RFI: Policy, Transition training, and Qualification CoF for RDS pistols

[Jason M]

Hello all,

My department admin has expressed a very enthusiastic interest in converting from iron sighted, 9mm Glock pistols to RDS equipped, 9mm Glock pistols tomorrow. I am seeking information on all of the policies, transition training lesson plans, and qualification CoF. I would also like to hear of any issues with open vs closed emitter or issues with specific makes of RDS. I suspect that we will be obtaining either Holosun or Aimpoint RDS. Please PM me and I will supply a departmental email.

We would like to move on this sooner vs later so I would be eternally grateful for any information.

Thanks in advance!

[Cory]

I'm not LE and dont know the in's and out's of what your looking for. Im sure other department trainers will be along with more advice and resources.

I believe the most comprehensive document thats publically available is Aaron Cowan's white paper. It's updated with regularity and gives a pretty comprehensive look at the topic. It's available on his homepage. https://www.sagedynamics.org/
According to Aaron's website bio, over 300 departments have used the paper to justify adopting red dots.

[SoCalDep]

I sent you a PM.

[Jason M]

Thanks to all thus far! PMs have been sent.

[Ethang]

I have been trying to do the same thing and have been met with a brick administrative wall of NO..

[Wayne Dobbs]

PM out to you.

[Jason M]

I have been trying to do the same thing and have been met with a brick administrative wall of NO..

My Admin is the entity pushing the issue. Most officers have some interest. There are a few who are “all in” but I don’t know of any who are opposed. Most are interested in trying demo guns to see what PMO is all about.

[Utm]

My Admin is the entity pushing the issue. Most officers have some interest. There are a few who are “all in” but I don’t know of any who are opposed. Most are interested in trying demo guns to see what PMO is all about.

Are you guys buying all MOS guns and letting those that want the red dots have them?

[1Rangemaster]

My Admin is the entity pushing the issue. Most officers have some interest. There are a few who are “all in” but I don’t know of any who are opposed. Most are interested in trying demo guns to see what PMO is all about.

I think you’d do well to contact GLOCK in Smyrna, GA, directly, and asked to be linked to one of their field representatives. From all I’ve heard, they are pretty responsive with T&E guns. On the sights, see Wayne Dobbs for info on the outstanding ACRO(yeah, I’m a fan).
You are going to have to factor in some transition training- it’s critical IMO.
Briefly, if an officer wants to get into the dot, they should receive some instruction and qual with their new gear at a minimum. Sights should be installed by someone who knows what they’re doing and cares about it; SoCalDep should be listened to.
In my little AO, the quality sights are running pretty good. It’s the mounting one needs to pay attention to.
Best of luck- it’s worth it…

[Whiskey]

I thought that instead of making a very similar topic, I would just bump this to the top. We are going to RMR's on top of G17's from our current stock G22's next year. I am being tasked with working on an 8 hour transition class. I would really appreciate anybody that could send me a POI or outline if they have one already made up.

[1Rangemaster]

I thought that instead of making a very similar topic, I would just bump this to the top. We are going to RMR's on top of G17's from our current stock G22's next year. I am being tasked with working on an 8 hour transition class. I would really appreciate anybody that could send me a POI or outline if they have one already made up.

Respectfully, Whiskey, you should really try for some instruction yourself to see what's involved. Bring up the matter of liability-that sometimes works. If you're going to Glocks, that company offers dot specific training. Trijicon used to offer some-don't know if they do now.
I would also respectfully suggest looking (and heeding) SoCalDep posts for mounting. He has done the community a service with his sight mounting procedure.
An oversimplification, but the transition is going to mostly be what you'd do going to a new weapon, except target focus, a lot of presentations/draws to get the new optic index and some instruction on operator responsibility. HCM had a good point in that they instruct their personnel to daily draw to a ready, check function and zero(off the buis), weapon status and secure for the shift.
Very best of luck to you

Edit to add: you can sign up for Aimpoint training tips on their site. The ACRO is different-two lenses, enclosed-but the principles are basically the same. Their Training Dir. advocates a lot of dry practice, and I think most all here would agree.

[AMC]

I thought that instead of making a very similar topic, I would just bump this to the top. We are going to RMR's on top of G17's from our current stock G22's next year. I am being tasked with working on an 8 hour transition class. I would really appreciate anybody that could send me a POI or outline if they have one already made up.

With respect, and I know a bunch of agencies are handling this topic this way, an 8 hour transition course is simply not enough to acclimate shooters to using a pistol-mounted-optic at speed, under stress. The PMO is a big technology boost, can assist aged-eye shooters, and allows better success with target focused shooting for most people. But you have to put in the work. I have seen the results of 8 hour transition courses by several agencies in my state. Sure....they can pass a qual course. But they could do that without the dot. Put any of those shooters on a fast-paced exercise involving targets at various angles and distances, especially with movement involved, and their skills will fall apart. They will lose the dot on transitions and from the holster at speed. The administrative desire to purchase skill by buying new equipment rather than investing in your employees with time is something we as instructors have to recognize and fight against tooth-and-nail.

I would also echo 1Rangemaster, in that you need to get training yourself (if you haven't already done so) before instructing others on this topic. Believe me, even if you've been shooting a dot, you don't know what you don't know about teaching it. Sig Sauer Academy has an excellent PMO Instructor Course (no they don't care what gun you shoot), as does Mike Pannone of CTT Solutions, Scott Jedlinski of Modern Samurai Project, and Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics. Your own state may even have a POST approved version (we have a few in California now).

