Institutional Mediocrity.

[GardoneVT]

When I was active duty AF, not knowing any better I thought 100 rounds of live fire pistol training a year counted as " a lot".

Ive come to understand of late that Uncle Sam may as well have kept his ammo and just handed out the M9s , for all the good that pitiful 100 round "qualifier" did.

Why is it that people realize in some quarters that competence requires advanced training, and yet some organizations appear to bury their heads in the proverbial sand?
While ammo isn't cheap, I figure a law enforcment officer or military members life is worth the expense.

What gives?

[TCinVA]

Why is it that people realize in some quarters that competence requires advanced training, and yet some organizations appear to bury their heads in the proverbial sand?

Decision makers in organizations are often far removed from the dangers and consequences of their decisions. Which is one reason why decision making in organizations often sucks donkey water.

There is also the bias of "success". I can point out organizations which would argue that their standards are more than sufficient, as their standards have worked for them for X years. In X years they haven't actually had to shoot anyone...but introducing that fact will be further proof that their methods are sound. "We do X, and nothing bad has happened as a result, therefore X works beautifully." In such organizations being the guy who points out the stupidity of that mindset is typically rewarded by being ostracized, punished, and passed over. Because nobody likes a loudmouth who is always yakking on about gunfights and violent criminals and dead cops, harshing everyone's mellow. Besides, that guy is probably unbalanced. He has an unhealthy obsession with that kind of stuff.

While ammo isn't cheap, I figure a law enforcment officer or military members life is worth the expense.

Before that calculation can even be made, someone's brain has to first be susceptible to the idea that there's a better way to do things. You can neatly avoid that situation by doing the process outlined above.

[jlw]

We pay personnel to go to the range, pay the instructors, pay for the ammo, furnish a vehicle and fuel, furnish all of the targets, etc, and we still have people who act like shooting the barest of minimum 30 rounds it takes to qualify is an imposition.

On the flip side, we have some that soak up every bit of range time and training they can get in house, go to classes at GPSTC, and then pay for classes on their own.

It's not always the organization.

---

Taking the first paragraph into account, I changed our policy last year to nix remedial training. If you can't bring yourself to go to the 12 paid training days we had in relation to qualifications, then I don't feel compelled to spend money and time on you because you didn't qualify. We also don't create a non-gun toting position for those that can't qualify either.

I also initially was raising the minimum score on the quals course for agency standards, but have submitted a more challenging course.

[Chuck Haggard]

Because fortuitous outcomes reinforce bad tactics.



Said another way, humans have the ability to rationalize anything they want to, if they want to badly enough. Our current political climate would be a glaring example.

[SGT_Calle]

It's not always the organization.

This. In my nerdy support job in the Army I had a lot of coworkers who had zero interest in spending time shooting and only a few who liked going to the rifle qualification range, as long as it wasn't too often and the weather was nice, lol. All of us chose our particular job because it is what we wanted to do, and knew what it entailed. I imagine mechanics, cooks, signal guys, etc.. did as well. There's a lot more range time and ammo for the door kicking heroes (I assume, and sure hope).
Also, I'm surprised you were spending any time on a pistol range, especially a hundred rounds, as a service/support person (OP, If I remember correctly... my apologies if not).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ST911]

At the end of the day, troop has made a choice to invest in himself or not. They will bear the consequences of that. Remind them of their ownership of their success or failure.

[ToddG]

100 rd/yr is nothing more than a box check for someone who had a basic previous training. It allows maintenance of the barest of conscious skills maybe and more likely does little more than verify that the individual knows how to load, point, and discharge the weapon... hopefully safely.

On the other hand, institutionally an organization as large as the US Military cannot afford to take 1.4M people and give them all 100 rounds per week for pistol practice. Setting aside the 7.3 billion rounds of ammo that would require, it also means hours out of every work week, enough ranges for all that practice, personnel to staff the ranges, etc. It's beyond impractical when you consider the percentage of those 1.4M people who'll actually be issued a pistol and who will actually likely be placed in a position to need a pistol.

I completely appreciate that it's easy to What If a situation where any military man, at any moment, could find himself in danger and in need of more pistol skill than his branch of service has provided. The same could be said of medical skills, driving skills, and a host of other things that simply cannot all be trained to masterful levels simply because of a What If.

Even many of the HSLD "elite" types that I've known -- who were usually superbly skilled with a carbine -- were only mediocre pistol shooters under time stress. It's simply not enough of a priority for most folks in most assignments. There are certainly some outstanding exceptions, though.

[David Armstrong]

When I was active duty AF, not knowing any better I thought 100 rounds of live fire pistol training a year counted as " a lot".
Ive come to understand of late that Uncle Sam may as well have kept his ammo and just handed out the M9s , for all the good that pitiful 100 round "qualifier" did.
Why is it that people realize in some quarters that competence requires advanced training, and yet some organizations appear to bury their heads in the proverbial sand?
While ammo isn't cheap, I figure a law enforcment officer or military members life is worth the expense.
What gives?

