Best short test to measure group progress

[HopetonBrown]

Totally agree. If I had to have one drill only forever it might be the FG Dots. And it does crush the self, big time. I have a hard time thinking it would be useful at all for a new shooter. But never say never. Throw off the yoke of low expectation and aim high. So I don't think I'd argue with someone who wanted to charge at it.

Frank Garcia's Dot Drill is going to look like someone patterning a shotgun at 25 yards.

[BehindBlueI's]

Use the scoring rings. Have two shooters shoot 100? Use X-count. Have two shooters shoot 100-10x (nice problem to have)? Use the faster time.

It really seems to me like the spirit of the drill is to not reward a faster time. It sets a time and that's one of the metrics, but par time drills frequently put the real emphasis on accuracy or consistency or both. Time might come back to the forefront if the accuracy and consistency elements are maxed.

A drill like that has uses. It's not like it isn't good. Rewarding speed, beyond the 'right' speed enshrined in the par time isn't what it does though.

Right, but let's look at what the OP wants.

I'm trying to find the best test to give either at the beginning or end of each day of training...This is a standard law enforcement academy firearms course... My goal is see what type of improvement we see at each level of training and try to determine where we might need to change our structure.

Par times are great. Competition is great. However, again, how do you measure a recruit who shoots the drill in 9 seconds and gets 100 at the beginning and then shoots it in 7 seconds and gets 100 in the end? If you want to measure improvement in a LE setting, once an accuracy standard is reached, time is the next component. Let's be honest, it's largely irrelevant if you shoot a 3" group or a 1" group at 10y for LE shooting. Before someone says...yes but once you get to 50y then blah blah blah. Right. But at 50y you'll be using a different time standard.

[Kevin B.]

The OP asked for "The Best short test to measure group progress." It would seem that he is very much interested in whether the officer shoots a 1" vs. a 3" group.

[JHC]

The OP asked for "The Best short test to measure group progress." It would seem that he is very much interested in whether the officer shoots a 1" vs. a 3" group.

That's what I first thought. I was thinking your compact warmup would be a good measurable test of core trigger skill.

[HopetonBrown]

Par times are great. Competition is great. However, again, how do you measure a recruit who shoots the drill in 9 seconds and gets 100 at the beginning and then shoots it in 7 seconds and gets 100 in the end? If you want to measure improvement in a LE setting, once an accuracy standard is reached, time is the next component. Let's be honest, it's largely irrelevant if you shoot a 3" group or a 1" group at 10y for LE shooting. Before someone says...yes but once you get to 50y then blah blah blah. Right. But at 50y you'll be using a different time standard.

No recruit is gonna shoot 100. Not even close. When I shot it with LAV he was 9/10 in the black. When I was with Hackathorn he shot a 99.

The OP asked for "The Best short test to measure group progress." It would seem that he is very much interested in whether the officer shoots a 1" vs. a 3" group.

Funny, I thought he meant "group" as a group of students.

[Kevin B.]

Funny, I thought he meant "group" as a group of students.

Ahhhh....

If that is the case, I stand corrected.

[ST911]

I'm trying to find the best test to give either at the beginning or end of each day of training. This is a standard law enforcement academy firearms course with firearms range dates spread out over several months. Previously we've only measured firearms performance with a pass/fail notation on qualifications. My goal is see what type of improvement we see at each level of training and try to determine where we might need to change our structure.

Here are the criteria I am currently considering:
Short (20 rounds or less)
Simple (need to run 20+ students in a rapid time)
Valid for a wide range of students
Able to be graded on a simple number scale (1-100)
Tolerant of a wide range of student skills (many will be handling a weapon for the first time in their life)

I've looked at a lot of different tests, but none have really jumped out at me. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

It would be helpful to know what your training design and progression look like.

If you're like most other academies, you begin with how not to shoot yourself or other recruits, add pieces and skill combinations from there, and end with a test (i.e. qualification). Finding a single assessment that is fair to the student (and program) to be uniformly administered throughout that progression seems like tail chasing. Instead, I would consider identifying known drills with some established benchmarks that relate to the training objective just instructed. Alternately, breaking down a larger assessment into component parts that relate to those objectives.

Consider a FAST in that way... You teach recruits to draw and fire accurately. Your first metric would be to D2 to a 3x5. You teach reloads, then add that piece. At some point you teach a multi-round cadence / NSR, and you add that piece. As you deal with movement, low-light, cover, etc you can use those same pieces with established results on file for comparison. As you near the latter portion of your curriculum, you combine the tasks into the drill as designed. The drill could also be adapted to target zone sizes and time goals of your choice. I can see pieces of the IDPA classifier broken down in similar fashion.

So executed, you're also teaching the recruit simple drills they can practice in the future, as well as self-assessment skills.

I see a lot of potential time-sink here, too. Don't underestimate the administration and scoring of even simple assessments on a line full of shooters, esp recruits and LCDs.

[JAD]

. I also have a suspicion that many of the CHL classes are not really putting the timer on folks or using the prescribed ranges.

The guy who did my txchl class couldn't have /spelled/ 'timer.'

[SLG]

I would take a different tact than the already excellent ideas presented here. Hard to say how appropriate it is though, given that i don't know anything about your training.

I would do a One Hole drill at 3 yards (5 if the group warrants it down the rd). That is, 5 shots (or 6 if you use a DA/SA gun) with no time limit. Student attempts to fire a single caliber hole.

After the One Hole drill, I would follow it up with a 5 shot Bill drill at 7 yards to a down zero type target.

This way, you test accuracy (and help build it at the same time), and then test speed with more practical accuracy. 10 rds total, and half the test can be shot by everyone all at once.

I assume I don't need to list the numerous skills that these tests test for.

[John Hearne]

I like the single stack version of Hackathorn's The Test. At 10 yards, draw and fire 8 rounds in 10 seconds on a B-8 repair center. I like this version because it's two less rounds and incorporates a draw.

Tom Given's 3-M test is another <10 rd skill evaluation course that tests a good collection of relevant skills. His Casino Drill and variations are good too but require 21 rounds.

FWIW, I used the single stack version of The Test and my tweak of the 3-M drill just a few weeks ago and learned a lot about ability in 18 rounds. The drills test very different skills and provide a fairly comprehensive picture for less than half a box of ammo.