Old Bakersfield PD qual

[Gun Nerd]

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/requiem-for-an-unsung-hero

Interesting 10-round test. For an approximation of the target, staple a B-8 repair center on whatever full-size silhouette you have handy, scored as follows:


10 points for anything completely inside the 8-ring.

9 points anywhere else on the B-8 paper.

6 points on the rest of the silhouette.

[lwt16]

Adding this to my training notes. Thanks for posting it.

[Suvorov]

Interesting stuff! As someone who feels good about reaching the 1.5 second draw level- this course looks mighty humbling. I do like the time penalty method described.

Reading through the article also reminds me just how much of an epicenter the once great state of California was to Gun Culture 1.0. So so sad what it has become today.

[WobblyPossum]

An entire department of officers who could pass this course of fire with an 80% or higher score is probably any firearms instructor’s dream. No wonder BPD had the reputation they did as referenced in the blog post.

[jlw]

2 rounds in 1.5 seconds at 10 feet (“No one should be closer than that.”)

2 rounds in 2.0 seconds at 20 feet (“The length of a car.”)

2 reload 2 in 6.0 seconds (8.0 for revolvers) at 30 feet (“From the curb to the front door.”)

2 rounds in 3.5 seconds at 60 feet (“From the opposite curb to the front door.”)


An empty revolver and an empty autoloader are the same problem, and it doesn't change because of which equipment one chose.

I'll be running this, but wheelguns and autoloaders will be held to the same standard.

But there is always this for anyone who questions things from Bakersfield:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB7oUI32E1Y

[Gun Nerd]

Interesting stuff! As someone who feels good about reaching the 1.5 second draw level- this course looks mighty humbling. I do like the time penalty method described.


It's basically impossible to shoot 100 unless you have a 1.25 sec. draw at 10 feet. If you're at 1.5, you may well score better on the 20-foot stage due to the extra half-second allowed.

But note that the standards were presumably set for open carried clamshell holsters. It might not be crazy to add .25 or even .5 at all distances for a concealed draw or a retention holster.

[HCM]

https://youtu.be/jM135vRdF6s

[1Rangemaster]

I bit. Tried it with a GLOCK Model 45 MOS with an ACRO mounted, out of an ALS holster unconcealed. Winchester 147 flat point fmj ammo.
1.45, 1.84, 6.00(I swear!), 3.41. Two hits just out, and one a little right at 20 yards. So, 97 points if I’m arguing like a competitor, or 94 points.
It’s sporty! I look forward to working a Level 3 holster through this, and concealed. Definitely going on the drill list; low round count, realistic and a good accuracy standard. With the 5 yard roundup, the “Test”, Hackathorn’s 5 round “Wizard”, etc., we have some efficient evaluations.
Here’s another one: 8” plates at 25 yards. One round to hit in 2.5 seconds.
Paging @Mr.White…

[Gun Nerd]

It’s sporty! I look forward to working a Level 3 holster through this, and concealed. Definitely going on the drill list; low round count, realistic and a good accuracy standard. With the 5 yard roundup, the “Test”, Hackathorn’s 5 round “Wizard”, etc., we have some efficient evaluations.
Paging @Mr.White…

A 97 is solid!

I’ll be interested to hear your results with duty and concealment gear, and your thoughts on a time adjustment.

Compared to the other tests you mention, this one has some strengths and weaknesses:

It tests the draw more than the 5-yard Roundup does, and I think we know that the draw is important. My slowpoke draw (2.0 for the two shots at 10 feet was pretty good) is going to make it tough for me to break 90.

It’s a higher pure marksmanship standard than the Wizard Drill, and requires more speed as written.

Weaknesses are that there’s no one handed shooting, and that if it were my one test, I’d kind of like it to include a failure drill and some movement. Here are my proposed improvements:


Make it 15-round drill by finishing every stage with a shot to a 3x5 head zone (10 points for a hit to the 3x5, 6 for anything else still on the silhouette). (The 60-foot stage might just be a third shot to the bullseye.)
Shoot the 10-foot strong hand only.
Require a sidestep on every draw and reload.


And adjust time standards accordingly. I’d probably also use commonly marked yardages: 3, 7, 10, maybe 25. (That last is tough - for my eyes, there’s a big difference between 20 and 25.)

[JCN]

A 97 is solid!

I’ll be interested to hear your results with duty and concealment gear, and your thoughts on a time adjustment.

Compared to the other tests you mention, this one has some strengths and weaknesses:

It tests the draw more than the 5-yard Roundup does, and I think we know that the draw is important. My slowpoke draw (2.0 for the two shots at 10 feet was pretty good) is going to make it tough for me to break 90.

It’s a higher pure marksmanship standard than the Wizard Drill, and requires more speed as written.

Weaknesses are that there’s no one handed shooting, and that if it were my one test, I’d kind of like it to include a failure drill and some movement. Here are my proposed improvements:


Make it 15-round drill by finishing every stage with a shot to a 3x5 head zone (10 points for a hit to the 3x5, 6 for anything else still on the silhouette). (The 60-foot stage might just be a third shot to the bullseye.)
Shoot the 10-foot strong hand only.
Require a sidestep on every draw and reload.


And adjust time standards accordingly. I’d probably also use commonly marked yardages: 3, 7, 10, maybe 25. (That last is tough - for my eyes, there’s a big difference between 20 and 25.)

I think you’re missing the point.

First: accept that this standard and test was effective for training whereas a number of other tests and drills are not.

Second: the simplicity of the test with the tight time standards is what makes it so. Adding more stuff adds variables and dilutes learning. If you can’t make it simply, you can’t make it with added stuff unless the added stuff has too much time adjustment.

Third: Fundamentals are important. If you can’t do these standards, work on walking before you run.

Fourth: When all the extra garbage was cut out, ALL of the Bakersfield PD could do it and that translated to success on the street.

From my perspective and standpoint, this worked because it’s not pass or fail with targets and time. It’s basically hit factor scoring where there is a speed/accuracy trade off. It’s good for training.

Also note that once you have the fundamentals locked down at a high level, it’s very easy to adapt and do strong hand and movement. Not the other way around.

[JCN]

Note: scoring sizes are the following.

10 ring is 7”

75040

Also note their description of basically hit factor scoring and the choice of people to solve their own problem and how they thought it translated to actual combat.

[1Rangemaster]

Gun Nerd-thank you. I am going to post a 94, as that one round at 20 yards was over in the “rib cage”, not centered.
Remember, passing was 80 points, so a pass is doable. The gear used-1911 and probably a thumb break holster(I recall seeing the Davis rig back in the day) may be simple this day and time, but those Bakersfield boys(and girls?) were good!
BTW, I mistyped; it was a GLS paddle holster, unconcealed.
I’m ok with the notion of adding a bit for concealed (a la Mr. White), but I will try the original times first. A timer may be a bit more accurate-taking out human reaction time-so we’ll see. A Level 3 holster will be challenging for me.
FWIW, the 2 in 1.5@3 are indexed shots for me. Assessment should be a consideration.
The more drills/evals the merrier! My interest in this was due to its history and it’s quick with a low round count. A drill coming out of this could be each string repeated until satisfied-then evaluate. The other evals-5YRU, “Wizard”, etc. all have their place as indicators of what to work on.

[Gun Nerd]

I think you’re missing the point.

First: accept that this standard and test was effective for training whereas a number of other tests and drills are not.

Second: the simplicity of the test with the tight time standards is what makes it so. Adding more stuff adds variables and dilutes learning. If you can’t make it simply, you can’t make it with added stuff unless the added stuff has too much time adjustment.


It’s a very fair point. I guess the question is whether anything else that’s trained needs to be tested, and to what extent the test needs to provide additional reps to reinforce training. A typical pass/fail qual course doesn’t provide much training, while performing 100 one-shot draws isn’t really a test. This course is a little bit of both, and I was thinking about what absolute minimum additions might enhance the training value without too much dilution.

[Gun Nerd]

Note: scoring sizes are the following.

10 ring is 7”
.

That’s why I went with only scoring 10 for hits completely inside the 8-ring on a B-8. Any 8” circle would do, but the overall area of the repair center (110.25 square inches) is pretty close to the original (117). A B-8 on printer paper is a little smaller (93.5).

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s an easy “close enough” solution.

[jlw]

The gear used-1911 and probably a thumb break holster(I recall seeing the Davis rig back in the day) may be simple this day and time, but those Bakersfield boys(and girls?) were good!


The article stated that they used leather from Milt Sparks.


That’s why I went with only scoring 10 for hits completely inside the 8-ring on a B-8. Any 8” circle would do, but the overall area of the repair center (110.25 square inches) is pretty close to the original (117). A B-8 on printer paper is a little smaller (93.5).

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s an easy “close enough” solution.

IDPA
-0= 10
-1= 8
-3= 6

[1Rangemaster]

My error-thanks for the correction.
There were “duty” thumb breaks from both makers. I get a little nostalgic for the leather sometimes…

[JCN]

https://youtu.be/kKFMHFg11xc

Ran it twice today with my carry gun P365X (as per the original qualification).

Second run taking all the time was 100 points.

First run shooting at hit factor speed had -5 points but over 2.25 seconds faster.

If you reverse their scoring penalty over time to an under time bonus, it’d be 104 points.

[JCN]

https://youtu.be/txH3Q4lqopE

[Gun Nerd]

https://youtu.be/kKFMHFg11xc

Ran it twice today with my carry gun P365X (as per the original qualification).

Second run taking all the time was 100 points.

First run shooting at hit factor speed had -5 points but over 2.25 seconds faster.

If you reverse their scoring penalty over time to an under time bonus, it’d be 104 points.

Nice!

So using Karl Rehn’s framework of analyzing drills based on what percentage of GM level skill is needed, this one is pretty easy to rate!

[JCN]

Nice!

So using Karl Rehn’s framework of analyzing drills based on what percentage of GM level skill is needed, this one is pretty easy to rate!

Hehe. There’s also the question of how much performance do you lose when going from a duty size gun to a micro compact.

The P365X isn’t the carry gun I shoot the best, but I ran it through its paces and it shoots “good enough” for me.

[WobblyPossum]

https://youtu.be/txH3Q4lqopE

It shows “This video is unavailable” to me.

[JCN]

Sorry, had a chance to watch it and GoPro chopped the second video so I re-uploaded it.

This should work:


https://youtu.be/MFn7-9SSfNA

The first two shots are very aimed for me and not on index.

With a good index it doesn’t take much to fine tune it for the aim.

[WobblyPossum]

Sorry, had a chance to watch it and GoPro chopped the second video so I re-uploaded it.

This should work:


https://youtu.be/MFn7-9SSfNA

The first two shots are very aimed for me and not on index.

With a good index it doesn’t take much to fine tune it for the aim.

Excellent shooting. I want to give this test a try next time I’m at the range.

[Wheeler]

An empty revolver and an empty autoloader are the same problem, and it doesn't change because of which equipment one chose.

I'll be running this, but wheelguns and autoloaders will be held to the same standard.

But there is always this for anyone who questions things from Bakersfield:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB7oUI32E1Y

It's a shame that so few people recognize the very real differences between Bakersfield and Nashville. Those debates were much more intense than any caliber debate.

[jlw]

It's a shame that so few people recognize the very real differences between Bakersfield and Nashville. Those debates were much more intense than any caliber debate.

...and that sound was developed by a bunch of Oakies who fled the Dust Bowl, and one could make a viable argument that those same bloodlines are fueling the Red Dirt sound, which is once against in contrast with Nashville.


However, when I saw you quoted me, I really thought it was going to be on the revolver thing.

[Gun Nerd]

The article stated that they used leather from Milt Sparks.


If you want period correct, you’d better be prepared for the price tag: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Milt-Sparks-Leather-Custom-Holster-Belt-and-Mag-Holder-for-1911-/234057741920?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0

[Wheeler]

...and that sound was developed by a bunch of Oakies who fled the Dust Bowl, and one could make a viable argument that those same bloodlines are fueling the Red Dirt sound, which is once against in contrast with Nashville.