[1Rangemaster]

I've be reading and speaking with some "ivory tower"(university) types, and there's an argument/suggestion for short sessions over time for true retention of skill(s). This has something to do with recency of training and how the human brain works. A short-2 to a few hours-with one or a few skills introduced, e.g., draw from secured holster, over days at medicated better retention. GJM has written of this related to flying whirlybirds and jets. So, a program could be a number of dry practice sessions over days finishing with live fire confirmation.
Now, this flies in the face of all that is holy in traditional firearms instruction: one to several weeks, immersion, regimented, etc. John Hearne probably has a good deal to say about this also. In my recent personal experience, I've seen noticeable positive results.
All this may be of no help to you, Whiskey, except to include in your plan follow along dry practice (please).
And again, get yourself some instruction and training if at all possible...

[jlw]

What I am seeing is cops going through a 2-day transition class, and at the end of the second day they shoot a qual course. The scores are higher than their average, and they pronounce the PMS as the greatest thing ever.

Weeks or months later, they come back to the range and struggle because they have done nothing in the interim.

Mark Fricke, a name you all should know if you don’t, posits that scores with PMOs initially rise due to the practice during the transition course and not due to the optic itself. He says that the same thing happened during the revolver to semi-auto transition phase.

There’s no magic number for the hours of a transition course.

Outside of the mounting and maintenance issues and a few PMO specific techniques, a PMO shooting course is no different than an iron sighted shooting course.

The initial transition needs to be followed up with frequent training sessions… just like any other firearms training.

[HCM]

What I am seeing is cops going through a 2-day transition class, and at the end of the second day they shoot a qual course. The scores are higher than their average, and they pronounce the PMS as the greatest thing ever.

Weeks or months later, they come back to the range and struggle because they have done nothing in the interim.

Mark Fricke, a name you all should know if you don’t, posits that scores with PMOs initially rise due to the practice during the transition course and not due to the optic itself. He says that the same thing happened during the revolver to semi-auto transition phase.

There’s no magic number for the hours of a transition course.

Outside of the mounting and maintenance issues and a few PMO specific techniques, a PMO shooting course is no different than an iron sighted shooting course.

The initial transition needs to be followed up with frequent training sessions… just like any other firearms training.

I was expecting to see the drop in scores you mentioned on subsequent qualifications but it has not worked out that way. We’ve seen seen some people with a slight drop and others continuing to perform at a high level.

I believe the fact that we shoot quarterly contributes to that. If we did not have that frequency/recency I could see it being more of an issue.

Sample of 300 shooters, now 2 quarters beyond a 16 hour transition course.

[jlw]

I was expecting to see the drop in scores you mentioned on subsequent qualifications but it has not worked out that way. We’ve seen seen some people with a slight drop and others continuing to perform at a high level.

I believe the fact that we shoot quarterly contributes to that. If we did not have that frequency/recency I could see it being more of an issue.

Sample of 300 shooters, now 2 quarters beyond a 16 hour transition course.

Earlier this year, we had a deputy who isn't a "good" shooter but one who typically doesn't have trouble qualifying attend a PMO transition course on 2/16/22. He shot his all time best qual score (low/mid 90s) at that class. On 3/2/22, he failed a qual. His issue was going over time due to not being able to find the dot.

The above is just one example, but I have noted fall off in those that aren't keeping recent.

[HCM]

Earlier this year, we had a deputy who isn't a "good" shooter but one who typically doesn't have trouble qualifying attend a PMO transition course on 2/16/22. He shot his all time best qual score (low/mid 90s) at that class. On 3/2/22, he failed a qual. His issue was going over time due to not being able to find the dot.

The above is just one example, but I have noted fall off in those that aren't keeping recent.

We're not seeing that. It makes me wonder about the PMO transition course.

We've seen the majority of shooters who normally were in the 70% to 80% range with irons staying at or slightly above 90%. Most were 95% or > at the end of transition but seem to be retaining enough to be useful.

We've had no DNQs this quarter with RDS shooters using RDS. What we have seen is shooters with RDS duty guns shooting 90% or > with their duty gun then struggling with their iron sighted off duty / BUG guns.

We have two shooters that were previously "frequent flyers" for DNQ/Remedial training with Irons who shot their personal best / first perfect scores at the end of PMO transition. I've been keeping an eye on them as "canaries in the coal mine" as neither is a hobby shooter but both are still shooting at 95% or >.

We do allow officers to opt out of the RDS but several of the opt outs are now asking to go RDS based on the results they're seeing in their peers.

[jnc36rcpd]

The summer 2022 issue of "The Tactical Edge" has an excellent article by Timothy Lee entitled "Desirable Difficulties in Training Improve Skill Retention". It was reprinted in the Force Science newsletter and is available on their website. Lee argues that somewhat counter-intuitive practices enhance skill retention. "Spacing" the training rather than delivering it in a singular block is the first desirable difficulty he lists.

There is some great advice in this thread. I suspect quarterly qualifications in HCM's department have some aspects of Lee's difficulties. While qualification isn't training, I think officers will remember their techniques if they know they'll be tested in three months versus six or twelve months. Testing later rather than sooner is also suggested. I think that three month intervals provide that testing. Undoubtedly, the recommended daily practice also helps with skill retention.

I'd also recommend you and/or another instructor attend an RDS class before implementing the program. In addition to the ones suggested, I believe SigSauer and the Texas Tactical Police Officers Association offer RDS classes.

I attended the same four hour RDS class by Trijicon at different conferences. The classes showed me the value of the RDS, but I doubt I'll carry my RMR-equipped Glock 45 until I attend a more intensive class. As suggested, I do OK on the square range, but real world is another story.

