Yea but everyone in your class was there voluntarily, meaning they wanted to be there. The other class sounds mandatory thus needs to include getting the lowest denominater up to speed too. So sidestepping a pitfall to be introduced later(my assumption) to get the basics through to all at that stage still makes sense to me.
You know what they say about assumptions.Originally Posted by shane45
Let me put this in perspective. 20 of the 25 round state qualification course for cops in OH take place INSIDE 10 yards. There are 3 shots at 30 feet and 2 at 50 feet. 8 of the other 20 are SH/WHO and 1 is a head shot. Ignoring drills inside 10 yards is setting them up for potential failure. 2” dots at 3 yards and B8 centers at 5 are great targets to use to make them find the dot. I’d love to know more about these transition courses. If all you use during the transition are silhouette police targets you’re encouraging them to use a gross sight picture up close. Cops are lazy and many have the “it’s good enough” mentality.
I’d also love to know about the instructors running the transition course. The number of LE firearm instructors who actually know WTF they are doing (at least in my experience) is greatly outnumbered by those “firearm instructors” who are really nothing more than “range safety officers“ who know how to run the state qual course.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
This is a test for attaching pictures. If it is messed up I apologize in advance.
When it comes to framing or gross sight picture or whatever they are going to call it next week, one has to consider the factors of distance and target size as well as the size of the optic window/body.
The concept of framing as a successful and consistent technique requires the acceptable hit area of the target to be larger than (or at least equal to) the perceived size of the optic window at the given distance. For example, a USPSA or IDPA target is perceived as larger than most if not all optic window at five yards, so framing would make for a likely hit. In fact, at 5 yards, most optic windows are only slightly larger than the “A” zone, so you’re looking at A/C accuracy - This is based on my guesstimating in my house because I don’t have any full-size USPSA targets here and don’t use them super often.
Now reference my reduced-size practice USPSA below - The full dimensions are 9 3/4” tall by 6” wide. the pictures represent me standing approximately 11 feet (3.6 yards) from the target. The target is smaller than the optic window. So if I bring up the optic over the target and don’t see a dot there... that pretty much means it’s not on the target, which means a miss on THAT target at THAT distance. A full size target will change the distances at which we can expect a hit using framing or a gross sight picture.
Shooting a 2” dot at 3 yards will be frustrating to those not seeing a reticle. Shooting a B-8 at five yards, even out to the 8 ring for most people, will be frustrating to those not seeing a reticle. Shooting any human-like target at around 10yds beyond without seeing a reticle is going to be frustrating and probably a liability issue.
The pictures show a “framed” optic, but the dot is at the far lateral extension of the window, indicating a potential point of impact while “framing”... and for those actually doing this, what the “feel” of a miss is going to be. The same can be done vertically. This can help with presentation and kinesthetic awareness of what “right feels like”, but it also illustrates (depending on the optic and shooter), the limits of what framing can do. I would hope that any good optic program would address this reality.
This is a test for attaching pictures. If it is messed up I apologize in advance.
When it comes to framing or gross sight picture or whatever they are going to call it next week, one has to consider the factors of distance and target size as well as the size of the optic window/body.
The concept of framing as a successful and consistent technique requires the acceptable hit area of the target to be larger than (or at least equal to) the perceived size of the optic window at the given distance. For example, a USPSA or IDPA target is perceived as larger than most if not all optic window at five yards, so framing would make for a likely hit. In fact, at 5 yards, most optic windows are only slightly larger than the “A” zone, so you’re looking at A/C accuracy - This is based on my guesstimating in my house because I don’t have any full-size USPSA targets here and don’t use them super often.
Now reference my reduced-size practice USPSA below - The full dimensions are 9 3/4” tall by 6” wide. the pictures represent me standing approximately 11 feet (3.6 yards) from the target. The target is smaller than the optic window. So if I bring up the optic over the target and don’t see a dot there... that pretty much means it’s not on the target, which means a miss on THAT target at THAT distance. A full size target will change the distances at which we can expect a hit using framing or a gross sight picture.