However, when I saw you quoted me, I really thought it was going to be on the revolver thing.

Believe it or not, I agree with you on the revolver thing. I’ve actually agreed with that premise for a long time. I fought it in IDPA simply because they were ignoring their own rules, which in my opinion is just plain laziness.

I’ve found the evolution of country music fascinating. My parents grew up in the hills of Southwest VA and were close to the original surge of ‘hillbilly music’ that was centered in Bristol. My dad would tell stories of sneaking off to go sit on a hilltop to listen to a family play on their front porch on Saturday evenings. The ties to culture and history are intriguing to say the least.

[jlw]

Believe it or not, I agree with you on the revolver thing. I’ve actually agreed with that premise for a long time. I fought it in IDPA simply because they were ignoring their own rules, which in my opinion is just plain laziness.



I figured you would be agreeing with the revolver thing.

[jlw]

If you want period correct, you’d better be prepared for the price tag: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Milt-Sparks-Leather-Custom-Holster-Belt-and-Mag-Holder-for-1911-/234057741920?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0

He wants that rig more than I do.

[That Guy]

2 rounds in 1.5 seconds at 10 feet (“No one should be closer than that.”)
2 rounds in 2.0 seconds at 20 feet (“The length of a car.”)
2 reload 2 in 6.0 seconds (8.0 for revolvers) at 30 feet (“From the curb to the front door.”)
2 rounds in 3.5 seconds at 60 feet (“From the opposite curb to the front door.”)

So distances in meters should be 3, 6, 9 and 18 meters. (Not converting these to the last decimal place since measurements at the range tend to not be accurate to the centimeter anyway, rough conversions that ought to be "good enough".)



IDPA
-0= 10
-1= 8
-3= 6

Great! This helps a lot - B-8's are a US thing but IDPA targets can be found in lots of places. :)

With my slow ass draw this is going to be a challenge. But since it isn't a hard pass/fail I'm willing to give it a go. Might be a while before I can find the range time though, the local range is damn busy these days.

[jlw]

So distances in meters should be 3, 6, 9 and 18 meters. (Not converting these to the last decimal place since measurements at the range tend to not be accurate to the centimeter anyway, rough conversions that ought to be "good enough".)



Great! This helps a lot - B-8's are a US thing but IDPA targets can be found in lots of places. :)

With my slow ass draw this is going to be a challenge. But since it isn't a hard pass/fail I'm willing to give it a go. Might be a while before I can find the range time though, the local range is damn busy these days.

The IDPA dimensions are more generous, but it is a readily available target.

[JCN]

IDPA
-0= 10
-1= 8
-3= 6


So distances in meters should be 3, 6, 9 and 18 meters. (Not converting these to the last decimal place since measurements at the range tend to not be accurate to the centimeter anyway, rough conversions that ought to be "good enough".)

Great! This helps a lot - B-8's are a US thing but IDPA targets can be found in lots of places. :)

With my slow ass draw this is going to be a challenge. But since it isn't a hard pass/fail I'm willing to give it a go. Might be a while before I can find the range time though, the local range is damn busy these days.

IDPA sizes are significantly larger than the stated scoring zones.

75108

It’s not hard to take a sheet of legal paper and cut it down.
Same thing with drawing a 7” circle with a string, tape and pen.

But if you’re going to use the IDPA scoring for targets, you should probably move the target farther away to scale it.

I wouldn’t want to run and score it without the described scoring zones, but that’s just me.

[jlw]

IDPA sizes are significantly larger than the stated scoring zones.

75108

It’s not hard to take a sheet of legal paper and cut it down.
Same thing with drawing a 7” circle with a string, tape and pen.

But if you’re going to use the IDPA scoring for targets, you should probably move the target farther away to scale it.

I wouldn’t want to run and score it without the described scoring zones, but that’s just me.

Yes, which is why I stated 8-points for -1 zone instead of 9.

[JCN]

Yes, which is why I stated 8-points for -1 zone instead of 9.

Yes, but now you’re just making a completely different test.

There’s a difference between a close miss making 9 points and a close miss making 8 points.

10 points for an 8” circle is different than 7” too.

Move the target back or cut a sheet of paper.

Or call it something different.

[That Guy]

It’s not hard to take a sheet of legal paper and cut it down.
Same thing with drawing a 7” circle with a string, tape and pen.


Well actually, since "legal paper" is a US paper size, it would be kind of hard... :p

I suppose I could mess about with some appropriate size printer paper, a ruler, scissors, etc. but in my experience that becomes significantly more bothersome than just grabbing a standard size target that is easily available and just getting on with shooting the bloody drill.

Maybe it's because I'm such a lazy bastard but while I used to shoot a bunch of P-F drills that used different kinds of paper targets I've pretty much stopped with those. I don't even own a printer so mucking about with printing targets at work after clocking out, dealing with scaling errors since all the targets were meant to be printed on US paper sizes, ensuring I pack the correct paper targets to go with the planned drills, last minute changes with training plans due to range availability and conditions, trying to score targets on printer paper, trying to protect the papers from rain long enough for them to be useful, and so on and so on. It just gets annoying. Much easier to just grab some IDPA targets from the pile and off to the range we go.

YMMV, obviously.

[JCN]

Well actually, since "legal paper" is a US paper size, it would be kind of hard... :p

I suppose I could mess about with some appropriate size printer paper, a ruler, scissors, etc. but in my experience that becomes significantly more bothersome than just grabbing a standard size target that is easily available and just getting on with shooting the bloody drill.

Maybe it's because I'm such a lazy bastard but while I used to shoot a bunch of P-F drills that used different kinds of paper targets I've pretty much stopped with those. I don't even own a printer so mucking about with printing targets at work after clocking out, dealing with scaling errors since all the targets were meant to be printed on US paper sizes, ensuring I pack the correct paper targets to go with the planned drills, last minute changes with training plans due to range availability and conditions, trying to score targets on printer paper, trying to protect the papers from rain long enough for them to be useful, and so on and so on. It just gets annoying. Much easier to just grab some IDPA targets from the pile and off to the range we go.

YMMV, obviously.

Well, IMO. Lazy people who love excuses and “the easy way” generally don’t get very good at things like shooting so do what you like.

Or move the target back by 10-15% of the distance.

[JCN]

If you own IDPA targets, a ruler and a marker you can draw the 9x13 box ON the cardboard target within 20 seconds and then if any hits are within 1” of the border of the -0 you can manually score and call if out of 7”.

Being sloppy with the scoring for a defined test is like being sloppy with the timing.

Would you have a friend time you with a stop watch and say “hey that’s good enough.”

If you want a different test make a different test.

[JCN]

Made all time parameters including the reload string in 5.55 seconds.

Two shots in the -1 and three shots in the -4.

75124

Start position was pocket draw with hand in pocket on gun like I would normally have it in a sketchy situation.

Ammo was this zinc stuff with apparently primers made out of granite….

[Gun Nerd]

He wants that rig more than I do.

Reduced from $850 - he wants it more than anyone does.

Note that it's a 30" belt. Talk about slight demand.

[jlw]

Reduced from $850 - he wants it more than anyone does.

Note that it's a 30" belt. Talk about slight demand.

It must have been an explorer's belt.

[JCN]

https://youtu.be/wwY1A9KRG3g

[1Rangemaster]

I shot this in the morning from concealment-a vest over a JMCK IWB holster, reload mag in a Safariland paddle pouch. G45 MOS with ACRO mounted, shooting 124 ball ammo.
1.61, 2.17, 5.56 and a 2.71. Just out of the circle with 4, but still in the box(I just used a pencil over a target). I’m going to add 3 points for the overtime, for a score of 93. Of minor interest the down one hits were up close; I’m just hammering the trigger.
I will do a little dry fire with the Level 3 rig, and see how that goes. Nice little veal.
One comment on the leather rig: the mag pouches look open, which would fit for that point in time and place.

[1Rangemaster]

Looked again- pouches have flaps(I think). There were double open pouches, though, “back in the day”.

[JCN]

It’s a very fair point. I guess the question is whether anything else that’s trained needs to be tested, and to what extent the test needs to provide additional reps to reinforce training. A typical pass/fail qual course doesn’t provide much training, while performing 100 one-shot draws isn’t really a test. This course is a little bit of both, and I was thinking about what absolute minimum additions might enhance the training value without too much dilution.

So here’s the example.
1Rangemaster if you can keep an open mind and suppress the ego’s desire to avoid criticism.


I bit. Tried it with a GLOCK Model 45 MOS with an ACRO mounted, out of an ALS holster unconcealed. Winchester 147 flat point fmj ammo.
1.45, 1.84, 6.00(I swear!), 3.41. Two hits just out, and one a little right at 20 yards. So, 97 points if I’m arguing like a competitor, or 94 points.
It’s sporty! I look forward to working a Level 3 holster through this, and concealed. Definitely going on the drill list; low round count, realistic and a good accuracy standard. With the 5 yard roundup, the “Test”, Hackathorn’s 5 round “Wizard”, etc., we have some efficient evaluations.
Here’s another one: 8” plates at 25 yards. One round to hit in 2.5 seconds.
Paging @Mr.White…

When it was tried with an ALS holster you said you shot it on index without seeing the sights.

When complexity was added with concealment…

I shot this in the morning from concealment-a vest over a JMCK IWB holster, reload mag in a Safariland paddle pouch. G45 MOS with ACRO mounted, shooting 124 ball ammo.
1.61, 2.17, 5.56 and a 2.71. Just out of the circle with 4, but still in the box(I just used a pencil over a target). I’m going to add 3 points for the overtime, for a score of 93. Of minor interest the down one hits were up close; I’m just hammering the trigger.

Predictably now the time is a fail and still not seeing the sights. Because they were misses.

Gun Nerd this is the point, if you can’t reliably do it in the simple format you can’t do it with added complexity.

If we had started with complexity, you couldn’t tell if the concealment stunk or the draw.

Here you have your answer cleanly and if can put aside the ego, it’s pretty clear.

There’s no point in trying different permutations until either the hand speed improves or the index does.

At that distance and speed you can and should be able to either get the gun to see the sights or have a developed index.

So the solution isn’t running it multiple times with different gear, it’s figuring out and working on where the core weakness is.

That’s why I demonstrate with snubbies and micro guns. It shows that index and speed matter for everything.

[JCN]

Adding complexity just adds complexity. This was with ALS/SLS about a year ago with iron sights at about the same distance and scoring zone.

Rifle to pistol transition was 1.5s with all retention hoods and tabs in place.


https://youtu.be/rXKMByXSku8

Basically if you can’t do a 0.9s open holster draw to sight picture on this distance target it will need work in order to hit the par time in any way shape or form with other layers added to make a 1.3 second draw and 0.20 split to make the time.

But what Bakersfield showed us is that improving those skills matter in the real world and the hit factor type scoring they felt translated well to actual combat per the article.

[1Rangemaster]

JCN: minor point-I shot the first run with a GLS paddle holster- noted that in a later post.
If you’re making the point that I need to improve my draw speed…well, yes, I believe everyone can, and I’m working on it. Your point of not adding complexity to the eval is taken. You are obviously an excellent technical shooter, and I appreciate your remote coaching.
During my run this morning, I did see the dot on the 10 foot run(and subsequent ones)-and called the shots. Technically speaking, it’s not a “fail”; the Bakersfield description give a penalty for overtime shots. Minus one point for one tenth of a second over the par. My latest run reflects that. So, three-tenths for minus 3 points, plus 4 hits out of the circle=7 points, or a 93 for today. The first score reflects the designers original intent also.
BTW, your run with the snub where you have multiple failures to fire would be called “dead man gun(s)” or “runs”. Hopefully, you are not carrying that setup in the real world.
I’ll be running this with a Level 3 retention rig in the near future after I work on my presentation, index and sight acquisition.

[jlw]

Technically speaking, it’s not a “fail”; the Bakersfield description give a penalty for overtime shots. Minus one point for one tenth of a second over the par. My latest run reflects that. So, three-tenths for minus 3 points, plus 4 hits out of the circle=7 points, or a 93 for today. The first score reflects the designers original intent also.


