View Full Version : Big Fish in Small Ponds; Insularity in LE Firearms Instruction
AMC has recently posted several this with regard to his experiences with LE firearms instructors and programs which have resonated with me. Most recently in the Blackhawk T series holster thread:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?43904-Blackhawk-T-Series-Duty-Holster&p=1349750#post1349750
Working with my T Series L3D RDS holster today doing some Blake's drills to just really push my trigger speed and transitions. I have been out of competition shooting for most of the pandemic, so I haven't been working some skill development as well as I could.
I am by no means fast.....I am old and broken. But I am sadly faster than most of my staff....just because they don't really understand what fast really is.
This mirrors my experiences with most of the FI’s at my agency. The exceptions are always those that compete or seek training outside our “bubble” and a few former FAMS who left our agency or USBP in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and returned for reasons outside the scope of this thread. They were being trained by people like Mike Pannone, Kelly Venden, Jim Smith, Mike Seeklander, etc.
Some some don’t know what they don’t know and some are intentionally hiding in their “small pond.” IME there tends to be a correlation between the “hiders” and the screamer / no demo bullies in red shirts AMC discussed in another thread.
How (and why) do we get LE FI’s to expand their horizons and thereby raise all (or at least done) boats ?
To the question, I think it really depends on agency culture and policies. How are instructors selected? Culture comes into play in a broader sense in terms of whether or not the agency has a culture of proficiency. Just that alone can "raise all boats" so to speak.
My agency has a very antiquated policy about assignments and transfers to most units. Most assignments have a "waiting list" so to speak for officers wanting to transfer there. Officers can have I believe 3 active transfer requests to different units current at any time. Some units, such as EOD, EVOC and the Range also have a testing process that applicants must pass. There is no interview process for the Range. Applicants do not need to demonstrate any special interest in shooting, or have any relevant coaching or teaching experience. It was a "cool gig" that got you off the street (our range staff are full time). New staff attended Firearms Instructor School, Academy Instructor Certification Course, Less Lethal Instructor, and possibly Patrol Rifle Instructor School. That was it....forever. And it showed in the program, which was mired in early 90's training dogma for years.
One of the first things I pushed for when I took over was outside training for the staff. In 4 years, I was able to get 2 Instructor courses from Sig Sauer Academy for our guys. It was a game changer, and hugely eye opening for the staff. It got them to buy in to the changes we were making to the Basic Academy program. It isn't perfect, but it is vastly superior to what it was.
Three of us at the range had for years been attending private sector training on their own dime/time. But I can't force the others to spend money on their own training, and civil service laziness is a more powerful force than shame for some folks.
We instituted Staff Training, and I had the guys running kind of a "Drill of the week" for a while. But when I wasn't there....nothing was being done but Call of Duty on the cell phones. I have recommended to my replacement that he push hard for a Instructor Qualification that has to be shot monthly by the staff....but he'll face a ton of pushback for that. My recommendation was a version of the Bakersfield test shot on our target (5" 10 ring, 9" 9 ring, silhouette about 1/4 bigger than a "C" zone). Little tougher scoring than the original, but a suitable "Instructor" standard, in 10 rounds.
My very long winded way of saying if you don't have an adequate selection process that picks people who are passionate about both shooting and teaching their fellow officers, most motivation will only go so far. It worked for awhile in my place, but now that I'm leaving I see things slipping back into the easy safe old ways.
Like everything specialized: selection, selection, selection.
Just wanted to clarify some things, for some folks around here who know some of my staff. Some of these guys are extremely dedicated, extremely knowledgeable, and extremely proficient. My regular shooting partner just retired 2 weeks ago. USPSA M Class in Production and Carry Optics. Passionate about trying to make cops better. Another of my staff, one of the armorers in fact, is the best all around shooter in our department. Can shoot ANY gun you hand him well, from handguns to shotguns to Thompson 1921a1's (we have 7), to precision rifles. Wayne Dobbs has been to our range and worked with this person several times, and can attest to his knowledge and professionalism. A couple of the other guys really embraced the changes we made, and started to get enthusiastic about shooting. With myself and my partner leaving, and uncertainty about leadership, they both jumped ship from our primary range. What is left is the folks who love not being on patrol at this point. Absent the ability to institute a standard like I suggested....where if you don't pass you're pushing a radio car next week, I don't really know how to motivate some folks. Lord knows I tried.
john c
05-05-2022, 01:51 AM
...to Thompson 1921a1's (we have 7)...
Holy shit! Not to derail this thread, but tell us more about those. Any TTPs on how to shoot/employ?
The best we had were a couple of MP40s taken from bikers back in the day, plus a re-activated M1A1 Thompson DEWAT taken off the street. It's a damned shame these went to the smelter.
jnc36rcpd
05-05-2022, 02:11 AM
I found trying to motivate firearms instructors to do anything but count holes and wear red shirts challenging. (Actually I got instructors issued red shirts so I may have contributed to the problem.) My former department wasn't terrific about sending people to outside training, but it wasn't bad about it either. I met Wayne Dobbs when I attended Officer Survival Instructor School in Miami way before I became a firearms instructor. Most instructors didn't really care.
My favorite example was a discussion of the need for training in one-handed shooting. An instructor opined that we should train officers to place their off-hand in front of their neck when firing one-handed because that would provide protection to a vital area not covered by body armor. OK, so you came up with this based on ballistics knowledge, forensic medical training, your visit to some goofy school, YouTube, nothing?
Things have improved (not really) since I was retired. Those red shirts have been replaced by red hats.
Holy shit! Not to derail this thread, but tell us more about those. Any TTPs on how to shoot/employ?
The best we had were a couple of MP40s taken from bikers back in the day, plus a re-activated M1A1 Thompson DEWAT taken off the street. It's a damned shame these went to the smelter.
PM coming, so as not to derail the theead.
Sal Picante
05-05-2022, 09:21 AM
reel/CdGsMseJCFZ
The voiceover is my friend from CHP...
When I started trying to push our firearms training out of the bubble, I met with a lot of resistance. Ultimately, I dealt with this by using host spots for classes for our cadre who then bought into what I was trying to do. We raised a second generation of instructors under those same expectations.
When I was on the board of the state LE FI organization, it was a losing battle.
Until people recognize that the state standard is a minimum and that high scores on the qualification is a measure of who can whisper the loudest, you're stuck.
jnc36rcpd
05-05-2022, 11:14 AM
PM coming, so as not to derail the theead.
Actually I think we're all kind of interested in those Thompsons. Feel free to start another thread.
the state standard is a minimum and that high scores on the qualification is a measure of who can whisper the loudest.
This ^^^ is signature line material.
SoCalDep
05-05-2022, 12:24 PM
reel/CdGsMseJCFZ
The voiceover is my friend from CHP...
This was unexpected. I saw this thread last night and have a lot I want to say but figured I should let thoughts roll around for a day before I ramble endlessly. Then I look just now and see this post… with a picture of a piece of cardboard with my writing on it… It’s had that writing on it for several years and was just used Tuesday for this week’s Firearm Instructor School (It has a bit more writing on it now including the letters “EDIP” as has been mentioned). It’s sitting behind my desk now. Then I recognize Ray’s voice in the video and then I see the Instagram post is from someone I know as well. I had no idea he and Ray knew each other or that Ray knew you. Man it’s a small world!
Still not ready to post relevant thoughts… Lots to arrange in my head.
DDTSGM
05-05-2022, 03:58 PM
I like to think I know what an LE firearms instructor looks like, and sad to say many current firearms instructors don't fit my picture.
We've already heard about and discuss that many firearms instructors are line runners and shooter watchers rather than coaches/instructors, so I'm not going to beat that horse.
