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

[Mark D]

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

Thanks Karl - I appreciate the explanation. I knew that you'd have a good rationale, but I couldn't figure it out on my own.

[HCM]

"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.

If people only fail out of your FI school for inability to shoot a passing score on an instructor qual and not for poor performance in things like teach backs or presentations you are doing it wrong,

[MDFA]

"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.

Personally I like the "DiNozzo Slap" to the back of the head...

I had a junior instructor that would say "Bury the Front Sight" to students. I took him aside and asked him what the fuck that meant? When he couldn't explain it, I told him, if you can't explain it to me, you probably shouldn't use it with students...

[AMC]

Back to the topic of the OP, we have a "Rule of 3's" stage in our Perishable Skills Program test. We also periodically use it as an exercise in our short Skills Refresher session when folks come in to qual. We go over proper manipulation of the release mechanisms of the Safariland 6360/7360 series holsters, and then have the shooters practice those skills. It's also a good exercise to get shooters to understand both the importance of shooting "sooner" rather than faster, and the concept of "see what you need to see" when it comes to sights. They'll often over aim at first, when they need to get to working the trigger.

Anyway, as an exercise to get less than stellar performers (about 90% of LE shooters) to work on and understand these basic concepts, I think it's a useful exercise. As a representation or recreation of some "real world need"? Not so sure.

[SouthNarc]

Yes. Entangled fighting occurred in a relatively small percentage of incidents, but those incidents were lost by the defender much more often than non-entangled incidents.

Entangled gunfights tend to be hyper-violent events. Both parties are fighting for their lives at that point and the event has shifted from being a robbery to a murder.

Most people have no experience or training in that level of violence even if they have been in a ranged gunfight or shooting before and won.

So small odds but high stakes.

[Chuck Whitlock]

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.

Anecdotally, one portion of the BIA's PPC COF was at 1.5 yards. There were a number of times that the paper targets were shredded by muzzle blast, particularly when the backers were well used. I'm not saying to ditch shooting at that distance, but using cardboard or cardstock targets would mitigate that particular problem.

[DDTSGM]

Anecdotally, one portion of the BIA's PPC COF was at 1.5 yards. There were a number of times that the paper targets were shredded by muzzle blast, particularly when the backers were well used. I'm not saying to ditch shooting at that distance, but using cardboard or cardstock targets would mitigate that particular problem.

We used cardboard targets and used wall-paper paste to attach additional targets, they held up pretty good. Then it got to the point where the paper targets weren't much of a savings over the cardboard and we pretty much switched to just cardboard.

As a practical matter, the officer should be further than 1.5 yards from the target if the concept of 'draw as moving' versus 'draw then move' is emphasized.

[curious]

might i unequivocally state this thread's posted knowledge was outstanding & was one of the best discussions, w/great informational nuances coupled w/candid observations about group organizational shooting training activities, i have seen across numerous boards in quite a few years...

bottom line...thanks to those who participated to date and look forward to other great info from future contributors...

cheers