Per the article, it's one point per quarter second over.

[1Rangemaster]

I think you’re missing the point.

First: accept that this standard and test was effective for training whereas a number of other tests and drills are not.

Second: the simplicity of the test with the tight time standards is what makes it so. Adding more stuff adds variables and dilutes learning. If you can’t make it simply, you can’t make it with added stuff unless the added stuff has too much time adjustment.

Third: Fundamentals are important. If you can’t do these standards, work on walking before you run.

Fourth: When all the extra garbage was cut out, ALL of the Bakersfield PD could do it and that translated to success on the street.

From my perspective and standpoint, this worked because it’s not pass or fail with targets and time. It’s basically hit factor scoring where there is a speed/accuracy trade off. It’s good for training.

Also note that once you have the fundamentals locked down at a high level, it’s very easy to adapt and do strong hand and movement. Not the other way around.


Per the article, it's one point per quarter second over.

The narrative is a little confusing. The quarter second equals one point is stated, then it’s one point for 1.6 seconds.
Whatever; I’m not going to be a competitor here. I’ll post using one tenth equals one point, down one out of the 7” circle, etc.
My objective is to shoot it clean in the time frame. It’s an elegant little exercise in my view.

[jlw]

The narrative is a little confusing. The quarter second equals one point is stated, then it’s one point for 1.6 seconds.
Whatever; I’m not going to be a competitor here. I’ll post using one tenth equals one point, down one out of the 7” circle, etc.
My objective is to shoot it clean in the time frame. It’s an elegant little exercise in my view.

The 1.6 was an example as was the 1.8.

For the first string:
1.50 and under is no penalty.
1.51 through 1.75 is a one point penalty.
1.76 though 2.0 would be two points.

Therefore, a 1.6 received one point of penalty and a 1.8 received two points.

[1Rangemaster]

Thanks for clarifying. I’m still going to work on shooting it clean, within par.

[JCN]

JCN: minor point-I shot the first run with a GLS paddle holster- noted that in a later post.
If you’re making the point that I need to improve my draw speed…well, yes, I believe everyone can, and I’m working on it. Your point of not adding complexity to the eval is taken. You are obviously an excellent technical shooter, and I appreciate your remote coaching.
During my run this morning, I did see the dot on the 10 foot run(and subsequent ones)-and called the shots. Technically speaking, it’s not a “fail”; the Bakersfield description give a penalty for overtime shots. Minus one point for one tenth of a second over the par. My latest run reflects that. So, three-tenths for minus 3 points, plus 4 hits out of the circle=7 points, or a 93 for today. The first score reflects the designers original intent also.
BTW, your run with the snub where you have multiple failures to fire would be called “dead man gun(s)” or “runs”. Hopefully, you are not carrying that setup in the real world.
I’ll be running this with a Level 3 retention rig in the near future after I work on my presentation, index and sight acquisition.

So for draw speed, there are two components to it. The first part is the hand speed and grip and the second part is the index to presentation and the rough accuracy of that presentation. Most people who struggle with speed have some easy low hanging fruit by upping the intensity and aggression in which they establish their grip.

I didn’t mean fail as in failure of the test. I meant failure of you hitting your goal. You’re still leagues above average.

The snub was illustrative of sights and grip to show fundamentals are fundamental. The ammo is this weird Zinc 380 I thought would be a good idea indoors because no lead. But it’s terrible. That particular gun is in the experimental developmental phase. I normally use it just to exercise my trigger fingers in dry.

I think working on it with your GLS holster first and trying to get your grip and index down to the 0.8s range in dry presentation will serve you well when you add the complexity of Level 3 retention.

A level 3 adds 0.2-0.25 to my open draw. So to clear the time parameter without luck, you have to get your open index to 0.8 or so in dry. This is my level 3 efficiency technique.


https://youtu.be/5P9lwchGLP0

When you saw the dot at the 10 foot today, was the dot not on the scoring surface when you pulled the trigger (index issue) or did the trigger press pull the dot off the scoring surface (grip and pull issue)?

Deconstructing what happened is the quickest way to solving the issue.

Most of the time by speeding up attack and presentation speed you have more time to refine and not rush the pull.

[JCN]

1Rangemaster
Gun Nerd

This might be a good time to bring up concealment and why I don’t like it on a test.

On an 8” target at 3 yards I have the following reliable draws:
0.6 open holster, wrists below belt to start
0.8 concealed draw, thin sweater from AIWB with fingers curled.
0.9 concealed draw, thin sweater from AIWB with hands at surrender.

To hit 7 yard USPSA A zone add an extra 0.2 or so in stabilization and sight refinement at the end of the same draw I use for 3 yards. But the basic draw and index is the same except for the end.

But if you ask me to do a concealed draw from a tighter or longer shirt, I would struggle to do it in 1.2 seconds reliably.

The issue wouldn’t be in my draw, it’d be in the concealment garment.

For people without an analytical mind practicing concealment draws, how much is the garment and how much is the draw?

The answer is easy. How fast is the draw?

Basically you need to be able to do draws that fast to have a chance at stabilizing the dot or irons to hit farther things without luck.

Here are some video data.

Open draw:

https://youtu.be/d1wIo3eTIwE

Concealed curled:

https://youtu.be/ul3MslPRmic

Concealed surrender Vice Card:

https://youtu.be/e2sRwwOE550

Concealed surrender:

https://youtu.be/1IVlhKkOs48

If you only watch one video watch this one to the end.
Watch the close versus farther draw. Slow mo is at the end.

https://youtu.be/ubssHruBNmU

[jlw]

A qualification should be shot in the same gear in which one goes on duty. A plainclothes detective should be shooting quals from concealment. Uniform personnel should be shooting from duty gear.

[JCN]

A qualification should be shot in the same gear in which one goes on duty. A plainclothes detective should be shooting quals from concealment. Uniform personnel should be shooting from duty gear.

Says the guy who suggested random scoring sizes and arbitrary points differences.

None of us are on the Bakersfield PD right?

You don’t carry a revolver on duty, right?

But you were going to run it with one, right?

Get what I’m putting down? We here are using it for something different than our work duty qual.

And I totally disagree about your qual statement.

For official purposes should qualify with the gear that is described in the qualification standard IMO.

Doesn’t matter if they are currently plainclothes and it’s a duty standard. They should qualify with the gear they are standard mandated.

They should KNOW AND PRACTICE with the gear they have to carry on particular assignments and know how much time they give up for each scenario.

But they absolutely shouldn’t have to qualify with a 380 bodyguard hidden on their ankle.

[jlw]

I qualify with a revolver each year and carry one when in Class A uniform for ceremonial functions (except I haven't gone to get one of the new Class A uniforms yet).

GA POST, the FBI, and FLETC have all deemed me worthy to sign off on quals. Quals should be shot in the manner in which the person goes on duty.

[JCN]

I qualify with a revolver each year and carry one when in Class A uniform for ceremonial functions (except I haven't gone to get one of the new Class A uniforms yet).

GA POST, the FBI, and FLETC have all deemed me worthy to sign off on quals. Quals should be shot in the manner in which the person goes on duty.

Do you qualify with semi auto standard or revolver standards? I’m assuming semiauto standards from what you suggested before.

Do the official qualification documentation materials say that about gear? Asking because I don’t know.

Would love to hear the actual wording and would love your opinion on how much gaming goes on for quals versus what people actually wear plainclothes and concealed.

[JCN]

I guess with the entry level FBI and FLETC quals they’re so low standard for qualification that you could pass it from an ankle holster. I can pass the 50 round FBI course in within time with 50/50 score with an 8 shot revolver including reload strings.

75188

[JCN]

There is a huge difference between the remedial FBI and FLETC standards

And the Bakersfield PD qualification.

It’s like the difference between a C class shooter and an A class shooter.

There’s tons of slop in the remedial qualification times.

But with a more stringent time frame, the Bakersfield is tighter to make 100 pts and there isn’t a lot of slop there.

If testing a difficult test, it should be run as described for apples to apples testing.

Would be interested to know what kinds of equipment differences were mandated for this.

[Wheeler]

I guess with the entry level FBI and FLETC quals they’re so low standard for qualification that you could pass it from an ankle holster. I can pass the 50 round FBI course in within time with 50/50 score with an 8 shot revolver including reload strings.

75188

What brand ankle holster do you use with that N frame?

[JCN]

What brand ankle holster do you use with that N frame?

Haha. I used an AIWB holster when I ran it.

It would definitely cost me points having to draw from ankle but I’m sure I could still make 80% on the test. Have you run it? It’s pretty ridiculous. I ran it once with a pair of NAA Minis.

[jlw]

Do you qualify with semi auto standard or revolver standards? I’m assuming semiauto standards from what you suggested before.

Do the official qualification documentation materials say that about gear? Asking because I don’t know.

Would love to hear the actual wording and would love your opinion on how much gaming goes on for quals versus what people actually wear plainclothes and concealed.

Until 1/1/21, the GA qual was revolver neutral. The course that went into effect on 1/1/21 has "Semi Auto" in the title. It's not revolver neutral, but it can be shot with a revolver provided the shooter is smart enough to count. The old course can be shot as an alternate.

As the "as you go on duty" is the accepted standard, I don't see much gaming as far as gear is concerned.

[JCN]

75192

Here’s part of the course description.

“Range attire and police duty gear.”

I’m assuming that police duty gear means either Level 3 holster or concealed if plainclothes?

Time wise either adds about 0.2 so it’s a wash.

But the time standards are DOUBLE of the Bakersfield.
Draw and 2 rounds in 3 seconds as opposed to 1.5 seconds.

[jlw]

75192

Here’s part of the course description.

I'm well aware of the course. I've run it numerous times prepping jail staff for the academy. I was also previously on the board of directors for the statewide firearms instructor association.

The course and its predecessor are a woefully lacking. You can miss the target completely six times and still "qualify".

The state academy mandates at least a level-II for cadets. After that, the standard practice is to qualify as you go on duty.

[JCN]

Until 1/1/21, the GA qual was revolver neutral. The course that went into effect on 1/1/21 has "Semi Auto" in the title. It's not revolver neutral, but it can be shot with a revolver provided the shooter is smart enough to count. The old course can be shot as an alternate.

As the "as you go on duty" is the accepted standard, I don't see much gaming as far as gear is concerned.

I appreciate your even temperament and the education.

For the Bakersfield course of fire it should be shot with the target sizes and points scoring as described and shot from 1980s duty gear with iron sight 1911s for it to be accurate.

For people not on Bakersfield PD, it should be shot as you see fit. :D

[JCN]

I'm well aware of the course. I've run it numerous times prepping jail staff for the academy. I was also previously on the board of directors for the statewide firearms instructor association.

The standard practice is that you qualify as you would go on duty.

Thanks! I replied before I saw your reply.

[jlw]

I appreciate your even temperament and the education.

For the Bakersfield course of fire it should be shot with the target sizes and points scoring as described and shot from 1980s duty gear with iron sight 1911s for it to be accurate.

For people not on Bakersfield PD, it should be shot as you see fit. :D


Thanks! I replied before I saw your reply.

You replied as I was editing my post. I'll elaborate a little.

The state run academies mandate at least level-2 duty gear. Each agency determines it's own gear, and some leave it up to individual personnel; others require everyone to use the same thing.

My initial agency required everyone to use a Safariland 070, but they have since replaced that with with an SLS/ALS. My current agency purchases SLS/ALS holsters, but personnel can choose something else at their own cost and with approval.

[Gun Nerd]

For the Bakersfield course of fire it should be shot with the target sizes and points scoring as described and shot from 1980s duty gear with iron sight 1911s for it to be accurate.

For people not on Bakersfield PD, it should be shot as you see fit. :D

Reading the article closely, you should also be able to shoot it with a first generation Smith auto, probably with an out-of-the-box trigger and plain black sights - which makes it an even more impressive standard. All of you shooting with red nail polish on your sights are cheating.