I think if I had to, I could narrow it down to key things that many instructors make mistakes in thinking and doing:
1) The mindset that they are primarily firearms instructors rather than survival instructors.
2) They are satisfied with the status quo, unwilling to make changes if it: 1) causes them additional work and 2) potential conflict with admin.
Of course, a firearms instructor has to be fundamentally sound in technique as well as able to recognize mistakes in technique. They should be able at a glance to see the big things that a shooter is doing incorrectly. Thats the job. But it goes beyond that. A good instructor is familiar with patterns of officer deaths and police gunfights in order to deliver relevant training. They also need to be cerebral enough to figure a way to do the training safely as well as not get lost in the weeds doing all training for the most likely scenario, neglecting the 30% scenarios.
Too many folks judge their programs on qualification percentages. I know when I was doing remedials for our basic students probably 75% of the time I was praying they would fail so that they would have to return for another entire block of firearms training. My thoughts were that maybe we could turn them into a solid 85% shooter with more training rather than a 'wow, lucked out there' 70% shooter.
IMO, at the agency the qual should be the basic driver's license, a gateway to more advanced training. Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, many programs focus their attention on the qual and not on follow-on drills.
I once heard it said that continual change gives the illusion of progress. Change for change itself is bad, but not changing the things we do or the way we do them because of slothfulness, going along to get along, or lack of vision disqualifies one from instructional duties, IMO.
JMO, I can give examples from my career but don't want to write an epistle.
ETA: Instructors should demo at three speeds - walk through, slow and deliberate, and acceptable. They should also have to maintain a higher standard on quals and standards drills.
DaBigBR
05-05-2022, 08:31 PM
Agency of 80 +/- with seven instructors, all of which are "part time" collateral assignments. One other guy and I are the only ones attending outside training or pushing the program. The department has sent people to two outside classes in the decade I've been here: one guy to a no-name "low light instructor" class that he said was terrible and two of us to Modern Samurai Project last year (which was great). Nobody else wants to spend their own money and just lives under the antiquated umbrella of the state's instructor course.
I have been able to kind of take over our program over the last few years, basically by the benevolence of a couple of lieutenants that know they are getting a quality program, but there is nothing pushing the other instructors to learn or to teach. I try to provide a block of instructor development the two times we are all together each year, but that's not enough time to get comfortable enough to do something well, let alone teach it.
I have fought to not replace several retiring instructors. So far, it has worked. Replacing dead weight with dead weight is counter-productive. I think we should be running a selection process for interested officers which includes coming up to the range and working for a day or two. There is a lot of behind the scenes work that has to get done that isn't sexy or interesting. You have to be willing to do that stuff.
We also fight supervision and management, who will often let people (mostly supervisors and detectives) "qualify and leave" and receive no training. We moved to doing all department-wide range sessions on evening hours to force more low light training, but all it has done is increase the number of people that are too important to receive the training.
Erick Gelhaus
05-05-2022, 10:02 PM
I spent 26 of my 29 years in our program, as an instructor and as the supervisor.
In late ’01 we had a couple of issues with some of our recruits in the regional academy. This wasn’t the only time, but it was the most obvious in the eight years’ worth of trainees I’d seen at that point. I’d gotten the Thursday evening call about a couple of them in danger of failing firearms. Got them on the range over the weekend. All were in different squads, all had very different ways of doing everything, and nothing was standardized – which meant that either there was no standardized material, or they were all really buggered up.
The recruits got fixed enough to pass the academy quals, with handguns & shotguns. Whew.
Then we took on the academy over that issue, our arrest/control instructors and the FTO program did as well. We met with the academy staff and essentially the response was “what gives you all the right to claim we’re buggered up, what’s your background & experience?”
That resulted in me having to pull the training records of all twenty-something instructors (all part-time). We ended up with data that looked something like this:
POST approved firearms instructor class only – 7
POST approved firearms instructor class & 1-2 other classes - 12
POST approved firearms instructor class & lots of classes (dept or personally paid for) – 5
Broad disparity. The POST-approved firearms instructor classes were not all from the same entity. We had FBI, NRA-LE, local academy, far away academy, in-between agency etc.
After writing all of that up, I wrote up a proposal to bring in an outside instructor to do an update for all the instructional staff with the goal being everyone on the same page. Shockingly, the admin bought off on it.
The first year, we brought in Bill Jeans for a 5-day block that covered handgun (2 days), shotgun (2 days), and patrol rifle (1 day).
We skipped a year and then brought in Scotty Reitz for patrol rifle one year and shotgun the next.
After a year’s break, we had Louis Awerbuck for pistol. Another year later, Pat Rogers for patrol rifle. And then Bill Jeans again for shotgun.
These weren’t open enrollment or dept wide, it was just for the instructors.
Then the ’09, and ’10 budget crises hit and hit hard. We were able to bring Reitz back once more in ’14. We continued to do a yearly, every other year instructor update but they were internal. Instructors on SWAT were able to get additional schools through their team, but it was difficult to find basic firearms instructor classes.
Some guys, myself included, kept going to training on their own and brought info, and material back. But it was not the same as bringing in an outsider to get everyone on the same page. SWAT hosted Jedlinski right around the time I retired.
I don’t know what the program is doing now. Covid stupidity really buggered up the use of force training program there, like a lot of other places.
You’ll always have a cycle. The next guy/guys coming in will make changes. I always tried to explain why we’d made the decisions we made & took the directions we did, so the next batch would have that as a foundation.
Going strictly to the OP … you & those you work with must do their best to stay current and keep each other in the loop on that. It would be nice if everyone took it seriously enough to invest in their skills; sadly, not many do. And that can lead to the one, two, handful who do ruling the roost so to speak.
ETA: During all of the above, we fielded patrol rifles (93), allowed personally owned shotguns (96), tested new semi-autos (97), fielded them (98), issued 14" SBSs (04), dealt with Gen 3 & 4 Glock .40 issues ('10-11, '14) and fielded 9mm pistols ('14). Plus we had significant range issues several times. Just teaching was so much easier :)
An issue that Erick brought up is a huge factor I believe: continuous professional training for instructors. This can make or break a program. If your instructors are not themselves students constantly striving to improve, the program stagnates. And I do agree that training should occur as a group, to ensure same-page instructional leadership. The one positive thing I was able to accomplish Staff wise was to get them outside training together. It was the first time almost all of them had received training since firearms instructor school. The level of 'skill expectation' was surprising to them. A couple of us had tried to explain that we should be aiming higher in our standards for officers, but they considered our goals to be "Instructor level" performance. Seeing what the private sector considered "Instructor level" was eye opening to them, and it helped. Some still resisted, because change means work at in reality they were more lazy than anything else. Constant excuses for lack of effort and performance.....the whole "Well, tactically speaking..." canard. Just had one of my "instructors" yell at another former instructor in a rifle class that he was "moving too fast" between cover positions, and that his rifle wasn't shouldered when he moved. This former instructor is a 3 Gun competitor, which the first guy knows. Heard him yelling at the competitor "I've told you that competition John Wick shit doesn't translate to Law Enforcement! You need to move slowly and tactically!" Always an excuse as to why the dedicated shooters outperform them in every way.
I had high hopes when California POST re-opened Regulation 1070, to redefine qualifications for firearms instructors to require regular refresher training. I had given my input to the conference last summer when a bunch of Lead instructors around the state were contacted. They recently released their draft recommendation.....which was for 4 hours every 4 years. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement. Why even bother at that point? That's a meaningless requirement. And without a meaningful mandate for training, agencies like mine will continue their practice of "You've already been to firearms instructor school....you're an expert now!" And a lot of instructors will hide behind the same thing.