[HCM]

The summer 2022 issue of "The Tactical Edge" has an excellent article by Timothy Lee entitled "Desirable Difficulties in Training Improve Skill Retention". It was reprinted in the Force Science newsletter and is available on their website. Lee argues that somewhat counter-intuitive practices enhance skill retention. "Spacing" the training rather than delivering it in a singular block is the first desirable difficulty he lists.

There is some great advice in this thread. I suspect quarterly qualifications in HCM's department have some aspects of Lee's difficulties. While qualification isn't training, I think officers will remember their techniques if they know they'll be tested in three months versus six or twelve months. Testing later rather than sooner is also suggested. I think that three month intervals provide that testing. Undoubtedly, the recommended daily practice also helps with skill retention.

I'd also recommend you and/or another instructor attend an RDS class before implementing the program. In addition to the ones suggested, I believe SigSauer and the Texas Tactical Police Officers Association offer RDS classes.

I attended the same four hour RDS class by Trijicon at different conferences. The classes showed me the value of the RDS, but I doubt I'll carry my RMR-equipped Glock 45 until I attend a more intensive class. As suggested, I do OK on the square range, but real world is another story.

Since the OP is apparently in PA, I’ll second the recommendation for the current version of the SIG Academy RDS classes and suggest the Ohio Tactical Officers Association as a potential source of training.

[Whiskey]

I should have said that I went to a 3 day Pistol RDS Instructor course. Unfortunately, I can't fight the time allotted to bring the transition program to our in-service. The instructor for the course also said 16 hours and the guy who is telling me 8 hours was in that class, so I have to make do. We do offer monthly range sessions (some live, some on a simulator) and we have good availability for people to get time on the range to dry fire with an instructor present.

[SoCalDep]

What I am seeing is cops going through a 2-day transition class, and at the end of the second day they shoot a qual course. The scores are higher than their average, and they pronounce the PMS as the greatest thing ever.

Weeks or months later, they come back to the range and struggle because they have done nothing in the interim.

Mark Fricke, a name you all should know if you don’t, posits that scores with PMOs initially rise due to the practice during the transition course and not due to the optic itself. He says that the same thing happened during the revolver to semi-auto transition phase.

There’s no magic number for the hours of a transition course.

Outside of the mounting and maintenance issues and a few PMO specific techniques, a PMO shooting course is no different than an iron sighted shooting course.

The initial transition needs to be followed up with frequent training sessions… just like any other firearms training.

When my department implemented a pistol-mounted optic program we actually created a test that was a variant of our rifle qualification. We had the students shoot it cold on the first day with iron sights and at the end of the class (after almost 16 hours of training) with the dot.

We then had them return after a retention interval of between just over a month and over ten months and tracked the scores on both iron sights and optic. Both iron sight scores and optic scores ultimately deteriorated, and the study was certainly less than scientific... but pistol optic scores remained higher than iron sight scores throughout the retention interval.

This is extra interesting because the iron scores in the class involved pretty much no training or practice (they were done first thing on day one) and the optic class scores were after almost two days of training. When the individuals returned, I assumed that iron sight scores would remain consistent since the initial test was shot cold. They did not. Optic scores remained consistent longer. Interesting stuff.

Damn I want to finish that report.

[SoCalDep]

I've be reading and speaking with some "ivory tower"(university) types, and there's an argument/suggestion for short sessions over time for true retention of skill(s). This has something to do with recency of training and how the human brain works. A short-2 to a few hours-with one or a few skills introduced, e.g., draw from secured holster, over days at medicated better retention. GJM has written of this related to flying whirlybirds and jets. So, a program could be a number of dry practice sessions over days finishing with live fire confirmation.
Now, this flies in the face of all that is holy in traditional firearms instruction: one to several weeks, immersion, regimented, etc. John Hearne probably has a good deal to say about this also. In my recent personal experience, I've seen noticeable positive results.
All this may be of no help to you, Whiskey, except to include in your plan follow along dry practice (please).
And again, get yourself some instruction and training if at all possible...

I agree with your “ivory tower” types.

LE (and general) firearm training is bullshit to check a liability box. If we truly wanted to build skill we would do what any skilled profession does and do it often. Pilots fly a lot. Drivers drive. Football players play.

The way we teach firearms and many firearm instructors I’ve seen have no comprehension of how skill is actually developed. They just teach what they know from their own experience. Kinesiologists, sports psychologists, and others have been teaching and refining motor learning and performance for decades. We dismiss it as “not tactical” because we suck and can’t do it. Shame on us.

If you went into a BJJ whatever it’s called and said I want to take three 8hr classes this year so I can be proficient or even 12 8hr sessions in four months then nothing for a while but I’ll be good right... they would laugh at you.

Everyone wants to train with the “great” instructors. That’s neat but they became great because they did it ALL THE TIME. You don’t build motor skill by association and you won’t build motor skill by attendence. Now I’ll quote a “great” instructor... Mike Pannone said in a class that “participation doesn’t equal proficiency”, and while he was referring to a slightly different subject it certainly applies to firearm training.

If we treated cops and their responsibilities the same as we treat an airline pilot we’d have many fewer bad shootings and cops would be making a shit-ton more money. What we do now is allow for an acceptable number of innocent people dead, cops dead, and cops fired/prosecuted because that’s what the voters will pay for.

[1Rangemaster]

SoCalDep , I can’t give it more than one like, but I wish I could. I’m going to use your motor skill comment with attribution- nice and succinct. Thanks for your contributions and service.
I hope folks here have a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving. I’ve got to get a few dry draws in before the festivities today…

[AMC]

I agree with your “ivory tower” types.

LE (and general) firearm training is bullshit to check a liability box. If we truly wanted to build skill we would do what any skilled profession does and do it often. Pilots fly a lot. Drivers drive. Football players play.