Well, as it relates to hangun use, a particularly high level of competence is not needed for success. We see that quite regularly. As for the worth of life, being good with a handgun really isn't that important to survival for most. Far more LE are in danger of death or injury as the result of bad driving than poor shooting skills, as an example.

[psalms144.1]

I spent 12 years in the Army, as an Officer, and served at all levels from Platoon Leader in an Infantry Battalion through Staff Officer at a 4-Star Joint HQ. I subsequently served as a civilian Special Agent with USAF OSI, and now with NCIS. My thoughts on this as it applies to the services are as follows:

1. "Amateurs talk tactics, Professionals talk logistics" This old saw in the Army was usually poo-poo'd by guys like me as an excuse for loggies and REMFs to get out of anything that was physically demanding or uncomfortable. As I've matured, I've come to see that, in fact, logistics are key to success in just about EVERY profession or endeavor. In this case specifically, Todd has hit the nail on the head - the logistical requirements for having even MONTHLY proficiency fire for every uniformed member of the armed forces would rapidly become the Tomato that Ate Sheboygan. Most USAF bases I've been at, and nearly every USN base I've worked at, had one, count 'em, ONE functional range. The base I'm tied to now for doing firearms training has ONE range - 10 firing points per side (if you want to train standing shoulder to shoulder with your buddy, you can use them all!), and is limited to 25 yards. EVERY USN member funnels through that range annually, as do most of the state/local and federal agencies in the area. Range availability in "good weather" months is very hard to coordinate.

2. Risk aversion. I type this with some hesitency, because I hate to bash anyone in service. But, the simple fact of the matter is, for most of the General Purpose Forces, Officer careers are damaged more by a snuffy having a negligent discharge in the chow hall on Camp Echo than they are if Snuffy is killed because he's a bad shot, or is slow in returning fire because he is forced to carry his M4 with an empty chamber on patrol. I've lost count of the number of COMBAT VETERAN Infantry Officers who have all expressed the belief that empty chamber, magazine inserted in weapon is the best way for the average service member to carry a weapon outside the wire. The bottom line is, Officers want to get promoted, and being bold, audacious leaders OFF the battlefield is fraught with dangers. Too many officers at all levels simply don't trust their service members enough to let them REALLY be responsible with a weapon and live the First Rule of firearms safety - hence our spastic and OCD insistence on constantly "clearing" weapons. I would LOVE to be able to do a side-by-side study of the number of NDs in typical units where one SOP was "load your weapon, holster/sling it, and leave it the kitten alone until it needs to be field stripped to clean," and the other followed current procedures.

In the LE field, logistics is still a primary factor, but more from the perspective of time allowed. QUALITY training takes time, both from those attending the training, and those who have to plan, prepare, present, and run the training event. I don't know what it's like in most state/local agencies, but, for us Feds, MOST FIs are "additional duty" guys, who have to squeeze range/prep time into their case load, then coordinate the schedules of some other number of agents (a lot of whom don't give a kitten about shooting) to get everyone on line in a timely fashion. Workloads are typically pretty heavy, so most supervisors aren't jumping at the bit to allow a half-day of training every week.

And, let's talk about the elephant in the room - liability. No one wants to be the recipient of the subpoena to appear in a civil suit when an officer/agent smokes somebody and the shooter's abilities are questioned. It's MUCH "safer" for the agency if they use some sort of "standard" approved qualification, and it's easy enough that just about everyone can pass it. That way, the agency can't be opened up to "failure to train" lawsuits - they just show that they're using the state/FLETC approved course of fire, and Agent Schmuckateli "qualified" on it on DD MMM YY. If you're using some high speed "unique" course of fire for QUAL, your COF itself can be questioned. If your training standards are high enough that a significant percentage of your folks DON'T qual - what are you going to do with them until they get "retrained?" You certainly can't let them keep their guns and keep on working...

Lastly, the "not broke, don't fix it" rule is in full force. For the last decade, I've pushed consistently for changes to the way my agency trains, arms, and utilizes agents across a variety of spectrums, and the response I have consistently gotten from higher has been "when was the last time anyone in this agency shot someone?" I a world where resources are SIGNIFICANTLY constrained, it's easy for policy types to become complacenet and "confident" in the "competence" of the folks in the field.

Regards,

Kevin

[Redhat]

When I was active duty AF, not knowing any better I thought 100 rounds of live fire pistol training a year counted as " a lot".

Ive come to understand of late that Uncle Sam may as well have kept his ammo and just handed out the M9s , for all the good that pitiful 100 round "qualifier" did.

Why is it that people realize in some quarters that competence requires advanced training, and yet some organizations appear to bury their heads in the proverbial sand?
While ammo isn't cheap, I figure a law enforcment officer or military members life is worth the expense.

What gives?

As one who conducted the training you speak of for most of a 24 year career, ToddG and Psalms144.1 are pretty much on the money. I would also submit that the 100 rds and training you received was more than some. Also consider this, the ranges I worked at were running full classes everyday. Sure we (instructors) wished for better but in the end you have to do the best you can with what you have...and...what's stopping you from going out and doing your own training...I did.