It made a huge difference when we adopted and put into practice EDIP for our instructors. And they saw the effect it had on student performance. But the last few weeks, as some crazy changes have taken place in policy, as our staffing literally collapses, as outright insubordination by a member of the staff goes not only unpunished but repeatedly enabled by command level personnel, I see my guys giving up. Going back to the old ways. No explanation. No demonstration. No active coaching on the line.
Agency culture and policies either make or break a program. When the right people are there good things can happen. But absent real meaningful standards for instructor training established by POST....some places will be a disaster.
Alabama has instituted a re-cert requirement for firearms instructors, but it appears most are just going back through the same courses they took to get certified.
Erick Gelhaus
05-06-2022, 02:16 PM
I had high hopes when California POST re-opened Regulation 1070, to redefine qualifications for firearms instructors to require regular refresher training. I had given my input to the conference last summer when a bunch of Lead instructors around the state were contacted. They recently released their draft recommendation.....which was for 4 hours every 4 years. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement. Why even bother at that point? That's a meaningless requirement. And without a meaningful mandate for training, agencies like mine will continue their practice of "You've already been to firearms instructor school....you're an expert now!" And a lot of instructors will hide behind the same thing.
4 hours every 4 years? Hayzus Christo. I had not heard that but I'm not surprised. Just think about all of the people who pay their own money to attend TacCon every year for 24 hours of additional training.
When we were the in-service updates, except for the Reitz & Jeans classes, we were not seeking POST cert. Years later I had a POST rep lecturing me about the need for recurrent training & liability issues. And they up mandating four hours. FML.
4 hours every 4 years? Hayzus Christo. I had not heard that but I'm not surprised. Just think about all of the people who pay their own money to attend TacCon every year for 24 hours of additional training.
When we were the in-service updates, except for the Reitz & Jeans classes, we were not seeking POST cert. Years later I had a POST rep lecturing me about the need for recurrent training & liability issues. And they up mandating four hours. FML.
Getting our training division folks to understand that POST certification is not rhe magic ticket they thought it was took some work. But the leadership has changed, so the process starts all over again. I attended one of the better POST Firearms Instructor courses in Northern California, when their standard for the FBI Bullseye course was 260. But every POST class I've attended has been basically a preschool fingerprinting session compared to the private sector training I've attended. It's generally there that your going to find innovation, and people pushing the edge of performance.
Something I see as a potential positive influence is that Pannone has brought aboard a group of LEOs to his company, especially guys involved in training in SoCal. They are getting many of their courses, including their Instructor courses, POST certified. That should simplify approval, and push modern training concepts into the pool. Anything better than nothing at this point.
The current Firearms Coordinator for POST is a good dude. He is trying to push a very ossified group suffering from severe Dunning Krueger in the right direction. He's been successful with some reforms, but they clearly didn't listen to the feedback from the field on the 1070 revisions.
Erick Gelhaus
05-06-2022, 06:00 PM
Getting our training division folks to understand that POST certification is not rhe magic ticket they thought it was took some work. But the leadership has changed, so the process starts all over again.
...
The current Firearms Coordinator for POST is a good dude. He is trying to push a very ossified group suffering from severe Dunning Krueger in the right direction. He's been successful with some reforms, but they clearly didn't listen to the feedback from the field on the 1070 revisions.
Given that Cal POST no longer reimburses much, if anything, POST cert is not a Be All, End All. Unfortunately, as you note, too many are convinced it is. It didn't hurt the attendance, but I had a couple of questions about my Low Light Instructor course being POST certified. After letting them know it was not yet certified in CA, even though it's been POST approved elsewhere, I never heard back from them.
Who is the firearms coordinator there?
Given that Cal POST no longer reimburses much, if anything, POST cert is not a Be All, End All. Unfortunately, as you note, too many are convinced it is. It didn't hurt the attendance, but I had a couple of questions about my Low Light Instructor course being POST certified. After letting them know it was not yet certified in CA, even though it's been POST approved elsewhere, I never heard back from them.
Who is the firearms coordinator there?
Steve Harding is the current coordinator. Former Rangemaster with Sacramento Sheriffs. Good dude. You'd like him. He's fighting the good fight but.....it's POST.
DaBigBR
05-07-2022, 05:31 AM
Alabama has instituted a re-cert requirement for firearms instructors, but it appears most are just going back through the same courses they took to get certified.
In my state, firearms instructors must attend an eight hour recertification class every three years. I will go to my fifth recert this year. Every time I have gone, we have shot the state handgun and shotgun qualification with a required 90% score, shot the FBI Instructor Bullseye with no minimum score, and then listened to the same speech about how "next time" they will be making instructors test out of things like reloads, malfunctions, etc. It never happens. It probably never will happen. It's like mandatory, in-service physical agility: if you were willing to accept the cost of instituting it, there would be long term benefits. If they said tomorrow that all recerts must post a 270 bullseye score, meet standards in various skills, and pass a written test or something, they would lose 30%+ of the instructors right away.
The fact is, though, that at least here, the state academy's (which is the certifying board) customer is the agency, and the agencies want certified instructors, so the academy gives them what they want.
In my state, firearms instructors must attend an eight hour recertification class every three years. I will go to my fifth recert this year. Every time I have gone, we have shot the state handgun and shotgun qualification with a required 90% score, shot the FBI Instructor Bullseye with no minimum score, and then listened to the same speech about how "next time" they will be making instructors test out of things like reloads, malfunctions, etc. It never happens. It probably never will happen. It's like mandatory, in-service physical agility: if you were willing to accept the cost of instituting it, there would be long term benefits. If they said tomorrow that all recerts must post a 270 bullseye score, meet standards in various skills, and pass a written test or something, they would lose 30%+ of the instructors right away.
The fact is, though, that at least here, the state academy's (which is the certifying board) customer is the agency, and the agencies want certified instructors, so the academy gives them what they want.
We've used the FBI Bullseye as one of our selection tests for years, first at a 260 passing score, now at 240. It's a good test of your fundamentals, but in my opinion it's flawed thinking to use this as THE instructor qual. We will not be teaching recruits and officers Bullseye type shooting (or shouldn't be). I think better "Instructor Standards" are things like the FBI Qual to 90%, then move on the the CSAT Instructor Standards, etc. Things that measure accuracy at speed and manipulation skills on demand. It's also why I liked using the Bakersfield test on our target (tighter score zones), and making my guys shoot that, to measure immediate performance in just 10 rounds. I personally think the latter 2 make excellent Instructor quals, because they're short and measure "on demand" skill. My 2 cents.
This is our target that I've referenced. Center circle is 5", outer circle is 9". Head circle is 4". Overall area of the silhouette is maybe 25% bigger than a 'C' zone. This one has a facer glued over the cardboard original. I like the 5" circle for maximum score. I think both Daryll and Wayne Dobbs have talked about 5" as a good accountability zone before. I've had my guys shoot the Bakersfield Test course of fire on our target. They could all pass at least the second time....though a couple went crazy fast thinking they weren't making the times and threw shots on the first attempt. Any miss off the silhouette was an automatic fail, score aside.
Thoughts?
DaBigBR
05-07-2022, 01:03 PM
I don't disagree...I just think the performance bar should be pretty high.
Our recert requirement is a 90% on what we're trying to as the "old" FBI handgun course (18 rounds at 25 yards). The state curriculum is heavily based on the FBI's, however I do not know how up to date it is. I find the standard to be impossibly easy and not much of a true test of skills.