The way we teach firearms and many firearm instructors I’ve seen have no comprehension of how skill is actually developed. They just teach what they know from their own experience. Kinesiologists, sports psychologists, and others have been teaching and refining motor learning and performance for decades. We dismiss it as “not tactical” because we suck and can’t do it. Shame on us.

If you went into a BJJ whatever it’s called and said I want to take three 8hr classes this year so I can be proficient or even 12 8hr sessions in four months then nothing for a while but I’ll be good right... they would laugh at you.

Everyone wants to train with the “great” instructors. That’s neat but they became great because they did it ALL THE TIME. You don’t build motor skill by association and you won’t build motor skill by attendence. Now I’ll quote a “great” instructor... Mike Pannone said in a class that “participation doesn’t equal proficiency”, and while he was referring to a slightly different subject it certainly applies to firearm training.

If we treated cops and their responsibilities the same as we treat an airline pilot we’d have many fewer bad shootings and cops would be making a shit-ton more money. What we do now is allow for an acceptable number of innocent people dead, cops dead, and cops fired/prosecuted because that’s what the voters will pay for.

Preach on, Brother.

I've used the EVOC analogy example to get the point across to some Admin types. Imagine that we accepted police recruits with no driver training or license. We send them to an EVOC course that's basically drivers Ed with a basic 16 year Olds license test. Then they become cops, but don't ever get behind the wheel, except every six months we ask them to parallel park....and they're only allowed to hit the cars around them twice. They only drive on duty to calls for help from other officers, and then only at the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws. Some day, randomly, some of them may be thrown into a high speed pursuit through crowded city streets. How does everyone think that's gonna go? Of course, being Admin types and therefore fundamentally stupid, they give you a blank look.

You're right. It all comes down to the fact that we've decided dead citizens, dead cops, and prosecuted cops who tried to do the right thing is easier than thinking through the problem and trying to fix it.

[WobblyPossum]

If you’re limited to 8 hours and management isn’t going to budge on that, I would do the vast majority of the shooting and dry work with the optic occluded with masking tape. You’ll be forcing everyone to shoot both eyes open with a target focus, which is fundamental to success with an RDS anyway. I’d also focus a lot of the reps and instruction on proper, efficient presentations from the holster and the ready positions because that’s going to be where people really struggle to find the dot because they probably have terrible, inefficient presentations.

Can you ask if management will at least give you four additional hours of classroom time? The troops will need you to cover things like maintenance, operation, using your specific issued optic, battery changes, installation, low light considerations, etc, but it would be a shame to eat into your already limited range time to do so.

[Whiskey]

If you’re limited to 8 hours and management isn’t going to budge on that, I would do the vast majority of the shooting and dry work with the optic occluded with masking tape. You’ll be forcing everyone to shoot both eyes open with a target focus, which is fundamental to success with an RDS anyway. I’d also focus a lot of the reps and instruction on proper, efficient presentations from the holster and the ready positions because that’s going to be where people really struggle to find the dot because they probably have terrible, inefficient presentations.

Can you ask if management will at least give you four additional hours of classroom time? The troops will need you to cover things like maintenance, operation, using your specific issued optic, battery changes, installation, low light considerations, etc, but it would be a shame to eat into your already limited range time to do so.

I definitely like the idea of doing a lot of the work occluded. Presentation is going to be THE hurdle. A lot of these shooters have extremely inefficient draw processes, and don't like hearing about it.

We have another 3.5 hours of "pistol time" allotted during our in service, I'm going to try to use a good portion of that for low light.

As far as the maintenance, we won't be doing a lot with that because the armorer's will be doing installs, instructors will be doing the initial zero, etc. We will talk about pre shift checks (brightness, checking witness marks) but I don't know that for our specific situation a whole lot of technical information would be useful to our people.

Thank you (and everyone else) for the input, I appreciate it.

[1Rangemaster]

I don't want to burn your time up for your transition, but a brief talk(video so it's consistent?) I think is in order to get the "eyes open/target focus" across. It helped in our case. Aimpoint has some videos on it, as do others.
And I don't know your flexibility; is this optic upgrade mandatory or voluntary? IOW, if they don't pass a qual-see jlw-
do they still get an optic? I'd think the qual would be mandatory...

[Whiskey]

I don't want to burn your time up for your transition, but a brief talk(video so it's consistent?) I think is in order to get the "eyes open/target focus" across. It helped in our case. Aimpoint has some videos on it, as do others.
And I don't know your flexibility; is this optic upgrade mandatory or voluntary? IOW, if they don't pass a qual-see jlw-
do they still get an optic? I'd think the qual would be mandatory...

Optic upgrade is mandatory, and qual is going to be mandatory... but our qual (also out of my hands) is so easy that it is unlikely to cause any issues.

I'll look into some videos, I think that's a good idea. Some of our other instructors have all of 3 days experience now with a red dot, videos would probably be good.

[SoCalDep]

Some of our other instructors have all of 3 days experience now with a red dot, videos would probably be good.

You don’t need a video. You need a big checkbook if your instructors have three days experience with the dot. That’s a bitchin’ deliberate indifference case for a good lawyer. Especially when the cop says he had to put the dot on his gun, didn’t want to, thought it made him worse, and that's Why he missed and killed the poor innocent kid.

Documentation and training (documented) in proper instruction will be WAY better than a video. It costs more now, but not doing it may cost way more later.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Optic upgrade is mandatory, and qual is going to be mandatory... but our qual (also out of my hands) is so easy that it is unlikely to cause any issues.

