good thing, doesn't take into consideration other factors about police shooting. Basically, are we testing raw shooting ability, or is shoot/no shoot decision making more important? Our qual tries to balance both.

My agency qualification is different than most others I've seen. First, there are no set round counts. You show up at the range with what you normally carry in your duty belt. If you carry more, you can shoot more; less, you can shoot less. Every time the target turns (at various distances, the targets run on a track) you shoot as many times as you can while the target faces. This simulates shooting until the target is no longer a threat. For evaluation purposes, targets at shorter distances face for less time than longer distances. Our targets are double sided; one side has a figure with a gun, and the other doesn't have a gun. The non-gun side is a no-shoot. At one point during the qual, the target charges you while faced. We have two programs for the qual, with the distances and times a bit mixed up. This is good, but after a few years, we sort of know the drill.

18 or more points passes, 17 or fewer fails. In theory, one fully loaded G17 can pass the course with no reloads. In practice, officers reload on their own, when they feel like it, during times when the target is moving. If you're reloaded when the target faces, then you miss that target.

Basically, we tell the officers to solve the problems with the tools they have on them at the time, with the limitations they're facing.

You in the southern part of the SF Bay Area?

[JDD]

My agency actively encourages officers not to shoot at the 25 yard qual targets if they think they're not going to hit it. Think about it; if you're not confident of hitting a target beyond a certain distance, should you be shooing at that distance on the street? There are plenty of reason why a shooter might choose to not take longer range shots; skill being one of them. Also, your 50 year olds don't have the eyesight to clearly see the target and the sights, like the 25 years old do.

We also have a +1/0/-1 scoring system.

I have a number of mini "range cards" memorized for the folks I qual. It varies based on location, but I like to be able to talk about ranges that someone might shoot each of our strings in a real world scenario for the inevitable "why do we have to ____ ?"

For 25 yards, I talk about the various common distances around our facility that are 25yards (or more) that someone might be engaged. EX: "X hallway is 37 yards long, could you Identify a threat and articulate a justification to fire if someone is stabbing someone at the other end of the hallway when you come out of the stairwell wearing your duty belt?"

[KeeFus]

.

My agency qualification is different than most others I've seen. First, there are no set round counts. You show up at the range with what you normally carry in your duty belt. If you carry more, you can shoot more; less, you can shoot less. Every time the target turns (at various distances, the targets run on a track) you shoot as many times as you can while the target faces. This simulates shooting until the target is no longer a threat. For evaluation purposes, targets at shorter distances face for less time than longer distances. Our targets are double sided; one side has a figure with a gun, and the other doesn't have a gun. The non-gun side is a no-shoot. At one point during the qual, the target charges you while faced. We have two programs for the qual, with the distances and times a bit mixed up. This is good, but after a few years, we sort of know the drill..

Wow. Our day qualification course is 50 rounds and each bullet is worth 2 points...minimum score is 80. From 25 yards they fire 10 rounds; 5 prone and 5 standing. In theory they could not fire a round from 25 yards and still pass (10 shots at 2 points each is 20 points). One missed shot at other distances and they would fail.

Our combat course is mandated by the State and they require decision making to be part of the it. It’s a separate pass/fail course, but all LEO in this State are required to pass their agencies course. One combat course for day and another for night.

[Dr. No]

My agency- for pistol quals shots off target are -2. If it wasn't that way they would spend a fortune qualifying CO's.

For LE who have a rifle, any shot off target is an automatic fail. More than two misses and you cannot re-shoot the qual.

For SWAT we have a "any round off target is a fail" rule for everything.

[Sammy1]

Massachusetts has a State standard (MPTC) pistol qualification course that requires 100% round accountability. Any rounds off the paper is a fail and the officer has to re-shoot that stage. Minimum score of 80% in the 50 round course. http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NEWS/MPTC_HANDGUN_QUAL_rev__3_5_2012.pdf

[AMC]

Massachusetts has a State standard (MPTC) pistol qualification course that requires 100% round accountability. Any rounds off the paper is a fail and the officer has to re-shoot that stage. Minimum score of 80% in the 50 round course. http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NEWS/MPTC_HANDGUN_QUAL_rev__3_5_2012.pdf

Just to be clear....it's 80% hits on the silhouette to pass, but 100% hits must at least be on the cardboard or it's a fail. Is that correct?

[Sammy1]

Just to be clear....it's 80% hits on the silhouette to pass, but 100% hits must at least be on the cardboard or it's a fail. Is that correct?

Affirm. All rounds must be on the paper and each stage has a minimum # of rounds that must be hits. Anything off the paper is a no go and failure to get the required amount of hits per stage is a no go. We score each target before moving on to the next yard line.

[KeeFus]

Massachusetts has a State standard (MPTC) pistol qualification course that requires 100% round accountability. Any rounds off the paper is a fail and the officer has to re-shoot that stage. Minimum score of 80% in the 50 round course. http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NEWS/MPTC_HANDGUN_QUAL_rev__3_5_2012.pdf

15 yards is as far back as you shoot?

[AMC]

That's become more common in California, since it's all the POST requires....and administrators like to treat minimum standards as maximum standards. Every agency I've seen here with a "100%" qual standard only shoots to 15 yards.

