This was posted elsewhere, but it has relevance to this discussion. DB discusses "covered low ready" and robbery attempts.
https://americancop.com/the-covered-low-ready/
This was posted elsewhere, but it has relevance to this discussion. DB discusses "covered low ready" and robbery attempts.
https://americancop.com/the-covered-low-ready/
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
I have gained more knowledge from watching shootings that were caught on CCTV and badge cams
then from the stats themselves. It's much easier for me to observe the pre dance ritual monkey motion then
think about a couple of feet one way or another.
I just listened to a class by two McHenry County Sheriff's officers presenting at the NTOA virtual conference. They mentioned a study by the FBI (2012?) that found 75% of shootings involving their Special Agents occurred at three yards or less. A significant number of FBI shootings involve off-duty agents which was an impetus to more recent changes in their qualification course. This does make FBI shootings somewhat closed in dynamics to armed citizen shootings than those of a uniformed police agency.
While one should do the majority of one's training for the more likely incidents, I'd recommend doing some training for outlier events and perhaps stretch the common scenarios. For instance, if you believe your most likely incident is one within three yards, consider pushing your regular training out to five to seven yards.
Sort of, but not exactly.Originally Posted by jnc36rcpd
3 yard encounters are a very much a thing, and a subset of Bureau (and DEA) shootings do look a lot like civilian shootings but not 75% of all Bureau shootings. Even all Bureau pistol shootings being at 3 yards or less is not accurate.
75% of pistol shootings being at 7 yards or less, with a many less, is more accurate.
The FBI revised their qual course in 2013 based on a study of actual shootings involving Bureau Special Agents and Taskforce Officers. I believe this is the 2012 study you referenced. This resulted in a 60 round COF which placed much more emphasis on shooting from the 3, 5, and 7 yard lines, with 2/3 (40/60) shots at these distances. This reflected the majority of actual Bureau pistol shootings which were at 7 yards and in, vs the prior COF, last revised in 1997, in which more than 1/2 the shots in the COF (28/50) were at the 25 yard line followed by 12/50 from the 15 yard line and the remaining 10/50 from the 7 yard line fired SHO and WHO.
A follow up study was conducted between 2013 and 2019 which resulted in the qual course being revised again in 2019. The COF was reduced to 50 rounds. 6 /10 rounds removed from the COF were from the 3 yard line stage, with the balance being removed from the 15 and 25 yard lines. That wouldn’t make sense if 75% of the Bureau’s shootings were at 3 yards and in.
In both the 2013 and 2019 COF, the 3 yard line stages are single hand as data reflected at that distance one was more likely to have their other hand busy doing something else.
Since we are going down the rabbit hole, one of the more interesting of the 2019 changes derived from shooting data was only the first string of fire at each distance begins from the holster. Subsequent strings begin at a high ready position since many of the Bureau’s pistol shootings began with pistols out and/or suspects at gun point. This is, IMHO an u set appreciated change compared to prior COF (and many other LE COF) in which everything is done from the holster.
In both studies (2013/2019) about half of all shootings occurred during pre planned operations in full tactical gear and half in plain clothes, however, majority of the planned ops shootings involved rifles and /or SWAT.
Many of the subset of plainclothes shootings either occurred off duty or on duty during activities which mirrored civilian incidents. These include Agents /TFOs on Surveillance being unwittingly targeted for robbery or being assaulted after mistaken for rival criminals and assaults initiated upon contact for field interviews or in the midst of a field interview.,
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
Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....
nks for the detailed and better information, HCM. The presenters were great about giving credits to their sources, but the Zoom format wasn't conducive to asking about references. Having heard the FBI three-yard concept, I wondered if that included SWAT operations.
While I pretend to think I did some good at making my former agency's training program better, we did have almost every phase qualification course start from the holster. This was unrealistic, but it provided validation that the officer could present in the critical circumstance that the officer having to draw against the drop.
FWIW, Karl Rehn has come up with a drill he uses in his classes based on the three seconds/three yards idea.
Doing everything from the holster has long been the standard in LE COF, even though a fair number of shootings / gunfights start with the gun already out. The thinking is to get more reps on draws and presentations from the holster.
Quals are not supposed to be training, at best they are a test and at worst a CYA for the agency but in many instances they become the backbone of in-service training. This tends to be a symptom of other issues with the administration, the firearms program, or both.
Assuming best case, if a significant number of shootings start with the gun already out shouldn’t we be testing for that circumstance?
Re: drawing against the drop. While the Active Self Protection YT Channel guy John Correia can be annoying and get out if his lane, one thing he is right about is his analysis of actual gun fight videos and the corresponding draw speed you would need to beat a drawn gun depending on the threats attention/ orientation:
There are very few cops with a 1 second draw. I suspect there are few with a consistent 1.5 to a 2 handed aimed shot.Average Draw Speeds for Different Self Defense Situations
Bad guy with eyes on you and weapon presented: average draw speed needed (0.6 sec)
Bad guy moves nose and eyes from you, weapon presented: average draw speed needed (1.0 sec)
Bad guy shows you his ear, head angled away, weapon presented: average draw speed needed (1.5 sec)
Bad guy shows you the back of his head, weapon presented: average draw speed needed (2.0 sec)
Last edited by HCM; 03-31-2022 at 09:23 AM.
I would agree that training and, as much as possible qualification should reflect real world experiences. We certainly did drills and force-on-force exercises in which approaching the firing point or scenario with drawn weapon was appropriate. In my former agency, we usually had two range days and one force-on-force day annually. Of course, there were those who missed the training. In the case of line personnel, there was usually some validity while command staff were just "too busy". As long as state qualifications were met, command staff really didn't care. Since some officers might only be firing 130 rounds annually, we were one of those agencies that wanted to get the repetitions of drawing from the holster.
For the record, I'd agree literally drawing against the drop is almost certainly not going to work unless you are a real life Raylan Givens.
@rehn - for your "3 Seconds or Less" drill (posted above by @revchuck), can you please elaborate why some of the two-handed shooting strings start with the firing hand on gun, support hand on chest? As opposed to, say, the ready position or hands at sides?
Just curious. Thanks.
Reply With Quote