Shooting a 2” dot at 3 yards will be frustrating to those not seeing a reticle. Shooting a B-8 at five yards, even out to the 8 ring for most people, will be frustrating to those not seeing a reticle. Shooting any human-like target at around 10yds beyond without seeing a reticle is going to be frustrating and probably a liability issue.
The pictures show a “framed” optic, but the dot is at the far lateral extension of the window, indicating a potential point of impact while “framing”... and for those actually doing this, what the “feel” of a miss is going to be. The same can be done vertically. This can help with presentation and kinesthetic awareness of what “right feels like”, but it also illustrates (depending on the optic and shooter), the limits of what framing can do. I would hope that any good optic program would address this reality.
I have a different take on this. I don’t believe you are showing the limitations of framing, but rather showing how important an index is. When dots fail, competition shooters hit somewhat difficult targets like US poppers at 15 yards, using no dot, no BUIS, just a developed index. To get the dot to move on the targets, like you show, you have to distort your index. Successful red dot shooters look at the target, and use their developed index to make the dot appear on the desired aiming point.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Do officers actually fail that?
Yes. Sad isn’t it? Here’s the course:
4 feet - 3 from retention in 5 seconds
9 feet - 2 to the body 1 to the head in 6 seconds
12 feet - 4 SHO in 8 seconds then 4 WHO in 7 seconds (from the ready)
20 feet - 3 reload 3 in 12 seconds
30 feet - 3 in 8 seconds
50 feet - 2 in 8 seconds
I think I work for one of the better trained agencies in the state and we still have a couple who struggle. Getting problem shooters Glocks fixed most of the issues.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
That is very true, and while I completely agree, I’ll submit that your perspective is addressed by my “what right looks like” comment. I’m not talking about experienced shooters but those learning to shoot a dot. I have been able to shoot beyond what I posted above for some time but that is based on feel and experience (index), not the visual cues new shooters are looking for as they learn the dot.
The dot teaches us things. If we can direct repetitions to those things that encourage most efficient learning, students will develop skill faster. We can’t just say “you can do this”, we have to explain the why and the how and let the student develop skill and perspective. “Index” can’t be shown in a picture, described specifically for the individual, or demonstrated such that they will “get” it without the work... so the goal is to make the work as efficient as possible by giving a visual and tactile roadmap toward “what right feels like”.
Last edited by SoCalDep; 08-23-2020 at 10:41 PM.
This is where it becomes political.
If society wants better cops, they have to train them, pay them, and hold them accountable. If society (the voters) say (or pay for) only so many cops, or many cops with only so much pay... or training... or accountability... then they will get EXACTLY what they pay for.
Good “cops” will go to other agencies or leave the profession. Then we will all be left asking why bad things happen.
This course of fire is probably not unusual for the country in general, and while It makes me feel like my unit is on the right (or at least a better) track... I know it only takes a budget cut to be by the grace of...
That said, hopefully training and qualifications are not the same thing.
At my agency they are not the same thing. We do much more than this. But I know agencies that shoot once a year. 25 rounds and that’s it. Plus 20 for the rifle qual.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
What's sad is the fact, like SoCal mentioned, that many agencies train to this standard.
Regarding your state's particular course, at 4feet stepping back does nothing to get the officer off the threat axis, I would prefer diagonally to the rear.
I've never been a fan of including failure drills in a qualification course because like most every trainer who has ever testified as an expert witness I've been asked the 'why don't you train officers to shoot them in the shoulder or leg' question. I'm sure answers vary as to this, but they probably include some explanation of the body's response to stress with that being the reason officers are trained to shoot center of available mass rather than specific body areas. Failure drills targeting specific reduced areas during qualification seem to defeat that line of testimony.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I say train the heck out of failure drills, just don't have them on quals.
Reply With Quote