[KeeFus]

That's become more common in California, since it's all the POST requires....and administrators like to treat minimum standards as maximum standards. Every agency I've seen here with a "100%" qual standard only shoots to 15 yards.

Dang. I thought 25 yards was a common yardage for pistol qualifications. NC requires us to qualify from the same distances that BLET (police academy) classes have to...and be within a certain percentage of the rounds fired at each yard-line.

[the Schwartz]

For the small local Ohio agencies I've been involved with, most pass the first time. The rest pass on the second try.

Biggest problems are missing the head shot and being slow on the slide lock reload because they are reloading out of mag pouches placed to be comfortable in a cruiser.

The previous Qualification was 60 rounds and had shooting on the move and low light. It was much harder to administrate because it didn't flow. The current one is much easier to run on the range.

An Ohioan myself, I have seen the 2004LEOSA qualifications dwindle over the years from firing a 60-round for qualification to a 50-round, then a 35-round and now to just an 8-round course of qualifying fire as they currently require only what the host department (mine is a large metro PD) requires for qualifying with a 'back-up' (non-issued, off-duty) gun. I wish that we'd return to firing at least a 50-round qualification as 8 rounds just seems to be......insufficient....not nearly enough IMHO for determining fitness for the status. So far misses do not seem to be much of an issue (there are very few during the qualifications that I have participated in), but with the reduction in the length of the course of fire, that is not surprising. Of course with just 8 rounds being fired, I am of the opinion that just one missed shot should be an automatic fail with one chance to re-qualify under the same standard.

[jnc36rcpd]

We reduced the off-duty/back-up gun course to the state minimum of thirty rounds daylight and thirty rounds low-light. I noticed some officers seemed to have real manipulation issues with weapons they may have carried often, but rarely trained on.

[LSP552]

Seriously, how many cops would fail a qualification if we failed them with a missed shot? Talk about being short staffed!

Not arguing against it...I think it’s a good thing...but my admin would never go for it.

That’s why LSP dropped the 50 yard stage from their qualification. It was getting cadets booted out of the academy so the agency accepted a can’t shoot as well group going forward from that point. The organizational changes didn’t happen overnight but the overall ability of the agency did drop significantly in the decade following.

Unfortunately, no child left behind has pretty much become the LE standard nationwide.

[TGS]

Seriously, how many cops would fail a qualification if we failed them with a missed shot? Talk about being short staffed!

Not arguing against it...I think it’s a good thing...but my admin would never go for it.

I would routinely fail my Glock 26 qualification.

We have different sights on our Glock 19Ms and Gen 4 Glock 26's. Unintended consequence of budgetary management rules because we're evil government employees intent on raping the American taxpayer for all their money. Lest we wanted our funding to procure new guns vanish, we were forced to prematurely buy the Gen 4 Glock 26 off a DOD contract with standard nightsights, which has a different POI than the Ameriglo sights on our G19Ms.

Then, we were told no, absolutely under no circumstances were we allowed to change out the sights to have matching POIs.....even if we bought the sights ourselves and had agency armorers do the swap.

The result is that I almost always throw a shot or two high over the shoulders at the 25 yard line, because it's about a foot or more difference. I never practice or even carry my G26, so my brain is totally hardwired for the drive-the-dot hold on the G19M.

[AMC]

TGS....it is that kind of indefensible stupidity in policies that makes me hate people....LE agency administrators more than most.

[JDD]

I would routinely fail my Glock 26 qualification.

We have different sights on our Glock 19Ms and Gen 4 Glock 26's. Unintended consequence of budgetary management rules because we're evil government employees intent on raping the American taxpayer for all their money. Lest we wanted our funding to procure new guns vanish, we were forced to prematurely buy the Gen 4 Glock 26 off a DOD contract with standard nightsights, which has a different POI than the Ameriglo sights on our G19Ms.

Then, we were told no, absolutely under no circumstances were we allowed to change out the sights to have matching POIs.....even if we bought the sights ourselves and had agency armorers do the swap.

The result is that I almost always throw a shot or two high over the shoulders at the 25 yard line, because it's about a foot or more difference. I never practice or even carry my G26, so my brain is totally hardwired for the drive-the-dot hold on the G19M.

I still maintain that if I had to chose to have one firearm drawn randomly from a pool, and one firearm specifically assigned to me. I would take the pool pistol, and have a personally issued long gun. Fortunately, my agency made the opposite choice. (ideally, I would have both...)

[JBP55]

One thing that irritates me in qualification is when some shooters deliberately do not engage at a particular distance to save rounds to fire extra shots at an "easier" distance. You see it in US Army rifle qualification, where some Soldiers do not even attempt the 300 meter engagements to save rounds for extra shots at the closer targets.

Maybe, something a little less than "any miss is a DQ" and more than the status quo would be that a shooter would get an automatic failure if they fail to get at least one hit at a given distance in the course of fire. There are some COFs where out of 50 rounds there might be only 6 at 25 yards for instance. Incentivize the need to practice at all distances.


That is resolved here by Firearms Instructors always scoring targets after firing from the 25 yard line then continue with the 15, 7, 4, 2 yard shooting.