Of course, the problem with relying on passing a qualification course to be and remain an instructor is that it does little to validate a skill other than passing a qualification course, and therefore probably engenders some of the "qualification over training" problems.
We've used the FBI Bullseye as one of our selection tests for years, first at a 260 passing score, now at 240. It's a good test of your fundamentals, but in my opinion it's flawed thinking to use this as THE instructor qual. We will not be teaching recruits and officers Bullseye type shooting (or shouldn't be). I think better "Instructor Standards" are things like the FBI Qual to 90%, then move on the the CSAT Instructor Standards, etc. Things that measure accuracy at speed and manipulation skills on demand. It's also why I liked using the Bakersfield test on our target (tighter score zones), and making my guys shoot that, to measure immediate performance in just 10 rounds. I personally think the latter 2 make excellent Instructor quals, because they're short and measure "on demand" skill. My 2 cents.
The FBI has a new target which is essentially a Q target with a full (all outer rings) B8/IP-1 in the body. In addition to 260 on the FBI bullseye I believe their FI candidates must shot the standard pistol qual with all shots in the outermost ring of the B8/IP-1.
They are now shooting the qualifying COF at their home station vs at day one of FI school. Personally I think the extra pressure of not being on one’s home range is a valuable selector.
My own agency requires a two week FI school. On day one all shooters must pass our regular rifle and pistol qual at 90% vs the normal 80%, plus a bullseye COF which requires a 240/300. It is the same COF as the FBI bullseye but it is shot on a B-27 repair center, which IMHO is easier than the B8/IP-1.
They also must pass teach backs. Previously there were 3 progressively longer / more challenging teach backs, it was reduced to one for a while when the FI school became more of a shooting package but now things have shifted back to an emphasis on instruction and coaching.
We are required to attend a week of re-certification training every 5 years. There is usually a theme / emphasis for a 3 to 5 year cycle such as M-4 Instructor, active shooter instructor and now RDS/Pistol Optics instructor. Instructors coming back for recertification must pass the same day one shooting qualifications as new FI candidates. There is also usually at least one graded teach back. An FI from my office DNQ’ed on the M4 this year and an FI in my last recertification failed the pistol pistol optics teach back on the last day and was denied recertification.
As for selection of FI candidates it has varied considerably over the years and from office to office.
In my first office it was you were a good shooter and willing to apprentice as a range safety officer you could go to firearms instructor school after a year or two. In my second office it was pure politics. This is bad enough when the person selected is competent and passes the score but when two candidates in a row are selected based on office politics and both fail out on the first day wasting those training slots it could be irksome. My third office operated on the if you were a good shot and willing to apprentice model.
When I took over the firearms program in my current office I instituted our current process which started with a screening process that stated by rating candidates in two areas:
The average of their last four pistol qualification scores, and prior training and experience with teaching / public speaking.
We then had tryouts on at least two or three separate days where the candidates shot and had to teach back an agency lesson plan. They were than ranked in order of preference for available slots at FI school.
We are no longer allowed to use uncertified range safety officers but we bring the FI candidates to our quarterly instructor development day as a form of green team until they go to the school.
That model has worked well for us so my successors have continued it but every office is its own little kingdom on some ways.
The local FBI office uses a similar try out /green team process. Locally their FIs were encouraged to take two to three outside firearms related courses per year.
For us, attending or hosting outside training is a thing at our national firearms unit and our Academy but not so much in field offices. The majority of the outside training I’ve attended has been on my time and at my expense. I have occasionally gotten permission to attend local training on government time or had ammo provided but I’ve never had a “full ride” other than while working at the academy.
Locally the best I’ve been able to do is have exchange programs where we invite instructors from other agencies to our Instructor Development Day each quarter and vice versa.
Although titled instructor development day or quarterly instructor day is more of a instructor qualification and coordination day to make sure all the instructors are on the same page about how we are teaching the topics for that quarter.
I don't disagree...I just think the performance bar should be pretty high.
Our recert requirement is a 90% on what we're trying to as the "old" FBI handgun course (18 rounds at 25 yards). The state curriculum is heavily based on the FBI's, however I do not know how up to date it is. I find the standard to be impossibly easy and not much of a true test of skills.
Of course, the problem with relying on passing a qualification course to be and remain an instructor is that it does little to validate a skill other than passing a qualification course, and therefore probably engenders some of the "qualification over training" problems.
18 rounds at 25 yards is from the 1997 FBI qual. The qual has changed twice since then (2012 and 2019).
Instructor does need a certain level of confidence and periodic Qualls like my agencies once every five years requirement for a good idea but they should not be the sole metric.
DDTSGM
05-07-2022, 02:37 PM
Thoughts?
Didn't repost the target picture. From my POV the chest circles are too low if you want to condition shooters to shoot upper center mass.
I'm not really a fan of circles on a qual target, but sometimes you have to compromise. I would move the circles up, and move the inner circle straight up until it touches the top line of the outer circle. This gives you the same square inch area of the circles as scoring, but rewards the shooter who puts their rounds where I think they should go. This is just my opinion, but it is reflected in the target we designed for academy quals - until they went full on crazy and adopted that POS FBI coke bottle after I retired.
Agree with zero rounds off target for instructor quals.
Didn't repost the target picture. From my POV the chest circles are too low if you want to condition shooters to shoot upper center mass.
I'm not really a fan of circles on a qual target, but sometimes you have to compromise. I would move the circles up, and move the inner circle straight up until it touches the top line of the outer circle. This gives you the same square inch area of the circles as scoring, but rewards the shooter who puts their rounds where I think they should go. This is just my opinion, but it is reflected in the target we designed for academy quals - until they went full on crazy and adopted that POS FBI coke bottle after I retired.
Agree with zero rounds off target for instructor quals.
Were I designing THIS target today, I would slightly raise the ri gs as you describe. The target predates my involvement in training by perhaps 11 years. I have twice reached out to Action Targets Design Team to work with us on a new target over the last 2 years, but never got a reply back. That's been a problem with many vendors during the pandemic IME.
HCM I like the "Green Team" idea and just resubmitted my proposal for an Adjunct Firearms Instructor Program....largely because it may be the only way for the department to keep the range open at this point as our staffing collapses. It would take the guys on the list who pass the selection tests, send them to the relevant instructor courses, and then a 40 hr In-House course on our current methods. They'd essentially be 'part timers' filling in spots as needed, under the supervision of full-time staff. It got back doored by some of my own staff, who wanted increased overtime opportunities, and others who viewed it through the lens of some twisted Union/Scab view. As I said, at this point it might be the only way to keep the lights on.
DaBigBR
05-07-2022, 02:59 PM
HCM's selection process is similar to what I would like to see implemented where I am. It makes sense, requires candidates to buy in, and hopefully keeps the current staff engaged.
Internal instructor development can be a real challenge. Everybody has a reason not to do it (usually "we're too small of an agency", "we're too busy", or "we can't afford it"). There is also significant hesitancy to want to teach your peers and some hesitancy to want to listen to one of your peers. I find that teaching things to our instructor cadre is a good test of my skills...if I can get them to listen and apply the lesson, I'm being effective.
When I went to firearms instructor school, they specified 2000 rounds handgun, but only shot about 1,200. The rest was intended to be yours to keep because they believed that, as an instructor, you were going to shoot less than ever. In large part, they aren't wrong. At my first agency, I was "the guy" and my range days involved very little actual shooting and a lot of running the range by myself. I would generally wait until a neighboring agency had range and go shoot my mandatory quals with their instructors at lunch.
I think states like Texas and Ohio with organizations like TTPOA and OTOA are on to something with the trainings that they seem to bring in.
