Quals Course Designs

[jlw]

This thread a while back on various qualification standards by state and my own experiences with trying to take a different approach provide some background for this posting. The following are the evaluation standards used by GALEFI in whether or not it will give its approval. I am submitting a new course this week. I am curious to see what some of the folks here can come up with.

- A minimum of two targets with a maximum scoring area not to exceed the ten point area of the SQT-A1 target (obviously, the best target to use for equivalency is the SQT-A1).

- A minimum of thirty rounds must be fired.

- A “qualifying” score must require at least 80% of the total possible score.

- A minimum of four (4) rounds must be fired at 25 yards or greater. These shots may be fired at a rate no slower than 04 seconds per shot

- A minimum of four (4) rounds must be fired at distances 15 yards or greater. These shots may be fired at a rate no slower than 2.5 seconds per shot.

- A minimum of fourteen (14) rounds must be fired at distances 07 yards or greater. These shots may be fired at a per shot rate no slower than 1.25 seconds without a reload and 02 seconds where a reload is required.

- The shooter must be required to move to cover at 25 yards. This movement is not required to be timed.

- The shooter must move to cover at 15 yards or greater. This movement is timed and part of a firing sequence

- The shooter must fire from a kneeling position, which requires the use of cover, for at least two (2) shots, at 15 yards or greater.

- There must be a lateral disengaging movement relative to the threat at 07 yards or greater.

- There must be a vertical or diagonal disengaging movement relative to the threat at 03 yards or greater.

- There must be a minimum of 02 timed cranial shots.

- There must be a timed reload.

- At least one stage must require a lawful verbal command or challenge.

[abu fitna]

Thinking about this a bit, I have a few questions on the problem, sir.

For the purposes of this exercise, are we looking to design a qual for general onboarding and sustainment as a minimum threshold? Or are we looking for a qual that tests broadly across the range of skills that might be needed, to certify a given standard and provide some sort of grading structure for future training / skills development? I have seen both approaches over time, with the latter sometimes doing double duty in a rotating set of qual. (Setup might be something like every other mandatory session a min standard, then a development focused qual for the next time around - say monthly or so, which ensures at least once a quarter there is a qual session comparable to other peer level agencies, etc that has been shot for the record).

I would also ask to what extent are we looking at the practicality of a qual? I can thinking of more than a few strings that would be nice to run as part of a qual in order to ensure that a candidates' skillset for a given set of routine tasks is tested, but may not be easy to do so when you are considering the administrative issues involved in running entire classes of folks through the qual in a typical time and range space limited environment.

An interesting design problem, for sure, and one that merits some thought.

[psalms144.1]

jlw - your requirements sound distinctly similar to the FLETC semiautomatic pistol qualification course (which is actually 60 rounds, not 30). As an alternative, I would posit whatever course of fire you want to shoot (with regard to ranges, # of rounds, specific target engagements, and weapons handling), but make the COF pass/fail based on (a) cumulative score and (b) no rounds lost off silhouette.

Cumulative score should, IMHO, be scaled to the difficulty of the target areas (e.g. super relaxed like the Transtar II or very demanding like some "silhouette with CNS" targets where only CNS or critical cardiopulmonary systems get "high" scores).

I'm sure I could come up with a lot more input (and probably will), but I've been out being FLETC-trained all day, and I need to get some good chow hall grub in me belly!

Regards,

Kevin

[jlw]

First, I think that the literal interpretation of the state standard that has been adopted limits the possible designs as it ties such to that arbitrary interpretation versus that of testing skills that many shooters would consider "basic" for a standard.

My plans for the 2014 training year are to put all gun-toting personnel through a class where we work against a "running clock" to meet standards versus shooting solely within par times. I am going to push each individual shooter. Then I am going to give them a month or two of open range with supervised training sessions to try to lock in the skills, and then we will qualify.

In the course that I put together, I have a string of one-shot draws at seven yards in 1.5 seconds. To me, this is a more important skill than what is currently within the course. I also have some strong and support hand only strings at the three.

Overall, I want to walk up the agency standards. Originally, I had simply raised the minimum passing level on the state course for agency purposes, but I decided that wasn't going to really address the overlying issue.

[Jason F]

...Overall, I want to walk up the agency standards. Originally, I had simply raised the minimum passing level on the state course for agency purposes, but I decided that wasn't going to really address the overlying issue.

Good for you Chief!

Keep us posted as '14 progresses, I'll be interested in seeing how your guys progress and elevate their skills during the year and through the training.

[167]

Mike Seeklanders Defensive Handgun Skills test might be a good place to start for developig an open ended skill assesment COF. I think it is available on his website (www.shooting-performance.com). If not, PM me and I can send it to you in PDF format. Only thing it is really missing is some longer distance shooting.

