FBI Rule of 3...BS or Real World Data Worth Acknowledging?

[rehn]

In the design of the 3 seconds or less test, we wanted to test presentation from all the different stopping points along the draw. We made a list of all the skills we wanted to evaluate and tried to incorporate them in the fewest number of strings. And we gave thought to the percentage each test would be relative to the entire test.

In Texas, now that we have open carry, exposing your gun and getting a firing grip on it, while it's in the holster, is a slightly different level of force or deadly force or threat of deadly force than drawing the gun to a ready position. Drawing from the "hand on gun" position takes a little bit longer than presenting from ready, but much less time than drawing from concealment. Since the goal was to maintain a 3 sec par time for every string, this gave us more flexibility to tune each string to give enough time for the number of rounds we wanted students to fire.


We use the test in three levels of classes. The first two are 4 hour courses. At the end of the first 4 hour course, all the students have done is learn to draw from open carry, with a brief introduction to drawing from concealment. So in DPS-1, they test from open carry. Adding the hand on gun/hand on chest step reinforces the correct technique they will need later when they add a concealment garment (as opposed to letting the support hand dangle at their side).

During the 2nd course, particularly for those working strong side, open front garment carry, in the summer with an overly lightweight shirt, or spring/fall windy days, clearing the garment can be the primary failure point impeding their draw. So another reason we changed some of the start positions to 'hand on gun' was to remove the act of clearing the garment on the clock from that string of the test. Rather than change the test itself for the 3rd level program completion class, we just raised the passing score (level 1 70%, level 2 80%, level 3 90%). The coin-earning level of the program is to get to about 50% of USPSA GM, or roughly Gunsite 250 graduation level, aka an acceptable level of minimum competency.

You can run the whole thing starting from concealment, and that's a good idea once you can clean the test at the 3.0 par as written. Once you can do that, bump the par time for every string to 2.75 then 2.5, or lower, to raise the difficulty level again.

Karl

[AMC]

HCM - thanks for the breakdown. These remarks are nor directed to you, just in general.

Design of qualification courses is an interesting subject. I'm not sure that there is an absolute right or wrong given that agencies may view qualifications differently.

I feel that qualification courses are both a validation of the training program and the individual's competency in the areas trained. Assuming the agency's training program is based on likely engagement patterns, then the qualification course should be expected to mirror those patterns.

However, there are differences in the way folks interpret those patterns. For example, some folks look at data that indicates 'three yards, three rounds, three seconds' and go no further than 'okay, we are going to start at the three and fire three rounds in three seconds, let's see, we have 50 rounds, so if we do it three time, we will have 41 rounds left, next stage ought to be...'

On the other hands, some folks will look at the data and wonder 'what does that three-yard gunfight look like? what did our officers do? what should they have done?' Having, gathered that data, those folks will set out to design a program that will end up with the three-yard stage of the qualification course looking different than the first group, even considering the constraints of qualifying groups of officers on a 'square' range.

Frankly, I think that absent safety concerns (splatter from rounds hitting target mechanisms, etc.) the close stage ought to begin 1 to 1.5 yards, as that somewhat replicates document exchange/interview territory. It also should involve movement off the threat axis. In my ideal world, for example, one string would begin with pen and pad in hands, the next with flashlight and DL with the flashlight being brought to neck index and the rounds fired one-handed.

I think most folks would agree that mirroring statistics for qualification is a good practice but, as I hope I've illustrated, there is mirroring, and then there is mirroring.

While some agencies view the qualification as a validation exercise, other agencies look at quals as a necessary evil. Those agencies are likely to have a course that they can say is job-related, is shorter, is easy to administer, and is easy to successfully complete.

Mirroring statistics can get that done, also. The question 'so how many shootings, actually take place at 25 yards?' gets you in that door.

HCM once posted 'we are training cops, not gunfighters' or words to that effect. That is true, a lot of officers aren't particularly enamored of shooting. We don't serve them well by designing courses that are easy to qualify on without some degree of personal effort training.

One of my acquaintances once lamented 'Joe is just a shitty shot, he comes out every qualification, fails the first qual and squeaks the second one.' Knowing Joe, I replied 'yeah he is, but he's been on the road what, fifteen years, and he's still shooting seventy percent, maybe you ought to look at your program.'

JMO YMMV

Yes, yes and yes. How many times have I heard "That guy is the shits. He just sucks at shooting." about the "fail the first attempt" shooters.....coming from our Firearms Instructors. And my response is always " Dude....you trained him. Maybe you kinda suck at your job too."

Our Deputy Chief wanted a new Qual failure policy, with teeth for failures. I wrote a rational policy that recognized you can't hold people accountable to a standard you haven't trained them to. I wrote in that any failure, even if successfully retested immediately, triggered a performance improvement plan which required the officer to attend 3 remedial training sessions before their next 6 month qualification. This was an attempt to fix the chronic fail every time shooters. Actually training and fixing our problem shooters was not considered a good idea, though.....so they suddenly discovered that someone else in the training division, not assigned to the range, had "written" a policy that had no remediation and no teeth, and they went with that. Funny that it resembled the draft policy my Lieutenant had been working on before I took over, but was "signed" by a previous captain who had retired, and by the current Deputy Chief....who had been a Captain when the document was "signed".

Often the biggest opposition to improving standards for quals, and implementing training, has come from some of our FI's. The often stated fact that most LE "Range Guys" don't know much about guns or shooting, much less teaching, is the dirty secret, and the real barrier to change. Every time I have instituted training associated with range time for the quals, I have faced pushback from a couple of our range staff, who will frankly backdoor me and call their buddies on the command staff. Teaching is hard....especially when you have no idea how to do it. I actually had one of our senior FIs say in a meeting with command staff that it wasn't our job to provide training to our officers, it was just our job to run quals. If the cops wanted to "practice", that was up to them to do on their own time. This mentality is more widespread than most people think.