On the other hand, it was likely timed with a stopwatch, which introduces a whole different slop factor.

[Gun Nerd]

For the Bakersfield course of fire it should be shot with the target sizes and points scoring as described and shot from 1980s duty gear with iron sight 1911s for it to be accurate.

For people not on Bakersfield PD, it should be shot as you see fit. :D

Reading the article closely, you should also be able to shoot it with a first generation Smith auto, probably with an out-of-the-box trigger and plain black sights - which makes it an even more impressive standard. All of you shooting with red nail polish on your sights are cheating.

On the other hand, it was likely timed with a stopwatch, which introduces a whole different slop factor.

[Gun Nerd]

For the Bakersfield course of fire it should be shot with the target sizes and points scoring as described and shot from 1980s duty gear with iron sight 1911s for it to be accurate.

For people not on Bakersfield PD, it should be shot as you see fit. :D

Reading the article closely, you should also be able to shoot it with a first generation Smith auto, probably with an out-of-the-box trigger and plain black sights - which makes it an even more impressive standard. All of you shooting with red nail polish on your sights are cheating.

On the other hand, it was likely timed with a stopwatch, which introduces a whole different slop factor.

[JCN]

Reading the article closely, you should also be able to shoot it with a first generation Smith auto, probably with an out-of-the-box trigger and plain black sights - which makes it an even more impressive standard. All of you shooting with red nail polish on your sights are cheating.

On the other hand, it was likely timed with a stopwatch, which introduces a whole different slop factor.

“Pretty quickly the switch was made to 9mm Smith and Wesson Model 59 autopistols, and later, in the 1980s, to the 1911A1 Colt 45’s that Mike initially recommended (in Milt Sparks leather no less). Then, approximately ten years after that, the department switched again, to Glocks, first in .40 S&W, now 9mm. But the hardware is not generally the most important factor in a gunfight. It’s usually “the nut behind the bolt,” and that is where Mike made his bones.”

It sounded like when Mike established the COF they switched to 1911s in leather holsters?

I don’t own any duty holsters for 1911s but I do have some for 40 cal Glocks….

Can anyone tell me what retention systems were used for 1911s in the 80s and Glocks in the early 90s before SLS?

[Gun Nerd]

Sorry for the repeat posts - I was getting an error message.

[Gun Nerd]

[I][SIZE=3]

It sounded like when Mike established the COF they switched to 1911s in leather holsters?



The fact that the COF includes a different time standard for revolvers suggests either that the standard was set when revolvers were standard issue, or that officers were able to stay with older guns when transitions occurred.

I need to try it with a K-frame.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I'm going to throw out the idea of adding 0.3 seconds to all the drills on this. This course was timed with a stop watch/whistle system and the lack of consistency and precision with that is well known. Chuck Taylor, whom I had lots of training time with, would fudge that system of timing up or down depending on who was shooting and how much he liked them! When shot timers came along, lots of those "standards" didn't hold up under the precision of the timer. The standards of performance are achievable by most folks who work at it and with 0.3 second added, I think it's reflective of what they were doing at BPD. Regarding the target, all we have are guesses, so I'd think an 8" circle is pretty reasonable and is also a well accepted accuracy standard.

[Gun Nerd]

I'm going to throw out the idea of adding 0.3 seconds to all the drills on this. This course was timed with a stop watch/whistle system and the lack of consistency and precision with that is well known.

Interesting - I had wondered what adjustment might be appropriate. (When Wayne talks about old-school police training, we're well advised to listen.)

For evaluation, here's how that would affect scoring of my two attempts so far, both with my Beretta PX4CC:

Attempt 1 (outdoors, bright sun, AIWB under a button-down; times include a badly fouled draw at 20')



Distance
Time
Orig. penalty
+0.3 penalty


10'
2.00
-2
-1


20'
3.13
-5
-4


30'
6.96
-4
-3


60'
3.86
-2
-1


TOTAL

-13
-9


Raw points - 88

75
79



Second attempt (indoor range, AIWB under an untucked polo shirt; times include a moderately fouled reload):



Distance
Time
Orig. penalty
+0.3 penalty


10'
2.08
-3
-2


20'
2.07
-1
0


30'
7.51
-7
-5


60'
4.38
-4
-3


TOTAL

-15
-10


Raw points - 95

80
85



If you take my best accuracy and times from both runs, I'd get an 86 under the original penalties and a 90 under Wayne's proposal. That's a nice, realistic short-term goal. The most important steps for improvement would be to improve my draw speed (getting it consistently under 1.75 to the first shot at 10-20'), clean up my reloads, and get more consistent accuracy at 60'. All of those steps square well with my observations from other training.

[Wayne Dobbs]

(When Wayne talks about old-school police training, we're well advised to listen.)


Clearly, a double edged quote there! I appreciate the experience and knowledge that I have, but realize it comes at the cost of realizing I'm being seen as old!

[Gun Nerd]

Clearly, a double edged quote there! I appreciate the experience and knowledge that I have, but realize it comes at the cost of realizing I'm being seen as old!

One can be well versed in history without being old. At age 55, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

[1Rangemaster]

“Pretty quickly the switch was made to 9mm Smith and Wesson Model 59 autopistols, and later, in the 1980s, to the 1911A1 Colt 45’s that Mike initially recommended (in Milt Sparks leather no less). Then, approximately ten years after that, the department switched again, to Glocks, first in .40 S&W, now 9mm. But the hardware is not generally the most important factor in a gunfight. It’s usually “the nut behind the bolt,” and that is where Mike made his bones.”

It sounded like when Mike established the COF they switched to 1911s in leather holsters?

I don’t own any duty holsters for 1911s but I do have some for 40 cal Glocks….

Can anyone tell me what retention systems were used for 1911s in the 80s and Glocks in the early 90s before SLS?

Howdy. To respond to your questions, my recollection is that generally speaking a thumb break was used in many designs. There was a slant forward holster for 1911s with a “wipe off” strap. The strap snapped on the outside of the holster and had an extension below the button. On the draw, the edge of the hand wiped the strap up and off. There was a screw tensioner also.
I recall the Safariland 070 in the 90s. No bale, sometimes a thumb break, it had a strap behind the holster which unlocked it. I found it awkward, but some did very well with it.
Others may remember more. We live in a time now with exceptional molded holsters. With the pistols, lights (and lasers)dot sights and high performance ammo, it would be amazing to old timers…

[JCN]

75416

I bought one of these off Amazon for $6.

It’ll let me draw circles of any diameter for one off tests and standards.

Hold center with Glock tool or punch from my range bag and rotate around with an ultra fine sharpie.

Scoring line drawn in 5 seconds.

[John Hearne]

Seems like a 7" circle on a sheet of legal paper would be damn close.

If only Word allowed you to specify a paper size and place a 7" circle in the center.....

[Wayne Dobbs]

I shot it twice today using a B-8 repair center. Anything inside the 8 ring was called a 10 and outside but still in rings was a 9. I shot a pair of 99s with the point down shots about 1/4 - 1/2" out (!). No issues with times; shot from Comp-Tac OWB holster and a Gen 5 G-17.

[SCCY Marshal]

Seems like a 7" circle on a sheet of legal paper would be damn close.

If only Word allowed you to specify a paper size and place a 7" circle in the center.....

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQUEJsVspw3GkuB53CXycMVkK5HgLPknM7WgE2sLcMSzT?fil ename=7inCirc.pdf

I quickly used Draw from Libre Office (a free program suite).

[jlw]

Seems like a 7" circle on a sheet of legal paper would be damn close.

If only Word allowed you to specify a paper size and place a 7" circle in the center.....

I made one in Publisher that will print on 11x17 paper, complete with the other outline, but I'll probably just play with it on existing targets for personal edification.

[SCCY Marshal]

Whoops, missed the legal-size stipulation. Here is a 7" grey circle centered on a legal sheet:

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeGpTBgzYSjLCnGGewuxRTPA1Yj2jCRYEsjkdjNF8HzM6?fil ename=7inLegal.pdf

[JCN]

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQUEJsVspw3GkuB53CXycMVkK5HgLPknM7WgE2sLcMSzT?fil ename=7inCirc.pdf

I quickly used Draw from Libre Office (a free program suite).

That’s helpful, thanks! The letter paper one is probably most useful since people could print that out and if a shot was within 1/4” of sides or 1” from the top/bottom that would do it.

Edited for proper dimensions, sorry!

[SCCY Marshal]

Deleted for wrong dimensions.

[JCN]

11"x17" sheet with 10.5"x11.5" box and 7" circle:
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/Qma958FiEKmL6Yd9epGvPMTFNcUei4Ddr3JvGhxURcWP7a?fil ename=10.5x11.5with7inCircle_On11x17.pdf

Should be a 9x13” box with a 7” circle if we are trying to reproduce the original target dimensions as per the article.

I typoed the top/bottom versus sides in my previous post, sorry!

[SCCY Marshal]

Should be a 9x13” box with a 7” circle if we are trying to reproduce the original target dimensions as per the article.

I typoed the top/bottom versus sides in my previous post, sorry!

Done and I need a life:
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmPEKMZTjyZxVLNXagZSC2DnLU4o231SQMcbUxEPqeFoQR?fil ename=9x13Box7inCircleOn11x17.pdf

[Gun Nerd]

I shot it twice today using a B-8 repair center. Anything inside the 8 ring was called a 10 and outside but still in rings was a 9. I shot a pair of 99s with the point down shots about 1/4 - 1/2" out (!). No issues with times; shot from Comp-Tac OWB holster and a Gen 5 G-17.

Wayne, did you use the original par times or add the .3? Or did it not matter?

[Wayne Dobbs]

Wayne, did you use the original par times or add the .3? Or did it not matter?

I ran the drills without a par set and met all the original times on both runs.

[Gun Nerd]

I ran the drills without a par set and met all the original times on both runs.

Thanks. The scores posted here certainly seem to be validating that 100-point level as a mark of highly skilled shooters.

[Gun Nerd]

Two more runs tonight - PX4CC, AIWB under a polo shirt, indoor range.

The first run included a horrifically fouled draw at 20’ and an incompletely seated magazine at 60’ that required a tap-rack to fix. On the upside, I was really happy with my performance on the other strings. Final score - 72 by the original par times, 77 if you add Wayne’s 0.3.

75615

The second run was pretty good, except for an even more fouled reload and an unintentional headshot at 60’. Technically it’s on the silhouette but really it should be a -10. Final score accepting it as an on-target hit would be 76 by the original par times and a squeaker pass at 80 if you allow the extra 0.3.

75616

Overall, what I continue to see here is that if I can manage to avoid disaster, I’m a mid-80s shooter with the original par times. In the future, I don’t think I’ll worry about the extra 0.3 - to quote Barbie, math is hard and I’m only worried about tracking improvement. I can always just add 4 points to approximate a stopwatch-and-whistle score.

[JCN]

Are you using the as described 7” circle for 10 points or are you using 8”?

[Gun Nerd]

Are you using the as described 7” circle for 10 points or are you using 8”?

I’m scoring 10 points for shots completely inside the 8-ring, and 9 points elsewhere on or touching the repair center.

[That Guy]

Told you all it might take a while...

I shot this qualification with my PX4. Now, the last time I actually fired this pistol was in July, however I do dry practice with this pistol fairly often. I did manage to get to the range during early August, but as I was on my holiday I took a holiday from serious business guns too, only shooting revolvers and my lever action rifle. After my holiday it has been difficult to get to the range, as either it's booked solid, the weather isn't co-operating, or both, so it has been over a month since my last range trip. In fact the pistol bays were booked full today as well, but since we've been getting more rain I suspected the people who booked the bays won't actually stay there shooting until closing time, and I was right. Got a bay for about an hour - and what's more it hardly rained at all during that time! Prior to shooting this, the only gun manipulation I did was to load and holster my pistol - so I would say I shot this pretty cold.

Since this is a PD qualification, I thought my 6005 would be a suitable holster. I did use a Blue Force Gear elastic magazine pouch for my reload though, I realize that's pretty much cheating but that's the first reload pouch I have on my kit.