I'll look into some videos, I think that's a good idea. Some of our other instructors have all of 3 days experience now with a red dot, videos would probably be good.

Read what SoCalDep wrote. Please. I'm hoping the admin is much more of the cause than the firearms program is.

[Clark Jackson]

What I am seeing is cops going through a 2-day transition class, and at the end of the second day they shoot a qual course. The scores are higher than their average, and they pronounce the PMS as the greatest thing ever.

Weeks or months later, they come back to the range and struggle because they have done nothing in the interim.

Mark Fricke, a name you all should know if you don’t, posits that scores with PMOs initially rise due to the practice during the transition course and not due to the optic itself. He says that the same thing happened during the revolver to semi-auto transition phase.

There’s no magic number for the hours of a transition course.

Outside of the mounting and maintenance issues and a few PMO specific techniques, a PMO shooting course is no different than an iron sighted shooting course.

The initial transition needs to be followed up with frequent training sessions… just like any other firearms training.

I agree a PMO course is not very different than an iron sighted course outside some specific issues.

So I have to ask: why is it so difficult for your people to succeed? Is it an instructor issue, a student issue, a department culture issue, or a combination of the previous?

Are you evaluating component skill proficiency with iron sights and PMOs or are qualifications your sole discriminator?

HCM stated his people are seeing more success than yours. HCM, are your people evaluating and training component skill proficiency or just using the qualification course as the metric of success? Why is there a success difference between your two organizations?

I ask because we (the training community) know qualification scores are a poor indicator of proficiency and are a dubious (at best) indicator of real-world performance. It is well established that qualification courses of fire create a false sense of security in shooters, instructors, and administrators because they mask component skill deficiencies.

In my opinion, the big question at the end of a PMO transition course should be: can the shooter complete component skills equal to or better than they do with iron sights?

This answer should determine whether the individual carries/uses the PMO.

[jlw]

I agree a PMO course is not very different than an iron sighted course outside some specific issues.

So I have to ask: why is it so difficult for your people to succeed? Is it an instructor issue, a student issue, a department culture issue, or a combination of the previous?

Are you evaluating component skill proficiency with iron sights and PMOs or are qualifications your sole discriminator?

@HCM (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=1431) stated his people are seeing more success than yours. @HCM (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=1431), are your people evaluating and training component skill proficiency or just using the qualification course as the metric of success? Why is there a success difference between your two organizations?

I ask because we (the training community) know qualification scores are a poor indicator of proficiency and are a dubious (at best) indicator of real-world performance. It is well established that qualification courses of fire create a false sense of security in shooters, instructors, and administrators because they mask component skill deficiencies.

In my opinion, the big question at the end of a PMO transition course should be: can the shooter complete component skills equal to or better than they do with iron sights?

This answer should determine whether the individual carries/uses the PMO.


Understand, I don't have the bully pulpit any longer and can't mandate things.

[HCM]

I agree a PMO course is not very different than an iron sighted course outside some specific issues.

So I have to ask: why is it so difficult for your people to succeed? Is it an instructor issue, a student issue, a department culture issue, or a combination of the previous?

Are you evaluating component skill proficiency with iron sights and PMOs or are qualifications your sole discriminator?

HCM stated his people are seeing more success than yours. HCM, are your people evaluating and training component skill proficiency or just using the qualification course as the metric of success? Why is there a success difference between your two organizations?

I ask because we (the training community) know qualification scores are a poor indicator of proficiency and are a dubious (at best) indicator of real-world performance. It is well established that qualification courses of fire create a false sense of security in shooters, instructors, and administrators because they mask component skill deficiencies.

In my opinion, the big question at the end of a PMO transition course should be: can the shooter complete component skills equal to or better than they do with iron sights?

This answer should determine whether the individual carries/uses the PMO.

We’re continuing to train component skills in addition to qualifications but the only data we’re keeping track of is qual scores because that’s all leadership cares about.

PMO is now mandatory for new LEOs but we allowed current officers discretion to opt out of the PMO. I think the best indicator of our success is not the qual scores but that locally, several of the “opt outs” have asked to transition to PMO based on seeing their co-workers success with them.

[Clark Jackson]

We’re continuing to train component skills in addition to qualifications but the only data we’re keeping track of is qual scores because that’s all leadership cares about.

PMO is now mandatory for new LEOs but we allowed current officers discretion to opt out of the PMO. I think the best indicator of our success is not the qual scores but that locally, several of the “opt outs” have asked to transition to PMO based on seeing their co-workers success with them.

Out of curiosity, which component skills do your people train, how do you train those component skills, and how are they tracked for legal and/or continuing educational purposes?

I understand the unfortunate "all leadership cares about" portion, but what about the instructor cadre? Do the instructors only care about the minimum standards along with "the leadership" or is there more there? I just find it hard to believe passionate, competent instructors would accept "feelings" as an indicator of success let alone when those feelings are the poisonous fruit of an illusionary proficiency borne of unrealistic metrics (i.e., generous scoring zones and sundial measured times).

I am very interested in the mandatory/voluntary PMO concept. What is the rationale behind mandatory PMO for some and optional for others? Is this something that is legally defensible? What happens if someone in the "mandatory PMO" group can pass your organization's "all leadership cares about" standards with iron sights but not the PMO?

jlw how would you handle a situation (hypothetical) where an individual in the "mandatory PMO" group could pass your organization's minimum standard qualification course with iron sights but not the PMO?

[HCM]

Out of curiosity, which component skills do your people train, how do you train those component skills, and how are they tracked for legal and/or continuing educational purposes?