HCM's selection process is similar to what I would like to see implemented where I am. It makes sense, requires candidates to buy in, and hopefully keeps the current staff engaged.
Internal instructor development can be a real challenge. Everybody has a reason not to do it (usually "we're too small of an agency", "we're too busy", or "we can't afford it"). There is also significant hesitancy to want to teach your peers and some hesitancy to want to listen to one of your peers. I find that teaching things to our instructor cadre is a good test of my skills...if I can get them to listen and apply the lesson, I'm being effective.
When I went to firearms instructor school, they specified 2000 rounds handgun, but only shot about 1,200. The rest was intended to be yours to keep because they believed that, as an instructor, you were going to shoot less than ever. In large part, they aren't wrong. At my first agency, I was "the guy" and my range days involved very little actual shooting and a lot of running the range by myself. I would generally wait until a neighboring agency had range and go shoot my mandatory quals with their instructors at lunch.
I think states like Texas and Ohio with organizations like TTPOA and OTOA are on to something with the trainings that they seem to bring in.
As an instructor I generally have to skip or bring my lunch if I want to shoot. One of the original drivers of our quarterly instructor development day was myself and two other instructors literally each other at the conclusion of the last range day of the quarter and said “have you qualified yet?” - “No have you qualified yet?” The classic “shoemaker got no shoes” scenario.
Were I designing THIS target today, I would slightly raise the ri gs as you describe. The target predates my involvement in training by perhaps 11 years. I have twice reached out to Action Targets Design Team to work with us on a new target over the last 2 years, but never got a reply back. That's been a problem with many vendors during the pandemic IME.
HCM I like the "Green Team" idea and just resubmitted my proposal for an Adjunct Firearms Instructor Program....largely because it may be the only way for the department to keep the range open at this point as our staffing collapses. It would take the guys on the list who pass the selection tests, send them to the relevant instructor courses, and then a 40 hr In-House course on our current methods. They'd essentially be 'part timers' filling in spots as needed, under the supervision of full-time staff. It got back doored by some of my own staff, who wanted increased overtime opportunities, and others who viewed it through the lens of some twisted Union/Scab view. As I said, at this point it might be the only way to keep the lights on.
Outside of our Academy and national firearms and tactics training unit, Most of our offices only have one full time firearms instructor and they spend most of their time as a program manager rather than an instructor. A few of the largest offices have full-time training units but they are the exception, majority of our instructors are collateral duty.
DaBigBR
05-07-2022, 03:25 PM
As an instructor I generally have to skip or bring my lunch if I want to shoot. One of the original drivers of our quarterly instructor development day was myself and two other instructors literally each other at the conclusion of the last range day of the quarter and said “have you qualified yet?” - “No have you qualified yet?” The classic “shoemaker got no shoes” scenario.
Truth.
We end up with an instructor range day a couple weeks before full department range weeks. I would like to see more of an instructor development opportunity there and maybe proposing quarterly is an idea.
I think a lot of this stuff is largely about culture. We are slowly changing from the instructor days being a "qualify, goof around and show off your new gun, take a long lunch, and go home" kind of day" to something a little more structured. It has taken having some old timers retire.
One of the things that is telling at my agency is that no firearms instructor has ever been "deselected" - voluntarily or otherwise. Every other collateral assignment (tac team, crime scene tech, FTO, bike officer, DT instructor, etc.) has guys coming and going as they lose interest, get older, etc., but every firearms instructor has retired as an "active" instructor for at least the last thirty years. Of course seniority has clout, so it can create inbreeding and stagnation. I recall a couple years where someone dug up their 2005 notes and decided we needed to jump on people who were using the slide stop lever instead of going over the top of the slide because "gross motor skills" and all. It took a relatively long time to kill that dogmatic BS because the guy pushing it had been around for a long time.
This thread has been interesting and quite cathartic.
I think states like Texas and Ohio with organizations like TTPOA and OTOA are on to something with the trainings that they seem to bring in.
The OTOA conference is one of the best deals going if you get registered in time to get the classes you want. I have been sending a group of SWAT guys to Kalahari every year.
This is still coming back to the same "solution" in my opinion: select the people who are passionate about shooting and teaching, who have a demonstrated ability to do both. You can use both prior experience, and a selection testing/interview process, but absent that selection you are essentially relying on luck to get the right people. And the majority will likely be civil service in the worst sense of the term. This is where my agency is at. It may change in some ways simply because of the manpower collapse we are suffering. By next year every specialized unit, I think including the range, will be part time. We are over 500 officers short of our previously mandated minimum staffing, with an additional 565 eligible to retire next month. Mandatory backfill overtime has become constant to fill patrol shortcomings...both double shifts and cancelled days off. This will lead to even more young guys jumping ship, and the cascade failure accelerates. Several years ago we were at 2200 officers, including the Airport Bureau. Over 500 short of that now. And resignations are outpacing retirements. I think this time next year there will be only 1000 sworn left in the department. I think that leads to closing our Academy and trying to rely on other departments to train our folks for Advanced Officer/Continuing Professional Training every 2 years. It'll definitely lead to closing several of our 10 district stations, and a reduction in the promotional opportunities that come with our current structure.
psalms144.1
05-08-2022, 09:30 AM
An issue that Erick brought up is a huge factor I believe: continuous professional training for instructors.
Agency culture and policies either make or break a program. When the right people are there good things can happen. But absent real meaningful standards for instructor training established by POST....some places will be a disaster.
I'm a retired LE FI, and brother PREACH on these two points. I was at FLETC's FITP on 9/11/01 and got "short coursed" in a week in order to deploy to exotic locales. I attended Auto Weapons Instructor and Reactive Shooting Instructor in 2004-2005ish, and that was it until I retired last year. 16 years, no refresher. I was blessed to have assignments where my supported commands would send me off to contractor training a couple times per year, and paid for me to go to IMNLTAITP for "Sims" certification.
My former agency's culture on firearms was "when was the last time an agent had to shoot someone" right up until the Navy Yard active shooter event. After that there was an immediate hue and cry to get "tactical" - defined as having a small cadre of trained folks with appropriate kit and rifles scattered around the globe. Only in the last year of my time was there a push to make rifles widely available to agents in the field, get rifle plates issued, get folks trained on active shooter response, etc. Even then, those pushes were largely specific to individual field offices - more than one "SAC" took the "my agents don't need rifles" approach...
We had a full re-write of our Firearms policy post Navy Yard, which mandated semi-annual qualification, and quarterly firearms "sustainment" training - one of which was supposed to be mandatory SIMs force-on-force. In reality, if an agent didn't make quals twice a year, there was little-to-no enforcement of standards. It was the very rare agent who would show up for "sustainment" ranges, again no enforcement of attendance or performance for those who showed. The force-on-force never happened, because the agency never trained FIs in proper use of Sims, never issued Sim firearms or protective equipment, etc.
KeeFus
05-08-2022, 07:27 PM
Alabama has instituted a re-cert requirement for firearms instructors, but it appears most are just going back through the same courses they took to get certified.
In NC, we have to re-certify every 3 years. This has slowly cut the numbers of “instructors”, but not a lot.
To re-certify, you have to be evaluated for 12 hours in each three year interval as well as qualify day and night on the State BLET course of fire with a 92 or better. It’s not hard….
vcdgrips
05-08-2022, 09:14 PM
"I think both Daryll and Wayne Dobbs have talked about 5" as a good accountability zone before"
Slight Tangent- A CD has a 4.75 in diameter. I always have a few in the range bag. That and a sharpie and you are good to go for a 5 inch area even if you count shots that "just" break the line.
I've been thinking more about HCMs central question of how do we interest/motivate LE Firearms Instructors. I had an epiphany today about this. Unfortunately it was born of depression and despair, but I think the lesson is still valid.
