We still do competitions at some in services. My shooting glasses are a prize I won last year. Dueling tree matches convinced my Luddite ass to let them put a RDS on my rifle. (Yes, I was a "real men shoot irons" guy for a long time) You will never get 100% on board, but I think my dept has a great approach given the varying motivational levels they deal with. I do supplement with outside training, but it often reminds me how good I've got it "at home" as well.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
The consensus seems to be that a minimum skill level is ok. Leadership must be comfortable with the status quo. Are there departments offerring remediation training for increasing shooting skills? I would think that .22 lr conversion kits might be useful aids. Too, much can be accomplished at the 7 and 15 yard distances. Perhaps advocates could point out a positive relationship between high skill levels and safety for both officer and civilian.
Last edited by willie; 12-07-2018 at 11:05 PM.
The flip side is there's consistently little correlation between range scores and officers who prevailed in gun fights. NYPD's tracking over decades showed only the loosest of correlations. Which means that a lot of the range work (and especially a lot of the various qualification standards) isn't particular relevant to real shootings, and that pure technical skill wasn't the major factor in who prevailed. The guy who's a so-so shot but sees trouble coming and gets his gun out is ahead of the top shot who's oblivious sort of thing, which we all know but also don't really know how to measure for a qualification.Originally Posted by willie
I'm actually ok with a minimum skill level that's relevant, and then scenario based training. I suspect that would do more for officer survival then increasingly marginal gains in technical skill. For example:
Body language courses to see pre-attack indicators earlier vs the same amount of time and money in practice drawing. Officers aren't dying with their guns in their holsters because they draw slow, but because they didn't see the attack coming
Shooting while moving and at a moving target. So much of everyone's training is static, and gunfights don't stay static long.
Integrated skills drills, you've been wrestling with a guy and now he's accessing a weapon.
Training time is limited by manpower needs and budget, and while I think there's no argument we want everyone to be as good at the fundamentals as possible, we shouldn't ignore the big chunk of survival that's not based on static marksmanship drills.
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 12-07-2018 at 11:32 PM.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
My department just revived it's pistol team which is now renamed the marksmanship team after a 30 year hiatus. A lot of chiefs over the years rejected the idea of reviving the team. The issue with departmental shooting teams is that the officers that compete and make the team are already very accomplished shooters. That body of knowledge and experience rarely trickles down to the guys on on patrol that could use additional training. Its a cool gig for a select few but does very little to improve the firearms training of the department.
We even had a departmental 3 gun match the last few years. The officers that win the match happen to be the same officers that designed the stages and get paid to shoot guns and train full time.
Last edited by andre3k; 12-08-2018 at 12:09 AM.
Shit, I'm just a not-that-well-funded cake-eating civilian, and I shoot roughly triple that much paying for it myself.
The larger City PD near me had a monthly optional shooting program a few years ago. (The first CoF we shot was a modified MEU-SOC Handgun QC).
It ran monthly for a year. There were both handgun and carbine courses of fire, shot on a 25 yard indoor range.
They got about 20 shooters a month, very few of which were from the agency which was sponsoring the activity. So it was a good idea now discontinued.
Most cops didn't care about shooting when I started nearly 40 years ago, and that hasn't changed. I actually know more guys now who at least practice on a regular basis than at any other point in my career.
The local Sheriff's Dept has open range days most Mondays. Bring your own ammo, use their targets and cleaning supplies if you want. I don' know what the average attendance is. Most people aren't interested if they aren't getting ammo provided and getting paid to attend, and they wouldn't be that interested then, either.
But there always have been a substantial minority who will come out and shoot fifty or a hundred rounds in practice just before quarterly in-service because they don't want to suck.
I've been shooting IPSC for 40 years and IDPA for nearly 20 years and used to occasionally shoot PPC in the old days. There were always a half dozen to a dozen guys (in the whole COUNTY) who shot in matches on a semi-regular basis, and that was it.
The only time I EVER got issued ammo for a shooting competition was when the Milwaukee PD hosted the Midwest Police & Fire Games a number of times back in the late 90s.
Super jealous of that dream job.
I know this response is about the Army and not LE, but perhaps there are some similarities that will alllow common principles to be seen.
I think about this a lot in the Army, because most soldiers don't shoot well at all. I think its all about mechanisms to get individuals and leadership to care about weapons proficiency.
One thing about the Army is that the standards just dont mean anything. The qual system for pistols for instance is so pathetically easy it allows Soldiers who shoot maybe 1.5-2 times a year for a total 80 rounds (two range trips, each consisting of 10 rounds of familiarization and 30 rounds of the actual qualification) to often score "expert." Basically an expert on the pistol can be so without actually knowing much about shooting a pistol. The test is also not open, there is an upper limit to the score and hitting a "possible" is easy. So truly skilled shooters cannot show excellence. The marksmanship badges are devalued because everyone knows how pathetically easy it is to make expert. Additionally many of the personnel assigned pistols in the Army are officers. Officers do not wear marksmanship badges for some bizarre reason that escapes me.
Once in a while a leader will come into a unit who wants to make marksmanship one of their command emphasis points. Perhaps they are a gun nerd or they just like the idea. Even if they make some positive changes, the second they stop pushing on the issue (they get busy or they leave command), the skill level just pops back into its old shape.
Occasionally people get excited about a new manual, a new course in the army school system or a new training system like the Engagement Skills Trainer (EST). In aggregate, they dont help. The institution doesn't care. I have a copy of every pistol manual the army has published since WWI in my office. They all have their good and bad points, if the average (ie shitty) army pistol firer took any one of those manuals and really worked to apply it, they would get better. So we are not lacking the right manual. We are lacking the institutional mechanisms to make people care enough, motivate them, to fix their own and their unit's lack of marksmanship. If leadership is interested in fixing it, they will fix it. Better ranges, more ammo, better doctrine, etc is nice. But those things without engaged leadership will have minimal effect. When leadership cares, and by cares I mean simple professional self-interest, the marksmanship will improve even without better ranges and more ammo. I also imagine the better ranges and more ammo will appear almost like magic.
We were paying for GSSF matches for anyone who shot 95 or higher on the qual course. When I organized the trips to the matches, we would get turnout. When I gave them the schedule and told them to handle the signups, they wouldn't go.
I have a core group of personnel that take advantage of our firearms training and who shoot the occasional match or attend a class outside of work. I am thankful that the two shootings we have had in my time have involved meat eaters from that core.
Currently, my people "qualify" on the state course so that we can check the box once per year, but we train much more than that.
Training is only a small part of the equation as to why our people of performed well in such situations though. The mindset that we have instilled that fosters decision making and that personnel won't get chopped off at the knees for actually making a decision is why they continue to be successful.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
...maybe the saddest statement in this whole thread, although there have been several.Most people aren't interested if they aren't getting ammo provided and getting paid to attend, and they wouldn't be that interested then, either.
Points that stand out to me:
*Even when the Brass encourages/promotes frequent practice, it doesn’t necessarily mean the officers will practice.
*that there is a mentality of “‘I don’t need to practice, it won’t happen to me”
*i have several close friends in LE, so I’ve heard much of this before, but it’s always sad to hear.
*most cops aren’t ‘gun guys’ and don’t ‘enjoy’ shooting.
*low standards, that are getting lower. (what could possibly go wrong...)
There is a local guy who is a Marine Vet, LEO, owns two ranges, was a trainer, etc...he made an open offer to any LEO, that he’d give them a FREE box of ammo, and range time, as a way to encourage them to practice more, and I’m sure you guys can guess the outcome...not a single taker!
Reply With Quote