It has been amusing to watch the discomfort now that I've required the instructors to demo their drills. Some are okay with it, some are very much not. But the students can see who will give you a visual representation of what they want you to do, and who just bullies and says "You're doing it wrong".

But in 2 months, I'm out, and the forces of apathy and laziness will win. In Service training will be almost entirely eliminated, the Practical Shooting based training method we adopted will go away, and our program will regress 20 years literally overnight. I tried.

[DDTSGM]

It has been amusing to watch the discomfort now that I've required the instructors to demo their drills. Some are okay with it, some are very much not. But the students can see who will give you a visual representation of what they want you to do, and who just bullies and says "You're doing it wrong".

I think instructors should demo range drills several times - 1) dry-walk through; 2) slow-by-the-numbers; 3) at acceptable speed with acceptable accuracy. Questions and explanations after each demo.

My experience is that some instructors don't want to do demo's (some because they can't); some spend an inordinate amount of time demoing and generally pontificating about how great they are; and, some get it done in a businesslike manner.

One of the bad things I've noticed about LE training over the years is the tendency for some officers to stop getting training after they have become instructors. Equally as bad, IMO, is also the tendency for some instructors to blindly adopt techniques/tactics without a circumspect evaluation of those techniques.

I use the term circumspect because I believe that sometimes LE instructors, especially in the fields of DT, firearms, and EVO, forget that when we teach officers these subjects, we can be betting their lives.

[jlw]

Yes, yes and yes. How many times have I heard "That guy is the shits. He just sucks at shooting." about the "fail the first attempt" shooters.....coming from our Firearms Instructors. And my response is always " Dude....you trained him. Maybe you kinda suck at your job too."

You can't hold the FI responsible for the personnel that don't retain the information beyond the session and that don't do any work other than mandated training.

[HCM]

You can't hold the FI responsible for the personnel that don't retain the information beyond the session and that don't do any work other than mandated training.

True, but there are certainly LE instructors who suck at instruction, diagnostics and/or coaching.

Some simply don’t know what they don’t know. In my own agency the FI training program has oscillated between an emphasis on “instructor skills” (teachbacks and diagnostics) and “shooting skills” (making the FI a better shooter). Luckily the emphasis is currently back on instructor skills.

@AMC ‘s comments about some LE FIs being bullies is also unfortunately accurate. IME they tend to be the same ones who refuse to demo, feel threatened by those who shoot well or ask questions, and like to yell / scream at shooters.

[jlw]

True, but there are certainly LE instructors who suck at instruction, diagnostics and/or coaching.

Some simply don’t know what they don’t know. In my own agency the FI training program has oscillated between an emphasis on “instructor skills” (teachbacks and diagnostics) and “shooting skills” (making the FI a better shooter). Luckily the emphasis is currently back on instructor skills.

@AMC ‘s comments about some LE FIs being bullies is also unfortunately accurate. IME they tend to be the same ones who refuse to demo, feel threatened by those who shoot well or ask questions, and like to yell / scream at shooters.

I'm familiar. The GPSTC, FBI, and FLETC FI schools were all about running a line of shooters. They weren't about coaching individual shooters.

The typical LE FI only knows how to say "You're jerking the trigger" for everything.

All that being typed, I know that my guys and I have spent considerable amount of time learning to diagnose and coach, and WE still have personnel who refuse to get it.

[HCM]

I'm familiar. The GPSTC, FBI, and FLETC FI schools were all about running a line of shooters. They weren't about coaching individual shooters.

The typical LE FI only knows how to say "You're jerking the trigger" for everything.

All that being typed, I know that my guys and I have spent considerable amount of time learning to diagnose and coach, and WE still have personnel who refuse to get it.

It can definitely be a two sided problem.

The internal FI training issue I referenced was a period when our FI school was not even about running a line or providing group instruction. FI school became a shooting package. FI candidates did leave as better shooters but were given few if any tools to replicate that process. It was “Fi” school i.e. 95% how to shoot / 5% how to instruct instead of “FI” school, if that makes sense.

[jnc36rcpd]

"You're jerking the trigger"? Obvious sign of an amateur. Everyone knows the role of an instructor is to walk up and down the sign and say "Concentrate" to anyone having issues. Just works wonders.

[HCM]

"You're jerking the trigger"? Obvious sign of an amateur. Everyone knows the role of an instructor is to walk up and down the sign and say "Concentrate" to anyone having issues. Just works wonders.

Not scream “front sight !!!!!!”

[AMC]

Not scream “front sight !!!!!!”

"Lock it out! Front sight! Preeesssssss!!!!""

This drove me bananas. Then ask the instructor to explain what is meant by "jerking" or "slapping" the trigger, and you get a look that says a dick just grew out of your forehead.

Or have an instructor tell a student they're missing because their "stance" isn't aggressive enough, and they can't control recoil until they bend far forward at the waist and lock their elbows. It's all just talking points with no real understanding, but the words come from under a red hat, so they must be true.

I totally agree with @jlw's point that you can't blame an instructor for a student being dumber than a bag of hammers, or less involved than a heroin addict on the nod. I've seen those, as well as the "too cool for school" guys who already know everything cause they've been a cop for 10 years. I have some good, dedicated instructors who will continue to work with those folks and try different ways to reach them, no matter how personally frustrating it is. If the student fails, it's on them at that point, not the instructor. But we have the other kind too. And most LE firearms instructor programs don't do a very good job of developing the first type. That's why selection is so important. And the ability to pass some "instructor qualification" Shoot doesn't prove the person can teach. But I'm preaching to the choir here.