Several of us have talked about the importance of instructor selection to a programs success. I still believe this is true, and have frankly come to believe that a demonstrated passion for shooting is more important than performance on a selection shooting test, up to a point. Give me someone with a passion for shooting, and I'll quickly get him/her to a point where they will smoke the person with natural hand/eye coordination but no actual passion/interest. Of course some level of skill is necessary, but I firmly believe the passion trumps that. Secondarily, the person has to demonstrate an ability to communicate, which is an absolute prerequisite for an instructor. I like HCMs use of public speaking experience in this regard. If you can find and select these people, it will go far to making your program successful.
But the question was more about motivating existing instructors, I think. Can we even do that? I think you can, to an extent. I think you need to motivate them by challenging them, and continuous exposure to outside instructors is the way. It worked, for a time, for my staff. Two classes in 4 years, but the necessity of performing on new tasks, for an outside authority who was evaluating/judging you, was a powerful incentive to perform. For a time that motivation lasted. Now that myself and the only other instructor passionate about shooting are leaving....the motivation is gone. There is no one to challenge them, or push them....or even get them more training. Hopefully my successor will continue to try....but I'm not optimistic.
Continuing to challenge instructors to perform, for outside 'experts', is powerful motivator in my opinion. And in my experience one of the only ways to motivate the Civil service types. No one wants to be 'that guy' in front of their peers.
That's my take on motivating the ones we're stuck with. Thoughts?
I've been thinking more about HCMs central question of how do we interest/motivate LE Firearms Instructors. I had an epiphany today about this. Unfortunately it was born of depression and despair, but I think the lesson is still valid.
Several of us have talked about the importance of instructor selection to a programs success. I still believe this is true, and have frankly come to believe that a demonstrated passion for shooting is more important than performance on a selection shooting test, up to a point. Give me someone with a passion for shooting, and I'll quickly get him/her to a point where they will smoke the person with natural hand/eye coordination but no actual passion/interest. Of course some level of skill is necessary, but I firmly believe the passion trumps that. Secondarily, the person has to demonstrate an ability to communicate, which is an absolute prerequisite for an instructor. I like HCMs use of public speaking experience in this regard. If you can find and select these people, it will go far to making your program successful.
But the question was more about motivating existing instructors, I think. Can we even do that? I think you can, to an extent. I think you need to motivate them by challenging them, and continuous exposure to outside instructors is the way. It worked, for a time, for my staff. Two classes in 4 years, but the necessity of performing on new tasks, for an outside authority who was evaluating/judging you, was a powerful incentive to perform. For a time that motivation lasted. Now that myself and the only other instructor passionate about shooting are leaving....the motivation is gone. There is no one to challenge them, or push them....or even get them more training. Hopefully my successor will continue to try....but I'm not optimistic.
Continuing to challenge instructors to perform, for outside 'experts', is powerful motivator in my opinion. And in my experience one of the only ways to motivate the Civil service types. No one wants to be 'that guy' in front of their peers.
That's my take on motivating the ones we're stuck with. Thoughts?
That was my whole thought with the big fish in small ponds thing. While bringing outside instructors in is good I think sometimes sending your guys out to mixed classes or matches is even better.
While I know there can be downsides and PPC shooters who were also firearms instructors were at one point the “fudds” of the police firearms training world, There is real value in getting out of your comfort zone via competition. If you can perform under pressure among a bunch of strangers doing a demo in front of some students becomes a much less daunting prospect. One could send some of their instructors to go shoot a local USPSA or ID PA match on the clock with their duty gear. It’s either going to motivate them to get better or identify them as someone who probably shouldn’t be an instructor.
As I’m sure AMC has seen there are LE Firearms instructors who don’t like to shoot and will decline opportunities to be paid to shoot free ammo. While shooting on your own can be expensive and time consuming, and people have family commitments, and the only thing cheaper than a cop is two cops, a firearms instructor turning down the opportunity to shoot free ammo while on the clock should be a huge red flag.
That was my whole thought with the big fish in small ponds thing. While bringing outside instructors in is good I think sometimes sending your guys out to mixed classes or matches is even better.
While I know there can be downsides and PPC shooters who were also firearms instructors were at one point the “fudds” of the police firearms training world, There is real value in getting out of your comfort zone via competition. If you can perform under pressure among a bunch of strangers doing a demo in front of some students becomes a much less daunting prospect. One could send some of their instructors to go shoot a local USPSA or ID PA match on the clock with their duty gear. It’s either going to motivate them to get better or identify them as someone who probably shouldn’t be an instructor.
As I’m sure AMC has seen there are LE Firearms instructors who don’t like to shoot and will decline opportunities to be paid to shoot free ammo. While shooting on your own can be expensive and time consuming, and people have family commitments, and the only thing cheaper than a cop is two cops, a firearms instructor turning down the opportunity to shoot free ammo while on the clock should be a huge red flag.
I think mixed outside classes can be a huge benefit also. And I totally agree on the co.petition angle. Tried to get some of my guys interested in competition for 4 years. No takers. Doesn't help when you have some of the senior guys constantly harping the "competition gets you kilt in da streetz!" mantra. Just an excuse as to why they suck, but we all know that.
At a place like mine, I was very limited in what I could demand of my staff. I can't get rid of them (MOU rules about assignments), I can't get them to change hours or days (so no weekend matches I could detail them to), and my command would never approve overtime for the matches. Even outside training would have to be nearby in our area, or it isn't happening. Department isn't gonna spring for hotels travel costs for a firearms instructor to go to firearms training.
Even with those limitations, I think bringing in outside trainers, maybe in conjunction with individual courses for individual staff members, could still go a long way. An advantage of open classes is that they'd be exposed to some of the same 'competition' in a way. When the LE Firearms Instructor gets shown up constantly on the range by the lady veterinarian with her Glock 19, or the overweight medical supplies salesman with his LTT 92G.....it can be humbling. Like having the Filipino grandma with her 9mm 1911 run circles around you on a USPSA stage. A harsh way to realize you don't know what you don't know.
Shamelessly stolen from Centrifuge Trining:
88764
Highplains45
05-15-2022, 12:56 PM
I wrote a requirement that all state-certified FI must have 24 hours of relevant continuing education every three years, in order for them to test and report state-mandated annual handgun qualification. Our state commission agreed but extended it four years at the request of some federal folks who "might" conduct a state qualification. We now have a process for reviewing and evaluating that continuing education in order for it to count toward the 24 hours. At the time I wrote it I was dealing with a couple of instructors who had over 20 years since their last, and only, firearms instructor training. It was clear that some requirement was needed as there were many others who went years without additional training. The packet I sent to our commission explained the need and provided examples from other venues. I offered a wide variety of continuing education classes that went mostly unfilled and subsequently canceled. Fast forward about 12 years and almost everyone keeps up with their continuing education.
We also review Firearms Instructor courses. At a minimum, a handgun instructor course must be 40+ hours in length and we have a list of required topics. This came about when we had officers in our state attending the "firearms instructor course" conducted by a major federal agency. The schedule and syllabus, 2.5 pages long, also served as the lesson plan for the week-long course. In that course Tuesday covered handgun, Wednesday covered shotgun and Thursday was for patrol rifle. "Certification" on three different systems in one week! I called the instructor to confirm this and asked how they managed to fit what most courses would do in a week, into one day. The instructor advised that they "cut out all the fluff" in their course. When I asked what sort of topics were considered "fluff", I was given a rather indignant recitation of the instructor's background (*RT, *WAT, academy assignments, etc., etc.) and service history. This became the first and only, officially "not allowed" course. Thanks to that experience, we have managed to set a higher bar for what is allowed as a handgun instructor course.