I understand the unfortunate "all leadership cares about" portion, but what about the instructor cadre? Do the instructors only care about the minimum standards along with "the leadership" or is there more there? I just find it hard to believe passionate, competent instructors would accept "feelings" as an indicator of success let alone when those feelings are the poisonous fruit of an illusionary proficiency borne of unrealistic metrics (i.e., generous scoring zones and sundial measured times).

I am very interested in the mandatory/voluntary PMO concept. What is the rationale behind mandatory PMO for some and optional for others? Is this something that is legally defensible? What happens if someone in the "mandatory PMO" group can pass your organization's "all leadership cares about" standards with iron sights but not the PMO?

jlw how would you handle a situation (hypothetical) where an individual in the "mandatory PMO" group could pass your organization's minimum standard qualification course with iron sights but not the PMO?

PMO is the standard issue going forward. If not, they’re probationary employees and the world still needs bartenders ….

Re: current officers “Grandfathering” is not a novel concept. opt out is to avoid potential HR issues with current officers. That was a management decision not a training decision.

We train component skills as what we term FTE (Firearms training exercise). We have a lesson plan for each quarter which includes a list and description of the FTE. For example, if we were doing say the 10-10-10 test with an occluded optic, we would simply record that the shooter attend the training and participated in all scheduled training. We would only not if they did participate in a particular FTEfor some reason. Their FTE results are for them to do with what they will, we don’t record them nor is there any imperative to do so. It’s done to help them but ultimately they pass the qualification test or they don’t.

What we have not done locally is have the PMO shooters go back a shoot an iron sight qual for data gathering as SoCalDeputy mentioned.

I suspect the results his org got from that have to do with the increased feec back the PMO gives the shooters about what the gun actually going on with the gun when they are shooting. No I’m out of telling a shooter they’re doing this or that will have the same impact as them seeing it for themselves.

[jlw]

Out of curiosity, which component skills do your people train, how do you train those component skills, and how are they tracked for legal and/or continuing educational purposes?

I understand the unfortunate "all leadership cares about" portion, but what about the instructor cadre? Do the instructors only care about the minimum standards along with "the leadership" or is there more there? I just find it hard to believe passionate, competent instructors would accept "feelings" as an indicator of success let alone when those feelings are the poisonous fruit of an illusionary proficiency borne of unrealistic metrics (i.e., generous scoring zones and sundial measured times).

I am very interested in the mandatory/voluntary PMO concept. What is the rationale behind mandatory PMO for some and optional for others? Is this something that is legally defensible? What happens if someone in the "mandatory PMO" group can pass your organization's "all leadership cares about" standards with iron sights but not the PMO?

@jlw (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=136) how would you handle a situation (hypothetical) where an individual in the "mandatory PMO" group could pass your organization's minimum standard qualification course with iron sights but not the PMO?


If they don't pass with the PMO, they aren't approved to carry with it.

Even though our qual standards are higher than the state's they are still just an administrative box and not a true test.

[runcible]

We are fortunate at my present workplace to have amongst us the architect and implementer of the organization's PMO curriculum, to include the basic academy course of instruction and the conversion course for in-service folks. He's helped at least one forum member towards taking care of their office in this regard.

He is oft heard to mention, "qualification courses masks component skill deficiencies," and further tracks skill metrics beyond simply qual scores.

I'm at that troublesome point in life where vision skills have presented and negatively impacted some aspects of my working life, and while I'm still working for leveling out my qual scores with the PMO, I'm well on the way towards that goal. Altogether, the delta is less than 3% between a maxed out qualification with irons and a near-maxed-out qualification with the PMO.

Adding on to what others have already expounded upon: there is an agency mandated minimum of hours for the conversion course, but offices may elect to exceed that, as my office did\has\will. Specifically, we do 3 days spread across 3 weeks, specifically as a nod towards operational commitments and adult learning theory.

That homework off-range figures heavily into the conversion course, combined with the autodidactic nature of the PMO; we just haven't seen a post-course skill plunge based on the pre-conversion course folks, academy-PMO trained folks (longest running), nor the field office conversion courses that have been longer at it than my own.

I do opine that "...a few PMO specific techniques..." is a curiously narrow way to describe a pretty broad change to fundamental aspects of running the gun, as relates to sight and vision. I don't disagree with the statement for the most part, but I do find it a curious weighting.

I think we're getting relatively close to PMOs as an ethical prerogative for the professions of arms, for the same reason that the Aimpoint M2s and Trijicon ACOGs were cited as enablers of more ethical performance during the early war years. I don't think that the "buying skill" argument presently holds much water, if it ever did.

[HCM]

We are fortunate at my present workplace to have amongst us the architect and implementer of the organization's PMO curriculum, to include the basic academy course of instruction and the conversion course for in-service folks. He's helped at least one forum member towards taking care of their office in this regard.

He is oft heard to mention, "qualification courses masks component skill deficiencies," and further tracks skill metrics beyond simply qual scores.

I'm at that troublesome point in life where vision skills have presented and negatively impacted some aspects of my working life, and while I'm still working for leveling out my qual scores with the PMO, I'm well on the way towards that goal. Altogether, the delta is less than 3% between a maxed out qualification with irons and a near-maxed-out qualification with the PMO.

Adding on to what others have already expounded upon: there is an agency mandated minimum of hours for the conversion course, but offices may elect to exceed that, as my office did\has\will. Specifically, we do 3 days spread across 3 weeks, specifically as a nod towards operational commitments and adult learning theory.

That homework off-range figures heavily into the conversion course, combined with the autodidactic nature of the PMO; we just haven't seen a post-course skill plunge based on the pre-conversion course folks, academy-PMO trained folks (longest running), nor the field office conversion courses that have been longer at it than my own.