As I said, I shot this cold after an extended break from shooting. I must say I was quite surprised by the results - I fully expected to fail. However, I don't think I did too poorly, at least for me:

String 1: 1.62s
String 2: 1.91s
String 3: 5.28s
String 4: 3.32s

Of course looking at the target one can't help but notice I was too lazy to bother converting inches to centimeters, messing with a ruler and string, and so forth, opting instead to just put an IDPA target up and get on with the shooting. So I guess I suck and my results are meaningless. :p Still though, I found this a fairly interesting exercise and like I said, I was quite surprised by my results.

76984

By my count, I believe I dropped two points on my marksmanship and lost one more point for going over the time limit on the first string, giving me a final score of 97. I'll take it!

[AMC]

Shot this yesterday. Tried printing out SCCY Marshals solution, but it wouldn't open on my desktop. Went to grab a legal sized paper from the printer.....out. Ended up using one of our Qualification targets. The 'bottle' type silhouette is about 20% larger than a USPSA Metric "C" zone. The score zones are a 5" circle in the center surrounded by a 9" circle. Used those as my 10 and 9 score zones. Yes.....not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but at least the score zones were tighter, not looser. Didn't feel like I was "cheating".

Shot it with a P320 Pro Fullsize 9mm with Streamlight TLR-1HL out of a Blackhawk T Series L3D holster. Used the listed par times. Ammo was Federal AE 124 grain.

First two strings went over time (1.61 and 2.22) because of slightly fumbled draws in the morning. And threw 4 outside of the 5" 10 ring I was using. I could do better....but I'm no GM level shooter.

Interesting little test. Very efficient. It's given me some ideas on how to do something similar with our folks, within our current resources and abilities.

[John Hearne]

Shot it the other day as my cold test. Used an IDPA cardboard target and the legal paper with 7" circle. My first run was 97 points. I was late (1.69 seconds) at 10 feet and then dropped two rounds out of the 7" circle but on the paper. I shot it again and still ended at 97 points. I ended up with too much time left over on the other stages and had the time to make hits in the 7" circle. For 10 rounds, its a decent test.

[Wayne Dobbs]

The more I look this over and think on it, the more I question some of the target dimensions. To my knowledge (and I was a serving cop and competitive shooter then), there were no 7" circle targets in LE use in the 1970s. The old Colt silhouette had an 8" X-ring inside a huge bottle zone and the Gunsite/API target of the day had a 10" (!) circle for the full count zone. Of course the major use LE target of the day was the barn-door sized B27 with a huge full count zone for qualification scoring and an elliptical 4" x 6" 10 ring for PPC scoring, surrounded by progressively larger 9, 8 and 7 rings.

Waidelich's recollections that the circle was about 7" and the outer zone was about 9" x 13" don't match up with any target in common use at that time. Which brings me to an easy and convenient comfort zone of using a B-8 repair center's 8 ring (also 8" in diameter) for 10 point scoring and the rest of the target paper for 9 points. The repair center is 10.5" x 10.5", which is 110.25 square inches and is smaller than the previously stated 9 x 13 zone, which gives us 117 square inches of total area. I think that gives us a usable target that matches up well and is likely a bit more difficult overall.

Also, for you guys out there working this course from concealment, the goal of the BPD qualification was to test street officers in uniform wearing high ride thumb break holsters with mostly 1911 pistols. So, if you duplicate that with an open carry ALS type holster or war belt holster the times and accuracy standards should gel nicely. I've shot it several times with the above conditions and have a couple of 100s and several 99s. I think it's a great course for today with appropriate memories of some great old time cops killin' LA bad guys.

[AMC]

I think there are several attractive things about this type of test. One is that it has both marksmanship and weapon manipulation standards that are somewhat demanding. It is also short, in both ammo use and time used. That makes it very efficient. The rest of your alloted range time and ammo, even if limited, could be spent on training.

The downside for larger agencies is that you can't really run multiple shooters simultaneously. It's a one-shooter at a time deal. Now, that let's you use the "Hit-Factor-Like" scoring that Bakersfield used...but if you're trying to qualify 20 cops at a time, suddenly the efficiency in time used drops away.

I still think this type of test has merit. Anybody who's been in the business have ideas about how to adapt this type of thing to larger agencies? Looking at you, Wayne....

And Jason says Hi.

[AMC]

Shot it the other day as my cold test. Used an IDPA cardboard target and the legal paper with 7" circle. My first run was 97 points. I was late (1.69 seconds) at 10 feet and then dropped two rounds out of the 7" circle but on the paper. I shot it again and still ended at 97 points. I ended up with too much time left over on the other stages and had the time to make hits in the 7" circle. For 10 rounds, its a decent test.

John, how do you feel about the accuracy/par time standards for an in service qual? I still have concerns about time efficiency when running large groups of people, but also about realistic standards with patrol officers today using modern guns and holsters.

For example, I'd be wildly ecstatic if we could get everyone to qual on this course with a full 50% added to the par times....

[JCN]

The downside for larger agencies is that you can't really run multiple shooters simultaneously. It's a one-shooter at a time deal. Now, that let's you use the "Hit-Factor-Like" scoring that Bakersfield used...but if you're trying to qualify 20 cops at a time, suddenly the efficiency in time used drops away.

I still think this type of test has merit. Anybody who's been in the business have ideas about how to adapt this type of thing to larger agencies? Looking at you, Wayne....

And Jason says Hi.

If you don’t mind my trying to help:

Could you do it with turning targets that only present within a certain amount of time in order to have multiple people at the line?

Is there a requirement to run everyone completely through a qual before moving onto the next person or could you run 50 people through the 10 foot string, then move everyone to the next distance, etc?

If no turning targets could set an over time par buzzer and remediate anyone not making that time with an individual time scored HF. Might motivate them to not get called out (but could get you in trouble in this HR world for making them feel badly about themselves).

[John Hearne]

John, how do you feel about the accuracy/par time standards for an in service qual? I still have concerns about time efficiency when running large groups of people, but also about realistic standards with patrol officers today using modern guns and holsters.
For example, I'd be wildly ecstatic if we could get everyone to qual on this course with a full 50% added to the par times....

I shot it from my duty rig which an ALS-only holster and open top magazine pouches. The only time I felt pressed for was the first stage.

I'd offer that officers should be able to keep rounds on the legal paper. If you miss the 7" circle every time, you're just down 10 points. If you lose 20 points for time, that's five seconds to add to the par times. That's 70% easily available and some rounds should be able to land in the 7" circle for some wiggle room.

This qual has two things going for it. First, it sets a very reasonable standard for performance for those who care. 80% seems like a reasonable goal for those with a little dedication. Second, it is a historical standard so it has credibility. People used to be held to these standards, with old guns and holsters - why can't you?

Regarding running larger groups, I'm not sure what larger means. When I run our quals on a shot timer, I call the stage & strings and then move from shooter to shooter. I don't brief everyone of them. For instance, ours starts at the three yard line with three rounds in three seconds. This is repeated twice. I walk up to a shooter, ask if they're ready, and then trigger the timer. Repeat for the second three rounds. Then I move to the next shooter. You can qualify a decent number of folks like this while maintaining high accountability for time.

If it's a lot of folks, the have two folks with timers. Start on on the far left and the second in the middle. Alternate "turns" and shift to the right after a shooter finishes.

[AMC]

I shot it from my duty rig which an ALS-only holster and open top magazine pouches. The only time I felt pressed for was the first stage.

I'd offer that officers should be able to keep rounds on the legal paper. If you miss the 7" circle every time, you're just down 10 points. If you lose 20 points for time, that's five seconds to add to the par times. That's 70% easily available and some rounds should be able to land in the 7" circle for some wiggle room.

This qual has two things going for it. First, it sets a very reasonable standard for performance for those who care. 80% seems like a reasonable goal for those with a little dedication. Second, it is a historical standard so it has credibility. People used to be held to these standards, with old guns and holsters - why can't you?

Regarding running larger groups, I'm not sure what larger means. When I run our quals on a shot timer, I call the stage & strings and then move from shooter to shooter. I don't brief everyone of them. For instance, ours starts at the three yard line with three rounds in three seconds. This is repeated twice. I walk up to a shooter, ask if they're ready, and then trigger the timer. Repeat for the second three rounds. Then I move to the next shooter. You can qualify a decent number of folks like this while maintaining high accountability for time.

If it's a lot of folks, the have two folks with timers. Start on on the far left and the second in the middle. Alternate "turns" and shift to the right after a shooter finishes.

Larger groups for us would be 20 shooters at a time on the line for a qual. We use shot timers on drills and exercises in In Service Perishable Skills training, and for Basic Academy stuff. Our Qual is a typical "X number of rounds in X number of seconds at the Y yard line" type of qual. Currently 37 rounds (full duty load out). We have made incremental changes to the time and accuracy standards, but the whole thing just isn't serving anyone well.

JCN, yes, we do have turning targets. Only issue there is you can't just deduct points for going over par. It's a miss now. Also, our "Upgraded" Meggitt AA2 Target systems software only allows full seconds on the timer. The old program, which is still on the hard drive, allowed .25 second increments. Not sure what'll happen if we reload the old program. Have to give Meggitt...or Inverys or whatever they are now a call.

I have some ideas about how we can implement some of the concepts here, but I wanted to see what some other folks thought. Thanks for the input guys.1

[WobblyPossum]

If you don’t mind my trying to help:

Could you do it with turning targets that only present within a certain amount of time in order to have multiple people at the line?

Is there a requirement to run everyone completely through a qual before moving onto the next person or could you run 50 people through the 10 foot string, then move everyone to the next distance, etc?

If no turning targets could set an over time par buzzer and remediate anyone not making that time with an individual time scored HF. Might motivate them to not get called out (but could get you in trouble in this HR world for making them feel badly about themselves).

This wouldn’t really work with turning targets because the scoring allows shots over the par time. Shots you didn’t get off within the par would not automatically lose full value scoring. Increasing the time the targets face the shooter to allow overtime shots would cause a different issue because then you couldn’t account for which shots were overtime. This would work fine with turning targets if you changed the scoring and any shot fired after the par time counted as a 0/miss.

[JCN]

JCN, yes, we do have turning targets. Only issue there is you can't just deduct points for going over par. It's a miss now. Also, our "Upgraded" Meggitt AA2 Target systems software only allows full seconds on the timer. The old program, which is still on the hard drive, allowed .25 second increments. Not sure what'll happen if we reload the old program. Have to give Meggitt...or Inverys or whatever they are now a call.

I have some ideas about how we can implement some of the concepts here, but I wanted to see what some other folks thought. Thanks for the input guys.1

My thoughts were along the lines of:

Part of what made Bakersfield viable was the competition aspect where you got people’s pride and ego into wanting to get better in front of their peers. I don’t know if you can do that in today’s touchy feely era, but if you can do it in a nice way what I envisioned was:

Run 10-15 people on first string with turning target set to par plus a little grace wiggle room.

Anyone who fails to make time gets put into the “individual timed pool.”

Run the remaining on the subsequent strings, culling out the people who didn’t make time into the individual time pool.

So you could test all the high functioning people together en masse and only have to do individual time testing for the people who can’t make time.

On subsequent quals, you group all the high functioners together and try and motivate the culled individual people to practice so they can get into the high functioned pool.

Maybe that’s unnecessarily complex. But if I were in the individual times pool, I’d have enough pride that I’d practice to try not and get singled out the next time.

Just spitballing trying to help.

[JCN]

This wouldn’t really work with turning targets because the scoring allows shots over the par time. Shots you didn’t get off within the par would not automatically lose full value scoring. Increasing the time the targets face the shooter to allow overtime shots would cause a different issue because then you couldn’t account for which shots were overtime. This would work fine with turning targets if you changed the scoring and any shot fired after the par time counted as a 0/miss.

See below.

Basically if you make time you can stay in the group.

If you miss time then you go to the “you repeat the string and shoot by yourself on a timer while everyone watches you so we can score your overtime shots.”