Our commission comes from a diverse group of LE managers and includes city/county government and even court system representation. Coming before them with facts and a plan or solution has worked well.
Erick Gelhaus
05-15-2022, 04:06 PM
...
This came about when we had officers in our state attending the "firearms instructor course" conducted by a major federal agency. The schedule and syllabus, 2.5 pages long, also served as the lesson plan for the week-long course. In that course Tuesday covered handgun, Wednesday covered shotgun and Thursday was for patrol rifle. "Certification" on three different systems in one week! I called the instructor to confirm this and asked how they managed to fit what most courses would do in a week, into one day. The instructor advised that they "cut out all the fluff" in their course. ...
This brings up a potentially useful discussion. Should firearms instructor courses be (predominantly) shooting courses, instructional development courses, or some mixture? Will the student get more from making the gun bang? Or is the benefit from coaching other students and possibly presenting a portion of the material?
If states and/or agencies are requiring subject matter non-specific instructor development classes first, and the candidate is "competent", how much time is needed for handgun? for carbine? for shotgun? what about other skills - low light, high-risk stops?
Does coaching, as is done in the Rangemaster class sufficient? Is setting up and running the range for a drill enough? Does it require 30 minutes in front of the classroom?
jnc36rcpd
05-16-2022, 01:44 AM
I think the requirements depend on prerequisites. We need instructors who can shoot, teach others to shoot, coach, run a range effectively, and so forth.
Fot instance, the federal course that Highplains45 describes seems abysmal for a new firearms instructor. That said, if the federal agency had appropriate prerequisites for instructor candidates, it might be fine for their instructor candidates, but certainly not for officers from other agencies who haven't had the required pre-instructor course training.
My former agency's executive who handled training loved to have someone apply for a program that he could deny. It thrilled him to scrawl "already attended training" if the officer had attended a similar sounding training course five years previously. The concept that one might need different or updated perspectives just escapes him. (Hee's still there, hanging on like Queen Elizabth, but a whole lot less effective and agile.)
Speaking of prereqs:
In GA, a firearms instructor candidate now has to have a general instructor certification prior to attending the firearms instructor course. The shooting prereq for the firearms instructor course is being able to shoot a 90 on the state qualification course. That means you can only completely miss the target three times instead of six.
The FBI instructor standard on their pistol course is a 90; so, you can only completely miss five times instead of 10. Yes, there are other things such as the bullseye course.
FLETC's shooting prereq is an 85.
John Hearne
05-16-2022, 12:44 PM
The FBI instructor standard on their pistol course is a 90; so, you can only completely miss five times instead of 10. Yes, there are other things such as the bullseye course.
FLETC's shooting prereq is an 85.
I was told that the FBI has dropped the passing bullseye score from 260 to 240. 240 used to be the one handed standard.
FLETC is an 85% on the CI course which is a bit of a joke - 255/300.
I was told that the FBI has dropped the passing bullseye score from 260 to 240. 240 used to be the one handed standard.
FLETC is an 85% on the CI course which is a bit of a joke - 255/300.
The FBI still requires a 260. The change is candidates now shoot the bullseye at their home office as a prerequisite instead of day one at FI school.
I believe the other change is on the regular pistol and rifle qual, FI candidates must keep all rounds within the outer rings of the B8 in the middle of the new Q/milk bottle target instead of anywhere in the milk bottle.
The FLETC 300 point pistol qual is pretty easy but two people still failed out of my class.. The Fletc course has a little more on instruction and doing lesson plans but I think there is a presumption that those actually working for FLETC will go through the basic/general instructor training course as well.
The FBI still requires a 260. The change is candidates now shoot the bullseye at their home office as a prerequisite instead of day one at FI school.
I believe the other change is on the regular pistol and rifle qual, FI candidates must keep all rounds within the outer rings of the B8 in the middle of the new Q/milk bottle target instead of anywhere in the milk bottle.
The FLETC 300 point pistol qual is pretty easy but two people still failed out of my class.. The Fletc course has a little more on instruction and doing lesson plans but I think there is a presumption that those actually working for FLETC will go through the basic/general instructor training course as well.
When I attended the FBI school, we had a "pre qual" day at which we had to shoot passing scores on the FBI PQC, FBI Bullseye, APOST, FBI Rifle, and FBI shotgun courses.
UNM1136
05-17-2022, 08:19 AM
Speaking of prereqs:
In GA, a firearms instructor candidate now has to have a general instructor certification prior to attending the firearms instructor course. The shooting prereq for the firearms instructor course is being able to shoot a 90 on the state qualification course. That means you can only completely miss the target three times instead of six.
The FBI instructor standard on their pistol course is a 90; so, you can only completely miss five times instead of 10. Yes, there are other things such as the bullseye course.
FLETC's shooting prereq is an 85.
NM's FIC requires similar general instructor, prequal at 90% and successful completion of the course. One of the guys in my course (2007) was removed for safety violations during revolver reloads.
pat
John Hearne
05-17-2022, 08:47 AM
I believe the other change is on the regular pistol and rifle qual, FI candidates must keep all rounds within the outer rings of the B8 in the middle of the new Q/milk bottle target instead of anywhere in the milk bottle.
The FLETC 300 point pistol qual is pretty easy but two people still failed out of my class.
Re FLETC, I was told that they typically lose two out of every class. Some times more, some times less, but it averages out to two.
Re the FBI, is this the new target?
https://d16ztny0u4c50x.cloudfront.net/images/fbi%20q20-p_n.jpg
Re FLETC, I was told that they typically lose two out of every class. Some times more, some times less, but it averages out to two.
Re the FBI, is this the new target?
https://d16ztny0u4c50x.cloudfront.net/images/fbi%20q20-p_n.jpg
Yes. That is the new target.
88992
John Hearne
05-17-2022, 01:10 PM
In the department of amazing similarities.....
Yes. That is the new target.
88992
So am I correct as interpreting that to mean that they must score 100%, or is it still 90% but only hits in the rings count?
This brings up a potentially useful discussion. Should firearms instructor courses be (predominantly) shooting courses, instructional development courses, or some mixture? Will the student get more from making the gun bang? Or is the benefit from coaching other students and possibly presenting a portion of the material?
If states and/or agencies are requiring subject matter non-specific instructor development classes first, and the candidate is "competent", how much time is needed for handgun? for carbine? for shotgun? what about other skills - low light, high-risk stops?
Does coaching, as is done in the Rangemaster class sufficient? Is setting up and running the range for a drill enough? Does it require 30 minutes in front of the classroom?
Outside of a skills-test type prerequisite (because we want to avoid the "those who can't do - teach" pitfall), I think the reps that an instructor course needs should be primarily filled by the students filling the role of students for their classmates or instructors during teach-back practical demonstrations.
If you are at an instructor, your minimum qualification to get in the door is personally knowing the techniques and material; the instructor course is to ensure you are prepared to pass that material on to adult learners, to ensure that you can run a range safely, that you can prepare the logistics of running a training program, and to ensure that you are prepared to answer the "why?" and not just the "how?" questions about firearms and techniques. You should be getting rounds downrange during a class, but in my eyes, it should be to show that you belong in the class; during demonstrations as part of the modules you are presenting to prac-app; and as you role-play a student class for your peers while they prac-app their lessons.