I do opine that "...a few PMO specific techniques..." is a curiously narrow way to describe a pretty broad change to fundamental aspects of running the gun, as relates to sight and vision. I don't disagree with the statement for the most part, but I do find it a curious weighting.

I think we're getting relatively close to PMOs as an ethical prerogative for the professions of arms, for the same reason that the Aimpoint M2s and Trijicon ACOGs were cited as enablers of more ethical performance during the early war years. I don't think that the "buying skill" argument presently holds much water, if it ever did.

Re: The PMO as an ethical prerogative.

I was discussing PMO transition with one of the FIs from my local municipal PD (2k sworn) and he mentioned they expected to see caselaw eventually regarding use (or failure to use / provide) PMO. It will be interesting to see how that develops.

[runcible]

Re: The PMO as an ethical prerogative.

I was discussing PMO transition with one of the FIs from my local municipal PD (2k sworn) and he mentioned they expected to see caselaw eventually regarding use (or failure to use / provide) PMO. It will be interesting to see how that develops.

I think you and the FI are correct, and that while the burden of proof will be interesting, it's reasonable to expect an allegation of deliberate indifference in some future civil lawsuit if it can be presented as there being even a fraction of a second of available information that would have changed an outcome, that was lost/missed in the real or alleged focal shift to the front sight.

[UNM1136]

Bumping to the top.

I am mandated to go to AsianJedi's course next year. And set up an RDS course for the agency that will meet state approval, and the appropriate SOPs for the department.

I would appreciate receiving any SOPs and training curricula I can get my hands on for documented references.

I just came back from court and met up with a DWI guy I have worked with before and commented on his Aimpoint Acro P-2 that he secured in the gun room of the courthouse. He didn't know that the mailbox on top of his slide was an Acro. And he bitched about finding the dot or looking at his irons. Thinking the biggest agency in the state doesn't have the answer...and thus will not be a good resource.

pat

[HCM]

Bumping to the top.

I am mandated to go to AsianJedi's course next year. And set up an RDS course for the agency that will meet state approval, and the appropriate SOPs for the department.

I would appreciate receiving any SOPs and training curricula I can get my hands on for documented references.

I just came back from court and met up with a DWI guy I have worked with before and commented on his Aimpoint Acro P-2 that he secured in the gun room of the courthouse. He didn't know that the mailbox on top of his slide was an Acro. And he bitched about finding the dot or looking at his irons. Thinking the biggest agency in the state doesn't have the answer...and thus will not be a good resource.

pat

You’re in good hands with AsianJedi

Recently, there’s been some debate about the efficacy his method of presenting the dot vs a pure index.

The individual raising these concerns comes from a competition background and has students who dry fire regularly. while he is technically correct, that an index is faster and more efficient, and that one can develop a reliable and repeatable index presentation with a few weeks of dry fire, in my experience, that is not a realistic answer for most cops.

Most cops are not gun people and getting them to dry fire once they’ve made it through the Academy is usually an exercise in frustration.

My experience was my people who are “into shooting” and/ or had a high level of proficiency already had a good index with irons and had no issues finding / presenting the dot. With these people, we simply did not fix what was not broken.

For those who do have trouble finding the dot and usually have never realized how much they are using their peripheral vision to present irons on target, @AsainJedi’s techniques are consistent. easily absorbed and far superior to using the irons to find the dot which is what many in this group would otherwise default to.

[Erick Gelhaus]

I know a guy ... https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57394-AAR-Pistol-Mounted-Optics-Instructor-Erick-Gelhaus-Cougar-Mountain-Solutions

[DaBigBR]

You’re in good hands with AsianJedi

Recently, there’s been some debate about the efficacy his method of presenting the dot vs a pure index.

The individual raising these concerns comes from a competition background and has students who dry fire regularly. while he is technically correct, that an index is faster and more efficient, and that one can develop a reliable and repeatable index presentation with a few weeks of dry fire, in my experience, that is not a realistic answer for most cops.

Most cops are not gun people and getting them to dry fire once they’ve made it through the Academy is usually an exercise in frustration.

My experience was my people who are “into shooting” and/ or had a high level of proficiency already had a good index with irons and had no issues finding / presenting the dot. With these people, we simply did not fix what was not broken.

For those who do have trouble finding the dot and usually have never realized how much they are using their peripheral vision to present irons on target, @AsainJedi’s techniques are consistent. easily absorbed and far superior to using the irons to find the dot which is what many in this group would otherwise default to.

He's also very clear about having a way and not the way. He has also been teaching more of an escalator style draw as an option and explaining his perceived plusses and minuses of each method.

I agree that UNM1136 will be in good hands.

[UNM1136]

I know a guy ... https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57394-AAR-Pistol-Mounted-Optics-Instructor-Erick-Gelhaus-Cougar-Mountain-Solutions

Thanks, man!

pat

[jnc36rcpd]

Progressive Force Concepts is doing a two day red dot sight class at the Crucible in a few weeks. Has anyone attended and, if so, what's your opinion? Thanks and be safe.

[UNM1136]

Bumping to the top.

I am mandated to go to AsianJedi's course next year. And set up an RDS course for the agency that will meet state approval, and the appropriate SOPs for the department.

I would appreciate receiving any SOPs and training curricula I can get my hands on for documented references.