It’d allow you to group shoot a bunch of people at once and only individually overtime timer a small group.

[JCN]

Say you have 20 people on the line for string one and give them 2 seconds of turning target exposure.

Everyone makes time except for shooter #4 and 6.

They get pulled aside and wait.

The other 18 go on to string 2. Everyone makes time except for shooter #2.

He gets pulled aside and waits with #4 and #6.

You do string 3-5 and shooters #7, 10, 12 fail to make time.

You make a squad of shooters #2,4,6,7,10,12 and run them through the whole COF timing individually.

Next quarter for qual,
You keep #2,4,6,7,10,12 in a separate group to time individually and hope that they practiced at home in the meantime so they could make time this time.

If they do, then they can join the top group on the next qual.

[AMC]

JCN....thanks for the input. Some interesting ideas there. I like the out of the box thinking. Sometimes you need to hear from folks who've done it for years, and sometimes it's good to hear from folks who've never done it, if only to ask "Why not?"

[WobblyPossum]

JCN I like the idea after you provided a little more detail. It would work with turning targets that way. It would also provide a lot of pressure for that second group which is lacking from quals. I’ve found that forcing people to perform in front of their peers adds more pressure than they’re likely to see in almost any other kind of training.

[JCN]

JCN....thanks for the input. Some interesting ideas there. I like the out of the box thinking. Sometimes you need to hear from folks who've done it for years, and sometimes it's good to hear from folks who've never done it, if only to ask "Why not?"


JCN I like the idea after you provided a little more detail. It would work with turning targets that way. It would also provide a lot of pressure for that second group which is lacking from quals. I’ve found that forcing people to perform in front of their peers adds more pressure than they’re likely to see in almost any other kind of training.

I think in the current climate, the key would be to motivate rather than humiliate and for the remedial group to give them a path to improve (like showing them dry fire apps and writing a small dry fire program for them to improve).

If you guys can use any help designing dry programs I’m pretty good at that and would be happy to help.

[jlw]

I was at the range today working with a pre-service cadet and during a break decided to make a run at the Bakersfield qual. We already had some of my TxT targets up; so, I just shot it on that.

All of the rounds hit in the 4x6 rectangle.

I was using a Comp-tac paddle holster; thus, no retention. I was over by .01 on the first string but beat all of the other times to the point that I would have gotten them from a duty holster, easily. For example, the 2-reload-2 string in six seconds at 30 feet was completed in 4.53.

For the rank and file, I think the time could get sporty when using level-3 retention holsters.

[That Guy]

In the name of honesty, I did the same drill a second time and the results were less flattering. I fumbled with not only the reload but every single draw. During string 3, because I messed up my reload and was in a hurry I even managed to yank a shot right into the lawyer zone. :mad: Very much not my best performance, but regrettably this might be a more accurate representation of my on-demand skills.

Same gun, same kit, more or less even the same weather. So what caused the difference? Being tired, hurried, a bit under the weather... Little things like that.

String 1: 2.12 (Holy fucking fumble, Batman!)
String 2: 2.02 (Damnit, so close...)
String 3: 5.38 (So why was I in such a hurry with that one shot..?)
String 4: 3.72 (At this point I don't even.)

77566

By my count I'm down 11 points, giving me a score of 89. Sucks, but it is what it is.

[Gun Nerd]

Which brings me to an easy and convenient comfort zone of using a B-8 repair center's 8 ring (also 8" in diameter) for 10 point scoring and the rest of the target paper for 9 points. The repair center is 10.5" x 10.5", which is 110.25 square inches and is smaller than the previously stated 9 x 13 zone, which gives us 117 square inches of total area. I think that gives us a usable target that matches up well and is likely a bit more difficult overall.

Also, for you guys out there working this course from concealment, the goal of the BPD qualification was to test street officers in uniform wearing high ride thumb break holsters with mostly 1911 pistols. So, if you duplicate that with an open carry ALS type holster or war belt holster the times and accuracy standards should gel nicely. I've shot it several times with the above conditions and have a couple of 100s and several 99s. I think it's a great course for today with appropriate memories of some great old time cops killin' LA bad guys.

I hadn't shot this drill for quite a while and thought it would fit the bill for today's session with a friend. I haven't had any live fire for a month, and very little dry.

As with all previous runs, I used a B-8, stapled to a TQ-21 and scored as above. I shot a PX4CC in a JM Custom AIWB under an untucked button-down.

My raw points were 94 -- couple low right out of the black, and one up in the collarbone area from not letting the sights settle at 60 feet. I had 15 seconds worth of penalties: -3 at 10, -2 at 20, -8 at 30 (not fouled, just rusty), and -2 at 60 (a pleasant surprise). That's a final score of 79. Give me +4 to adjust for electronic timing and I passed at 83.

Due to unavoidable events, we knew we had to keep the session short, so because we were both pretty happy with our scores, we moved on. Shot the Vickers 300 as a pure accuracy benchmark, and a quick Vickers carbine drill.

The more I think about this one, the more I think I may just add 0.5 to all the par times to allow for the combination of electronic timing and concealment. Wayne, does that make sense to you given your comment about high ride holsters above?

[WobblyPossum]

I’ve become a huge fan of this test and have been using it as my cold drill when I first get to the range. I’m normally shooting at B8 repair centers printed on 8.5x11” copy paper that are glued to an IDPA or USPSA target. I score it the way Tom Givens wrote when it was a drill of the month in the Rangemaster Newsletter: 10 points for anything within the 8 ring, 8 points for anything outside of the 8 ring but still within the paper, and 6 points for anything off the paper but within the silhouette. I’m leaning towards counting anything within the D/-3 zone as 0 points, though. I’ll give that a try next time and see how it impacts my scoring. I’m normally good for something in the low to mid 90s from concealment or from my warrant gear. From concealment I can generally pass the 10 foot stage without losing points to overtime penalties. I can’t guarantee it from my warrant gear, a Safariland 7365 RDS. I’m definitely slower out of the ALS/SLS holster than I used to be back when I worked uniformed patrol. Back then I was always practicing defeating the retention and acquiring a master grip though. Nowadays I rarely wear that rig. I’ll generally lose some points to overtime penalties when using it. I actually find the 60 foot stage the hardest. I can score okay on a B8 at 20-25 yards if I’m doing slow fire but the accuracy declines heavily when I’m adding speed.

I like a lot of things about this course of fire. I’m a fan of the low round count it requires as well, especially in these times of high ammo prices. I like how the time standards are generally not gimmes. I like that it’s testing every string from the draw, which makes it more applicable to CCW folks. I like that it throws a reload into one string, but not in such a way that it heavily weighs scoring towards people who spend a crap-ton of time practicing reloads like tests like the FAST do. 2 reload 2 from the draw in 6 seconds isn’t a blazing fast standard but you also can’t make it if your reloads are so poorly practiced that you’re dropping spare mags on the floor as you try to index them.

[Gun Nerd]

The more I think about this one, the more I think I may just add 0.5 to all the par times to allow for the combination of electronic timing and concealment. Wayne, does that make sense to you given your comment about high ride holsters above?

I took Wayne's thumbs-up as an endorsement, so implemented this change starting with my session last week. As usual, I used a B-8C on a TQ-21. I was on fire as to accuracy (only two rounds out of the bull, both on the paper) and only missed the adjusted par times at 10' (-1) and 30' (-3). So I had a raw score of 98 and an adjusted 94. I didn't write down my times, but think my score with unadjusted times would have been in the high 80s.

I do think the longer par times took off a little bit of the mental pressure, so may have helped my accuracy. Since I want high accountability for shots fired, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Starting the session with Chuck Pressburg's "No Fail" drill may have helped, too (even though I only got two hits in the black within the par time.)

Continuing the accuracy theme, I finished with the FBI Bullseye course, which I tanked by going way too fast at 15 yards, for a final score of 236. (On the first timed-fire stage, I shot a nice 2" group at 6 o'clock in the 7 ring. Move it up 3" and I would have scored 251.)

[JCN]

https://youtu.be/UCRhhhU3Wi4

[WobblyPossum]

The more I shoot this test, the more I like it. I’m quite happy with some variation of it as a cold standard. If I can get to the point where I can clean it, I’ll probably up the difficulty a little bit by shrinking the target/scoring zones. I generally score in the high 90s.

[Gun Nerd]

https://youtu.be/UCRhhhU3Wi4

The observations in the video about electronic timing and concealment are exactly consistent with the discussion here. Scoring as per the IDPA target is a little easier, though. Thanks for posting.

[John Hearne]

I'm really liking this as well. I think the IDPA is a bit too generous. The legal paper with 7" circle is a really good alternative.

I was asked about what to do if you only had 30 rounds to practice with. I suggested running 5 Yard Roundup, The Test, and The Bakersfield Qual. Those 30 rounds cover a lot.

[Gun Nerd]

I'm really liking this as well. I think the IDPA is a bit too generous. The legal paper with 7" circle is a really good alternative.

I was asked about what to do if you only had 30 rounds to practice with. I suggested running 5 Yard Roundup, The Test, and The Bakersfield Qual. Those 30 rounds cover a lot.

I usually look to shoot 50-75 rounds, and it looks a lot like that. If I'm carrying a snubby I might substitute the Wizard Drill and Snubby Super Test, and if I'm struggling with pure marksmanship issues I may add the FBI bullseye course, Vickers 300, or Dave Spaulding's Fade Back drill.

If I've been getting to the range regularly and have the time and ammo and a friend to train with, I'll shoot something sporty like one of the D Platoon quals. I also like Justin Dyal's 10-round Assault Course, but ever since I shot a 99 on it I'm not sure I ever want to try it again.

[JCN]

I'm really liking this as well. I think the IDPA is a bit too generous. The legal paper with 7" circle is a really good alternative.

I was asked about what to do if you only had 30 rounds to TEST with. I suggested running 5 Yard Roundup, The Test, and The Bakersfield Qual. Those 30 rounds cover a lot.

Fixed that for you!

Test versus train is a very important distinction a la this thread:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?54574-When-is-%93missing-%94-not-%93missing%94-a-target&p=1403912&viewfull=1#post1403912

My personal opinion is that people should nail down their index, transitions and draws in dry fire.

That leaves basic recoil management and shot tracking for live fire.

So if I have 30 live fire rounds to train, I’m going to work on doubles and gear changes.

If I have 30 live fire rounds to test, I might do something that confirms what I think I can do dry and then be done with it. Usually something like Garcia dots or some other timed speed vision test.

[psalms144.1]

Shot this today, twice, with my buddy. He outshot me 93/86 when I ran my SRO equipped S2 (STILL not finding that dot under stress), but when I switched to my Staccato C with irons, I beat him 93/80-something. Great test. First engagement is no BS, neither of us got both shots off under time. It's funny when you find shooting 20 yards is the EASY part of the test...

[Noah]

Got to shoot this for the first time today. Very happy with 92 cold!

[Gun Nerd]

Got to shoot this for the first time today. Very happy with 92 cold!

We’ll, your taste in pistols is impeccable.

[Noah]

We’ll, your taste in pistols is impeccable.

https://i.ibb.co/5x7pzrM/20230212-124228.jpg (https://ibb.co/n8WdV7g)


Heavily influenced by Pistol Forum! I tried just about everything. Carried 320 til the 2017 debacle, then Glock, then M&P before I really knew anything. Then a Beretta 92, loved DA/SA, but too big and heavy after a few years. Then Glock for a year with an SCD. Happy with with safety and loved the weight and trim profile, got tired of the grip angle and the inconsistency in trigger from gun to gun. M&P to get a neutral grip angle and better trigger, but thumb safety didn't work for me and wasn't happy with the safety of a single action striker with no SCD or safety, personally.

But the PX4 is Glock weight and slim controls, with neutral grip angle and a silky Beretta 92 trigger. Super happy with them.

