https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...an-unsung-hero
Interesting 10-round test. For an approximation of the target, staple a B-8 repair center on whatever full-size silhouette you have handy, scored as follows:
- 10 points for anything completely inside the 8-ring.
- 9 points anywhere else on the B-8 paper.
- 6 points on the rest of the silhouette.
Adding this to my training notes. Thanks for posting it.
Interesting stuff! As someone who feels good about reaching the 1.5 second draw level- this course looks mighty humbling. I do like the time penalty method described.
Reading through the article also reminds me just how much of an epicenter the once great state of California was to Gun Culture 1.0. So so sad what it has become today.
An entire department of officers who could pass this course of fire with an 80% or higher score is probably any firearms instructor’s dream. No wonder BPD had the reputation they did as referenced in the blog post.
An empty revolver and an empty autoloader are the same problem, and it doesn't change because of which equipment one chose.
- 2 rounds in 1.5 seconds at 10 feet (“No one should be closer than that.”)
- 2 rounds in 2.0 seconds at 20 feet (“The length of a car.”)
- 2 reload 2 in 6.0 seconds (8.0 for revolvers) at 30 feet (“From the curb to the front door.”)
- 2 rounds in 3.5 seconds at 60 feet (“From the opposite curb to the front door.”)
I'll be running this, but wheelguns and autoloaders will be held to the same standard.
But there is always this for anyone who questions things from Bakersfield:
Last edited by jlw; 07-30-2021 at 01:16 PM.
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.
It's basically impossible to shoot 100 unless you have a 1.25 sec. draw at 10 feet. If you're at 1.5, you may well score better on the 20-foot stage due to the extra half-second allowed.Originally Posted by Suvorov
But note that the standards were presumably set for open carried clamshell holsters. It might not be crazy to add .25 or even .5 at all distances for a concealed draw or a retention holster.
I bit. Tried it with a GLOCK Model 45 MOS with an ACRO mounted, out of an ALS holster unconcealed. Winchester 147 flat point fmj ammo.
1.45, 1.84, 6.00(I swear!), 3.41. Two hits just out, and one a little right at 20 yards. So, 97 points if I’m arguing like a competitor, or 94 points.
It’s sporty! I look forward to working a Level 3 holster through this, and concealed. Definitely going on the drill list; low round count, realistic and a good accuracy standard. With the 5 yard roundup, the “Test”, Hackathorn’s 5 round “Wizard”, etc., we have some efficient evaluations.
Here’s another one: 8” plates at 25 yards. One round to hit in 2.5 seconds.
Paging @Mr.White…
A 97 is solid!
I’ll be interested to hear your results with duty and concealment gear, and your thoughts on a time adjustment.
Compared to the other tests you mention, this one has some strengths and weaknesses:
It tests the draw more than the 5-yard Roundup does, and I think we know that the draw is important. My slowpoke draw (2.0 for the two shots at 10 feet was pretty good) is going to make it tough for me to break 90.
It’s a higher pure marksmanship standard than the Wizard Drill, and requires more speed as written.
Weaknesses are that there’s no one handed shooting, and that if it were my one test, I’d kind of like it to include a failure drill and some movement. Here are my proposed improvements:
- Make it 15-round drill by finishing every stage with a shot to a 3x5 head zone (10 points for a hit to the 3x5, 6 for anything else still on the silhouette). (The 60-foot stage might just be a third shot to the bullseye.)
- Shoot the 10-foot strong hand only.
- Require a sidestep on every draw and reload.
And adjust time standards accordingly. I’d probably also use commonly marked yardages: 3, 7, 10, maybe 25. (That last is tough - for my eyes, there’s a big difference between 20 and 25.)
I think you’re missing the point.
First: accept that this standard and test was effective for training whereas a number of other tests and drills are not.
Second: the simplicity of the test with the tight time standards is what makes it so. Adding more stuff adds variables and dilutes learning. If you can’t make it simply, you can’t make it with added stuff unless the added stuff has too much time adjustment.
Third: Fundamentals are important. If you can’t do these standards, work on walking before you run.
Fourth: When all the extra garbage was cut out, ALL of the Bakersfield PD could do it and that translated to success on the street.
From my perspective and standpoint, this worked because it’s not pass or fail with targets and time. It’s basically hit factor scoring where there is a speed/accuracy trade off. It’s good for training.
Also note that once you have the fundamentals locked down at a high level, it’s very easy to adapt and do strong hand and movement. Not the other way around.
Reply With Quote