[jlw]

Mike Seeklanders Defensive Handgun Skills test might be a good place to start for developig an open ended skill assesment COF. I think it is available on his website (www.shooting-performance.com). If not, PM me and I can send it to you in PDF format. Only thing it is really missing is some longer distance shooting.

Your inbox is full.

I'd like to see his standards. Maybe they can be worked into or added to the stuff we have to meet.

[jlw]

This link will take you to a pdf file of the course that I am submitting. I make no claims that it is an ideal course. In fact, I assert the opposite. It is basically a slight reworking of the current course but with tougher scoring (actually uses the scoring as specified on the targets). Mainly, I reworked the three and seven yard lines to something I thought was more realistic and tested skills. I left in the generous time standards at the 15 and 25 and just turned the 25 into one string instead of four.

The above course is far from where I would like to ultimately end up. I do feel like the walk-up in standards needs to be just that: a walk-up and not a run-up.

Once the basic course is approved it will be a fairly easy process to add skills to it.

[ToddG]

Earlier this year I started working on a qual based on my target at the request of some LE folks and all I can say is that I truly sympathize with anyone who has to develop a fair, objective, comprehensive, easy to administer qualification system.

This link

First, I hate quals with multiple targets. I realize it's mandated but holy cow is it more complicated to run a line of people simultaneously. It's the same reason why most quals are run with PARs instead of incorporating time into the score. (Frank Repass, former RM at Orlando PD, has an awesome time-based "one shot qualification" program that is worth looking into if you're not familiar... wouldn't pass the state requirements but it's an awesome addition to traditional quals)

25 yard string: I'd like to see shooting from both sides of the barricade, perhaps 2rd on L target from L side, 2rd on R target from R side, shooter chooses which to do first.

15 yard string: hate kneeling to reload; unless you teach that as a solid tactic I'd dump it. Instead possibly use a shorter barricade that forces kneeling and have the whole string fired using cover.

Some of the times are going to be tough for guys who aren't smooth with their retention holsters. I've put a bunch of very squared away shooters through the old FAM TPC and a 1.65 draw from concealment is often the string of fire they fail on... doing it in 1.5 from a retention rig four times is going to be incredibly demanding. Not a criticism by any means, just pointing out a potential hurdle in terms of getting people through the qual.

[jlw]

Earlier this year I started working on a qual based on my target at the request of some LE folks and all I can say is that I truly sympathize with anyone who has to develop a fair, objective, comprehensive, easy to administer qualification system.



First, I hate quals with multiple targets. I realize it's mandated but holy cow is it more complicated to run a line of people simultaneously. It's the same reason why most quals are run with PARs instead of incorporating time into the score. (Frank Repass, former RM at Orlando PD, has an awesome time-based "one shot qualification" program that is worth looking into if you're not familiar... wouldn't pass the state requirements but it's an awesome addition to traditional quals)

25 yard string: I'd like to see shooting from both sides of the barricade, perhaps 2rd on L target from L side, 2rd on R target from R side, shooter chooses which to do first.

15 yard string: hate kneeling to reload; unless you teach that as a solid tactic I'd dump it. Instead possibly use a shorter barricade that forces kneeling and have the whole string fired using cover.

Some of the times are going to be tough for guys who aren't smooth with their retention holsters. I've put a bunch of very squared away shooters through the old FAM TPC and a 1.65 draw from concealment is often the string of fire they fail on... doing it in 1.5 from a retention rig four times is going to be incredibly demanding. Not a criticism by any means, just pointing out a potential hurdle in terms of getting people through the qual.

Thanks for the feedback.

I find the comment on multiple targets to be very interesting. While at the FBI class in Alabama, I thought it really strange to not be shooting multiple targets.

The 15 yard stage in my course comes directly from the current state course. I left it unchanged in part because it meets two of the specific standards (timed reload and must include kneeling at or beyond 15 yards) and in part because I wanted to leave something familiar from the state course that wasn't really problematic for "most" of our shooters.

As for the 25 yard line, I agree. I'm not really satisfied with it either, but from a range officer's perspective, calling the current 4-string design was aggravating with the search and fire commands and all of the instructions involved. As a shooter, I never enjoyed shooting it unless it was on a range with turning targets. I find it frustrating to be out on target with the sights aligned waiting for the blasted shoot command to come.

While two strings would definitely be easier than the 4-strings, I looked at the 25-yard line as a test of accuracy and figured I would be a softy and give them as much time as possible to make the shots given than I am scoring 10/5 versus 10/8. We will look at this line further.

I'm going to have each of our instructors draw up alternate courses as well. I'm not married to this one in the least. If folks here want to draw up courses meeting the approval standards, I'll submit them too.