[1Rangemaster]

Recording a run that I did a little differently:
Cold from concealment with a GEN5 19 with iron Heinie sights-gold bead front. Scored 86, which would have qualified back in Bakersfield, but I'm slightly disappointed. I like to shoot for 90%+, and I'll put some work in.
The dot is an advantage for me at 60 feet, but I was hammering the trigger a bit and perhaps could tighten up grip.

[John Hearne]

jlw shot the Bakersfield on the original target from legit, closed front, strong side hip carry. He ended up with a 95 and I had a 94. Those times are spicy from concealment. I lost one point on every stage except the last one. I was way too fast and threw one into the 6 ring with over 0.60 to spare.

[jlw]

@jlw (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=136) shot the Bakersfield on the original target from legit, closed front, strong side hip carry. He ended up with a 95 and I had a 94. Those times are spicy from concealment. I lost one point on every stage except the last one. I was way too fast and threw one into the 6 ring with over 0.60 to spare.

I think it was 94 and 93.

My target was clean.

After having done so much the last few years with a PMO and duty/carry sized pistol, I shot it today with an iron sighted G48 cold and scored a 91 with two dropped target points. I was way over on the reload stage. I shot it a second time and beat the par on that stage by 1.42 seconds, but cold performance is what counts.

[JCN]

jlw shot the Bakersfield on the original target from legit, closed front, strong side hip carry. He ended up with a 95 and I had a 94. Those times are spicy from concealment. I lost one point on every stage except the last one. I was way too fast and threw one into the 6 ring with over 0.60 to spare.

I will bet $20 PF that if you do the SWYNTS drill for a few weeks you’ll make time on all stages and shoot closer to 100.

The drill is literally designed to build the index and recoil skills you’ll need to make time confidently.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?55365-See-what-you-need-to-see-training

[1Rangemaster]

So, another cold run for me at the end of a day that was busy. I wanted to compare an optic run with the irons from yesterday. Gen519MOS, ACRO P-2 and TLR8G out of a JMCK IWB, under an open front shirt. Ammo was 147 gr.fmj training ammo.
Result: 94 points, no overtime. The points were lost at 3 yards(!) where in my haste I just hammered the trigger and damn near threw one off target. The next 8 were centered.
I like jlw comment on cold performances being definitive. Might just make that a tag line: “Only cold counts.”
I’d like to get up one morning and shoot a “hunnert”; guess that means some dry practice evening before and a good focus in the AM.
I do think many LE today would be startled by the alacrity necessary, not to mention the precision required.

[JCN]

I like jlw comment on cold performances being definitive. Might just make that a tag line: “Only cold counts.”

While this is true, you don’t want to be able to just Hundo once.
You want to be able to Hundo every… single… time.

So the expansion of that is:

If you can’t do it dry, you can’t do it live.
If you can’t do it open holster in < 1 second, you can’t do it concealed in 1.2 seconds.

Aaaaand we’re back to the ABILITY to do a reproducible close target sub-second draw that you can modify based off vision (SWYNTS) at farther distances for better hits that take more time.

But 10 feet? If you’re not able to sub second open draw, you have virtually no chance of making this string without hosing and hoping. That’s not the goal or the point.

Do the work, gain the skill and you’ll pass the test. Cold.

But if you can’t do it dry….


https://youtu.be/KE_7A-yU4L0


https://youtu.be/R3ZmMr77RxA


https://youtu.be/TPCDqLJgz5U

[JCN]

Since it has been buried a little, here are the target sizes and COF from the article.

104590

104596

You can debate what the original timing equipment and targets were. And you can debate what changes you’d like to make like 8” circles fully inside for convenience instead of 7”.

But if the Rangemaster May DOTY requires drawing a 5” circle on copy paper, I don’t think drawing a 7” circle is a big ask personally.

Just so we are on the same page for what drill we are actually talking about.

[John Hearne]

I'm pretty sure I can share this. jlw talked to someone who had pictures of the true old Bakersfield target. His information was that each shot was worth 10 points. The 10 ring was a 6" circle. The 9 ring was an oval that measured 9x13". Any hit on the silhouette was worth 6 points. I made a Word doc that recreates this and we placed it on an IDPA target. The 6" circle and use of an oval instead of a rectangle cuts down on the scoring areas pretty well.

[Sal Picante]

I'm pretty sure I can share this. jlw talked to someone who had pictures of the true old Bakersfield target. His information was that each shot was worth 10 points. The 10 ring was a 6" circle. The 9 ring was an oval that measured 9x13". Any hit on the silhouette was worth 6 points. I made a Word doc that recreates this and we placed it on an IDPA target. The 6" circle and use of an oval instead of a rectangle cuts down on the scoring areas pretty well.

Now I'm hungry for hard boiled eggs.

[AMC]

I'm pretty sure I can share this. jlw talked to someone who had pictures of the true old Bakersfield target. His information was that each shot was worth 10 points. The 10 ring was a 6" circle. The 9 ring was an oval that measured 9x13". Any hit on the silhouette was worth 6 points. I made a Word doc that recreates this and we placed it on an IDPA target. The 6" circle and use of an oval instead of a rectangle cuts down on the scoring areas pretty well.

Last year when I was still working full time at a range, I had pallets full of our Qual Target to use for various things. Sounds like it was a good approximation after all. The inner chest ring is 5", and the outer ring is 9". Used those as the 10 and 9 point scoring zones. Overall silhouette area was around 20-25% larger than a 'C' Zone. Best I was able to do was a 98 on this target, with a Sig 320 Pro 9mm with TLR 1HL, out of a Blackhawk T Series L3D. When I ran it with our issued gun (Sig P226R .40 with Surefire X300U out of an SLS/ALS holster, I averaged a 91-93.

ETA: the head circle is 4", if anybody cared.

[jlw]

I'm pretty sure I can share this. @jlw (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=136) talked to someone who had pictures of the true old Bakersfield target. His information was that each shot was worth 10 points. The 10 ring was a 6" circle. The 9 ring was an oval that measured 9x13". Any hit on the silhouette was worth 6 points. I made a Word doc that recreates this and we placed it on an IDPA target. The 6" circle and use of an oval instead of a rectangle cuts down on the scoring areas pretty well.

Ken Hackathorn did a video on the Bakersfield Qual. Someone who saw the video sent him pictures of the actual target and the dimensions. He shared it with me.

[jlw]

I shot it again this morning with the 48, cold, from a very close flitting ALS holster. I was cruising along until the final string at which time I flubbed the draw badly and then pulled a shot into the 6-zone. This is the first time I've been over time on that string and the first time I have pulled any shot into the six running this.

I have sad.

[AMC]

I shot it again this morning with the 48, cold, from a very close flitting ALS holster. I was cruising along until the final string at which time I flubbed the draw badly and then pulled a shot into the 6-zone. This is the first time I've been over time on that string and the first time I have pulled any shot into the six running this.

I have sad.

I did it a few times. Always on the last string and usually the last shot fired. Always under par.....way TOO under par. Shooting like a jackass to make the imaginary par time in my head, until I realized how long it really is.

[JCN]

I did it a few times. Always on the last string and usually the last shot fired. Always under par.....way TOO under par. Shooting like a jackass to make the imaginary par time in my head, until I realized how long it really is.

Lol, I went to the range during the kiddo’s gymnastics class today and ran it cold with a 6” circle.

Did exactly what you said and snatched the trigger at 20 just wide for a 99.

104611


https://youtu.be/tOI4aN7iIMo

Super reproducible. I ran it a few more times afterwards and never missed a shot or a par in the first 3 strings.

The 4th string… snatchola sometimes trying to beat a par that didn’t exist lol.

Might have to practice that timing a little bit.

Great drill and the 6” circle tests my long range trigger press that needs work.

[JCN]

For some of the people who haven’t seen the SWYNTS thread and discussion I’ll reiterate here because it absolutely applies to Bakersfield, which was a vetted and proven drill AND test.

Everything should add and scale. But the flipside is if your base mechanics are shaky or slow, then that compounds slowness in all things.

A sub-second open draw confidently on target with index plus minimal vision is a basic skill.

Add extra visual and mechanical stability and refinement for farther and harder targets.

If you look at my Bakersfield strings (top is most recent, bottom is first string):

104627

You can see how each increasing distance took a scaled extra time on top of my base draw and stayed within my skill set.

But if you don’t work your base draw, the others will all suffer.

So sub-second draw is about base mechanics and nobody sane would think that’s the only speed or gear you would have.

Here’s a video from SWYNTS to illustrate:


https://youtu.be/bFkIfPMWihs

Same thing regarding reaction time training.

It’s not about being slaved to a buzzer. That’s just silly.

Fast, confident reaction and execution can be done off any stimulus programmed in.


https://youtu.be/UGFX2b_DsWI

So if you want to be able to execute the first three strings of Bakersfield under par with all your hits… every single time… rather than sometimes or never…

Work on your sub-second index mechanics and work to make them more and more accurate and reproducible at speed and good things will happen.

This is exactly the point of the SWYNTS training 3 yard string. Any skeptics, try it for 2 weeks and rerun the Bakersfield. I suspect you’ll have personal best scores.

[cclark]

Ken Hackathorn did a video on the Bakersfield Qual. Someone who saw the video sent him pictures of the actual target and the dimensions. He shared it with me.

Deleted

[ssb]

For some of the people who haven’t seen the SWYNTS thread and discussion I’ll reiterate here because it absolutely applies to Bakersfield, which was a vetted and proven drill AND test.

Everything should add and scale. But the flipside is if your base mechanics are shaky or slow, then that compounds slowness in all things.

A sub-second open draw confidently on target with index plus minimal vision is a basic skill.

Add extra visual and mechanical stability and refinement for farther and harder targets.

If you look at my Bakersfield strings (top is most recent, bottom is first string):

104627

You can see how each increasing distance took a scaled extra time on top of my base draw and stayed within my skill set.

But if you don’t work your base draw, the others will all suffer.

So sub-second draw is about base mechanics and nobody sane would think that’s the only speed or gear you would have.

Here’s a video from SWYNTS to illustrate:


https://youtu.be/bFkIfPMWihs

Same thing regarding reaction time training.

It’s not about being slaved to a buzzer. That’s just silly.

Fast, confident reaction and execution can be done off any stimulus programmed in.


https://youtu.be/UGFX2b_DsWI

So if you want to be able to execute the first three strings of Bakersfield under par with all your hits… every single time… rather than sometimes or never…

Work on your sub-second index mechanics and work to make them more and more accurate and reproducible at speed and good things will happen.

This is exactly the point of the SWYNTS training 3 yard string. Any skeptics, try it for 2 weeks and rerun the Bakersfield. I suspect you’ll have personal best scores.

As you know, I fell off the daily wagon early this year. However, the dry fire that I do is done at the SWYNTS pace or fairly close. I was in a murder trial all week and preparing for said trial last week, so my attention has been elsewhere. I last shot on 4/30 and I last dry fired Wednesday night.

I shot this cold today and scored a 94. I gave up one penalty to time at the three yard stage, with a 1.52 total time. Draw to first shot on that stage was a 1.26 using a P365 XMacro. The remainder of my penalties were dropped points into the -1 ring (I had awful runs at the reload and 20 yard stages).

Later on, running failure drills I was getting into the 1.1s to the body (5x8) at 3 yards and consistently in the 1.2s at 5 and a few at 7 (I tend to throttle to 1.3-1.4 for 7-10 yards). The SWYNTS pacing works, I think primarily because it forces you through a mental block when it comes to what you actually do need to fire an aimed shot.

[JCN]

I shot this cold today and scored a 94. I gave up one penalty to time at the three yard stage, with a 1.52 total time. Draw to first shot on that stage was a 1.26 using a P365 XMacro. The remainder of my penalties were dropped points into the -1 ring (I had awful runs at the reload and 20 yard stages).

Later on, running failure drills I was getting into the 1.1s to the body (5x8) at 3 yards and consistently in the 1.2s at 5 and a few at 7 (I tend to throttle to 1.3-1.4 for 7-10 yards). The SWYNTS pacing works, I think primarily because it forces you through a mental block when it comes to what you actually do need to fire an aimed shot.

ssb please humor me and tell me how you think you would have done if you hadn’t trained on SWYNTS at all.