I just came back from court and met up with a DWI guy I have worked with before and commented on his Aimpoint Acro P-2 that he secured in the gun room of the courthouse. He didn't know that the mailbox on top of his slide was an Acro. And he bitched about finding the dot or looking at his irons. Thinking the biggest agency in the state doesn't have the answer...and thus will not be a good resource.

pat

Bumping again for anyone wishing to share. Once we get our course and SOPs done I will make them available.

pat

[DMF13]

I just came back from court and met up with a DWI guy I have worked with before and commented on his Aimpoint Acro P-2 that he secured in the gun room of the courthouse. He didn't know that the mailbox on top of his slide was an Acro. And he bitched about finding the dot or looking at his irons. Thinking the biggest agency in the state doesn't have the answer...and thus will not be a good resource.Maybe the training he received wasn't good, but it might also be a case of an old dog refusing to learn new tricks, despite good training being offered. I've seen a lot of that over the years, and not just with firearms.

I'm an advocate for PMOs at my agency, although we still haven't transitioned. However, when we do get the optics, I think new hires should get them at the academy, and those who are already in the field should get a choice. Most of the stubborn folks won't put in a real effort to learn something new, so just let them keep their irons, and eventually, albeit over many years, they will all retire.

[UNM1136]

Maybe the training he received wasn't good, but it might also be a case of an old dog refusing to learn new tricks, despite good training being offered. I've seen a lot of that over the years, and not just with firearms.

I'm an advocate for PMOs at my agency, although we still haven't transitioned. However, when we do get the optics, I think new hires should get them at the academy, and those who are already in the field should get a choice. Most of the stubborn folks won't put in a real effort to learn something new, so just let them keep their irons, and eventually, albeit over many years, they will all retire.

Agreed. One of my sergeants is a Master Instructor. He hates the idea. Talking with him last night the largest agency in the state and his former agency seem to be teaching a dot focus, like using irons. Definitely old dogs-new tricks, but the thing is, from a canine trainer, you absolutely can teach old dog new tricks, if you know how to train dogs... The largest agency in the state is no longer teaching irons in the academy.

Master Instructor understands that rifle irons and rifle optics are zeroed and used differently. Teaches both and issues both. Yet seems to believe PMOs (thanks for the term SoCalDep) need to be taught as though they were irons...

pat

[DMF13]

Definitely old dogs-new tricks, but the thing is, from a canine trainer, you absolutely can teach old dog new tricks, if you know how to train dogs... The largest agency in the state is no longer teaching irons in the academy.

:D Well it's not a perfect analogy. Also, I can't put our folks on a "toy reward," or "food reward," plan, where they only get what they want, by doing what I want them to do!


Master Instructor understands that rifle irons and rifle optics are zeroed and used differently. Teaches both and issues both. Yet seems to believe PMOs (thanks for the term SoCalDep) need to be taught as though they were irons...

patI've encountered many people that have the same attitude. When I suggest occluding the front of the PMO (briefly in training), to reinforce the concept of 'target focus," some of them react like I had just suggested eating dog crap for lunch. Often they are the same people who want a very tiny dot, "for precision at long ranges," and claim a 5 or 6MOA dot is "way too big, to shoot accurately, but won't acknowledge that the front sight of their current irons is roughly 10-12 MOA wide, and they are okay shooting that at "long ranges."

[UNM1136]

:D Well it's not a perfect analogy. Also, I can't put our folks on a "toy reward," or "food reward," plan, where they only get what they want, by doing what I want them to do!

I've encountered many people that have the same attitude. When I suggest occluding the front of the PMO (briefly in training), to reinforce the concept of 'target focus," some of them react like I had just suggested eating dog crap for lunch. Often they are the same people who want a very tiny dot, "for precision at long ranges," and claim a 5 or 6MOA dot is "way too big, to shoot accurately, but won't acknowledge that the front sight of their current irons is roughly 10-12 MOA wide, and they are okay shooting that at "long ranges."

Ummm...yep....

pat

[UNM1136]

Just talked to an Academy firearms instructor. The largest agency in the state and the largest sheriff's office both have jumped into optics with both feet. Apparently they relied on in house talent to develop POIs, and are treating dots like irons, and are thus dot focused. They are also apparently having record numbers of non-quals. Issue optic is the P-2.

pat

[DMF13]

Just talked to an Academy firearms instructor. The largest agency in the state and the largest sheriff's office both have jumped into optics with both feet. Apparently they relied on in house talent to develop POIs, and are treating dots like irons, and are thus dot focused. They are also apparently having record numbers of non-quals. Issue optic is the P-2.

patDissapointed, but not surprised.

[konkapot]

On the federal side we (FLETC) offer a 4 day Handgun Optics Program.

Our curriculum development process was not followed, so the four days was determined arbitrarily as a "good" length for a class. The graduation requirement is a pretty stout course of fire that is NOT the normal qual course; target is different and times are pretty spicy.

It's not required or mandated training; many agencies, particularly the smaller ones are just issuing duty guns with dots on them and saying "Here you go. Go qualify." Some extreme cases are agencies issuing a second slide assembly to the officers and letting them CHOOSE which slide they want on their duty gun. No restrictions on switching back and forth, i.e "It's Monday, so I'll carry irons today."

[Jeff22]

I’d be interested in looking at the course of fire

[psalms144.1]

My old agency still officially classifies RDS as "competition only" modifications, though I'm told that's changing. My buddy's agency had no restrictions on lights or optics, BUT they were just told that their next weapons policy will prohibit agents from using WML or RDS unless their FI has completed a WML/RDS Instructor certification, AND has provided that "transition" training to the agents. This is problematic as most of the agent's in my buddy's office already have RDS equipped pistols, so they'll have to remove the RDS, revert to irons, and wait for a "certified" instructor to come teach them how to shoot the RDS they've had on their pistols in some cases for several years now. OBTW, the FI "certification" is going to be an agency specific course, not FLETC's RDS Instructor Training Program... You gotta love the guv'mint!