Unions have no standing here. There is one in Raleigh (RPPA) but they can only suggest things...there is nothing binding their suggestions.Originally Posted by Inspector71
We do offer open range dates at my agency, but that’s not the norm. A scant few of our 45 officers show up. We provide the ammo and free instructors/instruction.
You are correct. It often is about time and money. Much of the problem is also systemic from LETC all the way to retirement. The, "Improvement" to any system really needs consistency and has to start at the training center as a recruit. Getting rid of block training, etc went a long way to making recruits that not only learned but were consistent in the draw, reload, accuracy, etc. Actually teaching a recruit on how to practice(dry fire, range and dynamic) helps.
Sometimes that happens and then things change. I know 2008 took a lot of money away from training and staff numbers. That's the old 2 steps back. It takes a great leader to keep moving forward in a positive direction under the usual bureaucratic environment. Those leaders are like a force of nature. Impressive to watch.
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
For the small local Ohio agencies I've been involved with, most pass the first time. The rest pass on the second try.
Biggest problems are missing the head shot and being slow on the slide lock reload because they are reloading out of mag pouches placed to be comfortable in a cruiser.
The previous Qualification was 60 rounds and had shooting on the move and low light. It was much harder to administrate because it didn't flow. The current one is much easier to run on the range.
I agree with you. You can't hold someone accountable to a standard you have not trained them to. Hence the need for more training time, or in our case ANY training time.
The type of qualification that we are looking at adopting is used by the San Jose CA PD. Two sided threat/no threat target, and a tighter 'scoring' area, with misses counted against your score. We plan on a few tweaks to their system, but overall it offers a lot of advantages. No set course of fire in terms of number of rounds fired....you just have to have the required number of points at the end
Interesting. I'd like to hear, see more on this.
We don't have an 'any miss is a fail' scoring system. And we shoot back to 25 yds, both qual & training.
I considered proposing a no-miss policy back we we carried SIG 226's and required an 80% qualification score I abandoned the idea because even good shooters occasionally throw one. In the real world, that is potentially catastrophic, but I'm not sure how much good would come from the policy. Most of our people seemed to take shooting seriously and I didn't think the no-miss Q course would really help.
Their target is available through Action Target. It's the SJPD-SDS target. Requires a 180° target Turner system. We have one, and it's finally working after three years. Command has been asking for Shoot-Don't Shoot to be integrated into training and Qualifications. This will allow that. The target scoring area is not the whole silhouette, and is so faintly marked you can't see it beyond 5 feet. Forces shooters to concentrate on getting good solid hits.
The idea of no set course of fire ("when the target turns, fire five rounds center mass"), where the shooter has to fire at the pace that THEY can make accurate hits, and are totally responsible for ammo management, and will continue to shoot as long as the threat is present, also strikes me as a more positive reinforcement of real world shooting habits. When we have it up and running, I'll shoot you a PM and you can come see it.
ETA: or you could just call the originators in SJ and go give it a run. They were darn hospitable to us last year when we went to try it out.
Last edited by AMC; 02-03-2019 at 08:34 AM.
That all sounds good for training, but as I understand it the purpose of a qualification is exactly to have a set, known course of fire with objective task, standards and conditions applied to everyone so it's legally defensible.
Training and qualifications are two separate things.
If I'm reading correctly what you wrote, this entire qualification idea is going to go straight down the shitter as soon as someone brings up the fact they were held to a different standard than their coworkers, or that the task, standard and/or condition is essentially changing each time they qualify...….and then you'll have whatever the legally mandated minimum is forced down your throats by someone else fixing the problem who's only concern is to keep the entire apparatus from grinding to a halt.
Forgive me if I misread, please offer correction(s) as necessary.
Last edited by TGS; 02-03-2019 at 08:46 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
There will still be a minimum passing score, with a required number of hits in the scoring area, and without enough misses off silhouette to bring you below passing. Similar to the Ohio qual in that respect. It's just that we won't require you to fire X number of rounds at a set stage....just get the required number of rounds by the end.
You'll have to engage at each distance, but only with the number of rounds you can accurately deliver. Some guys are worried about shooters 'gaming' this, but in our current qual, you can miss all four rounds 25 yards and still pass.
The 'standard' will be the same each time....how many rounds it takes to achieve is up to you.
Ok, so I read it correctly. That's precisely the issue of using this as a qualification. That isn't a standard.
I've said my piece otherwise, so I'll just leave it here.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Reply With Quote