As an aside, I think it’s important for people who like learning about pistolcraft to get the additional understanding that EVERYTHING scales and builds. But that means at the max speed, minimal vision is needed if you train properly.

People who don’t get it usually don’t realize there’s a first gear and don’t train it.

So they only have second gear and up.

I suspect that would have been your previous stumbling block knowing what I know from your progress and improvement with the SWYNTS. I just wish some of the stubborn people would just give it a try for two weeks and see for themselves.

It’s hard to shake legacy mindset sometimes, but if you really want to understand the fundamentals you have to break it down to fundamentals. Rapid index training with minimal vision is first gear.

[Noah]

JCN , kinda reminds me of the thing going around the training world a few years ago about "90/10" and "80/20", where when drawing to a precise target, use a full speed draw and presentation to have more time for vision and trigger, vs just drawing the gun a little more slowly all around.

Before those videos, for, say, a 25y partial target, I would have less of a sense of urgency on every aspect of my draw/presentation, and I'd simply never thought about it before then.

Faster draw and better index= more time for vision and trigger etc on harder shots, compared to slowing everything down without really understanding why.

Just switched back to a G45 from the PX4s I've been shooting the last year. Shot a 97 (over par on the last 2 at 60 feet though) and then a 94 all under par.

[JCN]

JCN , kinda reminds me of the thing going around the training world a few years ago about "90/10" and "80/20", where when drawing to a precise target, use a full speed draw and presentation to have more time for vision and trigger, vs just drawing the gun a little more slowly all around.

Yes, but it goes one step farther than that…

It’s not only training speed of base index with minimal vision draw…

It’s also training the accuracy of that index WITHOUT CORRECTION as a base draw.

That’s the key. I’m not training just speed.

I’m training accuracy at speed. Both at index and at maximum doubles.

That is the point of the 3 yard SWYNTS.

You’re training base speed + accuracy of the index and max double.

It’s what’s missing from most traditional training.

[Mike C]

Yes, but it goes one step farther than that…

It’s not only training speed of base index with minimal vision draw…

It’s also training the accuracy of that index WITHOUT CORRECTION as a base draw.

That’s the key. I’m not training just speed.

I’m training accuracy at speed. Both at index and at maximum doubles.

That is the point of the 3 yard SWYNTS.

You’re training base speed + accuracy of the index and max double.

It’s what’s missing from most traditional training.

I would agree and will add my own personal anecdote. I have spent a considerable amount of money and time with traditional training and always felt like there was something lacking in one way or another. Training always consisted of, shoot this drill or that drill. This is what I shoot, here are what your peers are doing etc. This is a good time or score. All of which presented me with a solid amount of data for my performance level but no recipe for improvement. I can't even tell you off the top of my head how many big names I went to thinking I would get the information I need to improve only to walk away being disappointed and feeling like I was no better off.

This is not a hit at traditional training, in fact I still think that it is absolutely necessary. Especially in the tactical space. But in the pursuit of sheer shooting skill improvement it is an absolutely necessity to focus not just on vision or draw speed but index, vision, speed, and accuracy. Additionally you must have a recipe that allows for scalability. SWYNTS is what provides that context. Nothing else I have tried and no one else I have trained with helped with that. SWYNTS provides working within a defined target area at 3, 7, 10 and 15 yards. It allows one to explore the ragged edges of ones index, speed, vision and accuracy. It will tell you where the wheels fall off and is absolutely necessary for skill improvement. If you don’t have this you just have a bunch of data and you stay stagnant as I have for over a decade which sucks.

It's one thing to go to a course or train and spend time, money and effort heavily focusing on draw times, splits and accuracy upon presentation but another thing entirely to have a recipe for improving one's vision, index at speed with accuracy in a scalable format for various ranges. I know this is all redundant but I have not been able to put the effort into SWYNTS as much as I'd like as I have a full plate between home schooling my son, ortho issues and a ton of other things; even still I have seen significant improvement. With a half assed effort due to lack of time I have shaved .35 off my draw time from 1.25'ish which is where I have been for roughly 10 years with the occasional dip lower to a consistent .90-.95 from concealment to A zone out to about 9-10 yards. For me that is a huge improvement and the fact that everything else has improved as well, like splits is just a big ass bonus.

[JCN]

John Hearne I've always thought of you as a thinking man, I'm happy to explain the what and why of the design anytime off line or by telephone.

In your chart of automaticity... it's not just automaticity that separates people who can do higher level stuff.

It's accuracy and precision of index with less and less correction. This skill isn't required at the lower levels. You can basically take all the time you want to correct for a crap index or transition.

That's what higher level (and gamers) are not allowed to do. It's what separates B/A class from M/GM. How fast AND accurately is one with their base minimum vision. That's literally what's effectively tested on classifiers.





Take this thought experiment:

If I put a 5" circle at 3 yards and had you stand hands at sides.

Stare at the target... then close your eyes and draw and double to the target.

Repeat 10x. How fast could you do each string and how accurately could you do it?

You're not using vision... so you could go fast... your speed would be one variable.

Then the other would be your accuracy.

The goal of a high level shooter is to make it fast and accurate on index WITH MINIMAL CORRECTION REQUIRED off vision.

I'll run this for you sometime, but I have a suspicion of where I'd be at.

I was doing doubles with eyes closed (no draw) and my 5 yard spread at 0.17 was about 5" (is that right JCS I don't remember exactly). I'm more accurate (like 2-3" with eyes open) but everything scales and builds off vision. The less I need to correct, the better the results.

[John Hearne]

#jcn (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=jcn)
Jeff Cooper famously said (roughly) "the body aligns, the eyes confirm." The secrets to this have been know for a good bit.

FWIW, I've long said that dry practice has two major benefits - development of the kinesthetic index without expending ammunition and an awareness of sight movement during sear release that would otherwise be masked by recoil.

[JCN]

#jcn (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=jcn)
Jeff Cooper famously said (roughly) "the body aligns, the eyes confirm." The secrets to this have been know for a good bit.

FWIW, I've long said that dry practice has two major benefits - development of the kinesthetic index without expending ammunition and an awareness of sight movement during sear release that would otherwise be masked by recoil.

Yes… but the method to training this and the level of isolation to develop this skill is what has been lost.

The training methods and lack of drill design to focus on this in traditional firearms training is very clear.

If you read through the SWYNTS thread and witness all the people who took traditional training and yet didn’t understand nor develop their index.

The sub second draw has been reviled and misunderstood even by well known trainers who don’t understand the how and why of training index with minimal vision.

As I said, the offer always stands to try and explain further.

Knowing something and training others (or yourself) to do it are completely separate things.

Of course a baseball player would benefit from more kinesthetic prowess.

Just like a shooter would.

Training this is a very different thing from knowing it.

Do the SWYNTS for two weeks and see where your deficit is and see if there might be something you didn’t know you didn’t know…

I am presuming that because you found the Bakersfield string time “spicy” you would benefit a lot from this kind of training.

Try it. I think you’ll gain a LOT by doing SWYNTS dry and live for 2 weeks.

[JCN]

#jcn (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=jcn)
Jeff Cooper famously said (roughly) "the body aligns, the eyes confirm." The secrets to this have been know for a good bit.

FWIW, I've long said that dry practice has two major benefits - development of the kinesthetic index without expending ammunition and an awareness of sight movement during sear release that would otherwise be masked by recoil.

As a demonstration of what we are talking about:

I’ve never done this before. But I had a good sense of how it would turn out.


https://youtu.be/ZFu0QDcakjE

Basically almost everyone who takes longer than a second for an open holster draw or 1.2ish for a concealed draw is using vision feedback to correct for wonky mechanics. Same thing for >0.20 close splits.

While “the secrets” may have been known for a long time… it’s really only fleshed out these days in competition training or perhaps some very specialized LEO/MIL applications.

You have to train sub second to take the correction out of play. That’s not saying what you’ll use in real life, it’s how you train to be more precise, accurate and efficient…. by improving the base mechanics that everything else is built off of.

Giving people looong time parameters is fine for quals and general classes, but it’s not the way to train uncorrected index precision.

Try the SWYNTS 3 yard for two weeks.

[cclark]

Based off of the target dimensions provided by Lee and John (via Ken) I created cardboard templates to trace on my targets for when I go to the range. The reduced dimensions do make shooting this more difficult. I struggle with trying to beat the clock and inevitably throw a shot or two by trying to rush. I shot this cold last week with an 8” circle as my 10 ring and based off of the Wilson Combat video I used his scoring system for a 95.

I shot on the actual Old Bakersfield target I made today and shot an 87 cold. Ran it three more times for a 94, 88, and 94 respectively (with one on the 9 zone line during the last run that I didn’t count, it was too close so I called it a 6).

I find the last two strings to be the most difficult.

I enjoy shooting this drill and I think you get a lot of good work out of very little ammunition expended.

I also ran Dave Spauldings “Deliberation Drill” which is also quite difficult (for me) and threw one about a half an inch high.

[cclark]

I went out yesterday and ran this cold. Scored a 90. I pulled two shots at 10 yards, one into the 9 ring and one just high. Did the same at 20. I had plenty of time at 20 and need to work on making good hits rather than beating the clock. Not terribly upset but would love a clean run.

[1Rangemaster]

I had a template from jlw and used that stapled to an IDPA target. Tried it “lukewarm”(one shot to a 5 yard B8 cold) before running the qual. Shot it with a 43XMOS and a Holosun EPS Carry I’m toting this weekend.
A few points down and a few tenths over time close up gave me a 93.

[backtrail540]

Gave it a run today with an SSR with Sro and Nills from comp gear. Looks like down 2 to me and minus 1 for being ot on string 1, so 97. I made the "revolver" reload time but i suck at using speedloaders, i was trying for the 6 second auto time.


https://i.postimg.cc/k572W3Y5/20240421-100714.jpg (https://postimg.cc/4YF4TMgC)
10 feet

https://i.postimg.cc/xTbN2Pb9/20240421-100806.jpg (https://postimg.cc/hfct8TrY)
20 feet

https://i.postimg.cc/jq1nm128/20240421-100915.jpg (https://postimg.cc/CdjKfmjD)
30 feet

https://i.postimg.cc/br4GnZ4X/20240421-101047.jpg (https://postimg.cc/30CJ5xK9)
60 feet

[jlw]

A different template for the Bakersfield qual is now available at:

https://firstpersonsafety.com/2023/05/14/bakersfield-target/

[Noah]

I still am shooting a Bakersfield almost every range trip, as a consistent benchmark for static shooting performance. It’s a great test.

I shoot it on a B8 using the 8 ring and -0 and the 7 and 6 corners as -1, every .25 seconds over par is minus 1.
I also always score it using hit factor and B8 scoring rings.

I’ve been paying a little more attention to the HF (a “good” run to me is over 7 and a really good run is over 7.5), while also chasing a 100. I have a lot of 97s, 98s, 99s over the years. Finally got a 100 with my G34 the other day and I realized to get a 100 I have to use more of the available time, when shooting for HF I’d be solidly under par at the 7y/20 foot if my index was tight and especially the 2r2 at 10y/30 feet, usually just over 5 seconds but dropping a 7 or two on one or more of the distances.

The original scoring method does a great job of rewarding both accuracy and speed, with there being more than one way to shoot over an 80 or 90.

[Gun Nerd]

The Shootsteel cardboard target looks like a pretty fair off the shelf option: https://shootsteel.com/product/cardboard-training-targets-pack-of-50/

[Bruce Cartwright]

A different template for the Bakersfield qual is now available at:

https://firstpersonsafety.com/2023/05/14/bakersfield-target/

Lee:

Thanks for doing that. I use the Bakersfield PD qual quite a bit and its nice to have the original scoring system.

Bruce

[jlw]

Lee:

Thanks for doing that. I use the Bakersfield PD qual quite a bit and its nice to have the original scoring system.

Bruce

It is one of my favorite shooting exercises, and it is QUITE telling of skill on demand.