I really appreciated the way the SIG academy ran their instructor development course a decade ago when I took it. They held a high standard for skill, and it was a relatively round heavy course because students did not come with a specific curriculum of material that their agency expects them to have, but they really focused on the "why" behind every item they taught - not in a doctrinally calcified way, but in a "you should seek out training, and ensure that your policies and techniques make sense, and are not just a product of 'we have always done it this way.'" They hit hard on actually preparing a lesson plan and how to cover modules in a course - and they made us demonstrate it as part of the instructor course - all the way down to ensuring that we had our logistics in order for what gear we needed to draw to accomplish the training plan.
So am I correct as interpreting that to mean that they must score 100%, or is it still 90% but only hits in the rings count?
I think only only the rings count. Will verify.
Re FLETC, I was told that they typically lose two out of every class. Some times more, some times less, but it averages out to two.
We lost two from my class on the shoot-in qual.
GPSTC furnishes ammo for classes; however, they have instituted a new policy:
Students must bring the ammo needed for any “shoot-in”.
They calculated how much they were spending on ammo for students were gone after the “shoot-in”.
GPSTC furnishes ammo for classes; however, they have instituted a new policy:
Students must bring the ammo needed for any “shoot-in”.
They calculated how much they were spending on ammo for students were gone after the “shoot-in”.
Another possible factor, especially if the shooting includes a bull’s-eye course is the GPSTC ammo may or may not shoot to point of aim /be zeroed for the students weapon.
Not really a problem in the typical no cop left behind pistol qualification on a full-size silhouette but it could be a factor in a bull’s-eye course shot on a B8.
Another possible factor, especially if the shooting includes a bull’s-eye course is the GPSTC ammo may or may not shoot to point of aim /be zeroed for the students weapon.
Not really a problem in the typical no cop left behind pistol qualification on a full-size silhouette but it could be a factor in a bull’s-eye course shot on a B8.
The shoot-ins are typically the state qual course or a variation of it. There's not enough difference in ammo to change the POI to miss an 8x10 A-zone.
Jeff22
05-23-2022, 10:25 AM
Agencies often send people to firearms instructor classes for totally illogical reasons. Some guys want to attend because they think it might be neat or because they want to check a box on their career profession plan. Sending somebody who isn’t that interested and/or can’t shoot is a waste of an instructor slot, but it happens all the time.
If you do it right, being an instructor can be hard work and it requires a personal commitment to maintaining your own skills, which is easy if you have genuine interest and damn near impossible if you do not.
Lots of cops go to one instructor class one time once, and never attend much relevant training after that (except for any instructor updates that may be required by the state) and their skills may rapidly become out of date. To be fair, they may still have utility as a safety officer/target scorer.
For most of us, firearms instructing is a labor of love and we never get the time or resources to do more than fight a slightly losing battle to maintain the basic gun handling & marsmanship skills of our students.
I think success in this arena is largely regional, and most often temporary. It is either driven by committed individuals, or it isn't driven at all. Most big city LE agencies, and likely most state and Federal agencies, frankly wish that guns would just go away. Their policies and thinking are very often driven by progressive political priorities....and making LEOs proficient with their firearms is not counted among those. Add to that the negative reinforcement effect that DB has written about so often (positive reinforcement for administrators when cops are killed/negative reinforcement when we win), and you realize this will never be a leading priority of admin types. The people who pursue rank tend not to be "performance focused" personalities, and often see their subordinates as liabilities.
This being the reality, it really does fall to individual instructors, especially leaders/supervisors, to drive the training agenda. When you have someone who is passionate about it, who spends their off time training and researching, you can accomplish something. You'll likely face sabotage and roadblocks, but you can move the ball. Again on the topic of the OP, I think challenging uninterested instructors with continuous training of their own can motivate most of these folks.
I was listening to one of Matt Prankas "Redneck Podcasts" with Pannone and another LE instructor I'm not familiar with. The topic was training and standards for LE. I agreed with what they were saying, and the stated need for communicating the need for higher standards to Admin. But I just don't get the impression that these gentlemen truly understand how difficult that is. They both come from a place where proficiency was truly valued (demanded), including by leadership. It's hard for folks from that background to grasp the most LE administrators really don't give a flying fuck whether or not their cops are proficient. It isn't something that ever enters their minds. And until we start making it hurt for folks whose decisions impact this area, that won't change.
Jeff22
06-04-2022, 02:15 AM
Politics seldom has much to do with this.
Police administrators who have never been trainers in any topic don’t understand how critical training is.
Lots of police administrators don’t really believe in their heart of hearts that anything bad will actually happen, even though there is evidence to the contrary every damn day.
Firearms training and training in emergency vehicle operation is expensive and time consuming. Many agencies in urban areas have very limited access to shooting ranges and driving tracks.
When doing defensive tactics training, there is always the possibility of injury. Administrators really want to avoid getting anybody injured in the gym. And you would not believe how much old and out-of-shape cops whine about it. (At the end of my career I was old & out-of-shape but enthusiastic)
And if you’re short staffed, it can be difficult to pull cops off the street for training. Some agencies will backfill with cops on over time to cover, and others don’t have the budget for that.
And most cops are not that interested in skills training beyond a basic level, and administrators know that and they do get tired of listening to the whining.
I think I was pretty lucky. In 40 years of going firearms instruction (13 years teaching at the local regional police academy) most of the people I trained were reasonably safe, reasonably competent at a basic level and had good attitudes most of the time.
psalms144.1
06-05-2022, 06:34 PM
As a newly retired LE Firearms Instructor, I'll post the opposite opinion:
1. Management does NOT want meaningful training or challenging "qualifications" which might reduce manpower availability due to shooters being "DQ'd"
2. The VAST majority of "shooters" showing up are not shooters, don't want to be shooters, and don't give a flying f*** about improving
3. A very small minority are REALLY terrible, unsafe, and need to be watched like hawks. They eat up 95% of the time of any FI actually paying attention
4. An equally small minority are actual shooters. Some of them understand reality, shoot the best they can, and move on to do high quality training on their own. Some of them bitch endlessly about how the training isn't "up to snuff," and the instructors are "just getting by."
Meanwhile, I spent 20+ years as an FI, never in a full-time capacity, always traveling to provide what training and qualification I could get time and resources to pull off, while dealing with 98 out of 100 folks who think I'm a f***stick, and who I could never please. So, I'm frankly SUPER glad to be out of that business altogether. The training I'm doing now is for folks who are (a) willing to dedicate time and money to be there, and (b) know what they're getting in advance. Basic shooters don't think they're going to some high-speed low drag fast roping event. Advanced shooters aren't on the line with folks who don't know how to load, handle, or shoot their firearm. Why? Because I'm actually the one setting the schedule, planning the POIs, and executing. For MOST LE FIs, that's not the case, and they're just trying to make the best of a really shitty situation.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled "bitch about the instructors" segment.
andre3k
06-10-2022, 02:26 PM
One of the best things I've seen happen to my department was when our marksmanship team was formed. It took a while to gain traction but we now have a core group of really good shooters. When we first started most were C class with a few B class shooters on a good day, as time has progressed we're getting consistent A class and Masters now.
About a 1/3 of the instructor cadre are on the team which allows new ideas to flow upward. It also helps that the Captain of the training academy is a team member and a Master class single stack shooter.
We have two fundraisers a year that help with fees for state and national matches and to bring in relevant outside instructors so that you're not stuck with the same old LE shooting curriculum. Scott Jedlinski and JJ Racaza are some of the instructors that we have been able to bring in.
So now we have a pipeline of good shooters that have competed and trained outside of typical LE classes and they seem to get preference when we have openings for range instructors. It's the best thing I've seen happen at my agency in a long time. The trickle down effect is real because the department has better instructors and patrol gets better training.
Check us out at hpdmt on IG.
Sent from my SM-A135U1 using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.