If you fail a qual and the only consequence is that you need to retrain or reshoot you really need to sack up and understand you need more training time, which is a taxpayer funded education that benefits you.
If you fail a qual and the only consequence is that you need to retrain or reshoot you really need to sack up and understand you need more training time, which is a taxpayer funded education that benefits you.
And benefits the taxpayer(s).Originally Posted by smells like feet
This agent's gripe is one of the problems with the culture of LE training in general. There has been a loss of vision as to what is actually being trained for. This CoF that includes a reasonable standard (ability to make handgun hits when the long gun is dry/OOS but the problem still exists) is a good thing. That there are consequences for not being able to perform to the reasonable standard is part of it being a good thing. Perhaps more fatigue inducing drills during force training would make qualifications easier for this agent.
"Knowledge is good." Emil Faber, date unknown.
Just curious and maybe I missed it but what distance were the headshots with the pistol from?
Thanks.
Quals are not training.
At best they have some value as a test if done cold. At worst they are a CYA check box for the Agency.
This is why some agencies do one round quals, done cold and others dispatch officers from the street at random to qualify. Some change their quals every year to avoid officers acclimating to them.
Like others up thread, I prefer to do qualifications early so they can be done cold and to get them out of the way so the shooters can engage in actual training.
We don’t mix pistol shots into long gun quals but no issue with pistol shots in the long gun qual since transition to handgun is an immediate action for a dry or malfunctioning long gun up close.
Some agencies consider any shot fired which doesn’t strike somewhere on the silhouette to be a automatic failure but they are the minority. We don’t but we have two mandatory head shots in our pistol qual. If they strike anywhere other than the head they are “zero points” regardless of where they hit.
It’s good to train under a variety of conditions but doing for the record quals at the end of the day is poor program management. Conversely Agent whining about it says more about the Agent than the situation.
Was the agent afforded a re-shoot?
Sounds like there's an issue at-play with the agency's systems approach to training. The use of task, condition and standard are well-grounded concepts in curriculum development.
Task: Do "this"
Condition: Under what circumstances you will do this
Standard: To what performance level you will do this
From what has been presented, there appears to me to be a deficiency in establishing the conditions of this qualification. For instance, with ours it's outright stated that qual's must be shot cold...no training is permitted that day prior to shooting the quals. This isn't for the benefit of the agent, it's to establish a consistent baseline against which a LEOs performance is evaluated. There can be a time and place for performance metrics under field conditions, but IMO a baseline qualification is not it.
Moreover, the agent will have an effective platform to stand on if they try to grieve any punitive actions taken if the qualification is executed in a manner not consistent with historical patterns, given that variable execution is not explicitly written out as a standard practice. That's the difference between shenanigans like this and stress-testing which is performed consistent and back-stopped manner, generally with the applied stress being well delineated.
As for the pistol shots during a shotgun qual.....I think that's fine. I'd be in favor of combined weapons quals, honestly. If you're carrying two guns (long gun and pistol), I think it makes sense to ensure you can complete a given skill involving the realistic usage of both weapons (such as a transition) in an effective manner as determined to be a reasonable standard by the agency.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Thanks everyone for the comments. The agent in question failed a qual for the first time in decades and got pissed about it. He's still a good guy who has shown his mettle a time or two. I'd say he's also a better shooter than the average LEO, and ironically is quite good with a shotgun.
Like @TGS and others, I believe that the timing and conditions of a qual should be defined and repeated. Although I see pros and cons to introducing some fatigue before a qual, I don't think there should be warm-up shooting. Shoot the qual(s) cold, then train for the rest of the day (if you have the luxury of a whole day at the range).
A missed pistol headshot on that shotgun qual is not uncommon, unfortunately.
10 yards, if memory serves.
Yes.
FYI, just to follow up so that nobody gets the wrong impression:
My agency has a standardized multi-gun stress test that involves not just running but also a stretcher carry, and includes shooting on the move, a hostage shot, shooting around various barricades, a sprint and shooting from 50+ yards.
It is conducted purely for our benefit, and is not a qualification that decides whether you can carry a gun or not.
I would be in favor of it becoming such, but I also am cognizant that the stressors induced are consistent and very well defined. I can't remember if we had a 2-3 minute HIIT beforehand, or if that was part of another event. But, point being, it's a repeatable test. I'm also cognizant that it is very resource and time intensive, and not realistic for the vast majority of agencies to use as a qualification course of fire. Even if we instituted it as such, I imagine it would only realistically be conducted as an annual inventory in addition to the more frequent pre-existing "square range" test. The biggest problem for our offices outside the national capital region would undoubtedly be range availability; we had to develop a 25 yard qual when we replaced our SMGs with the Mk18, because not all of our offices could even support the 100 yard pre-exisiting M4 qualification.
An FI freelancing for the day, inducing random, inconsistent stressors not just across a period of time but likely among the individual participants on a given day, and then people getting tested out after said stressors, is not a sound example of training management.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Looking from outside, two questions:
1) what percent fail the qual? If the qual is challenging enough to be relevant, I assume some percent have to fail.
2) what are the consequences of failing -- laughed at, fined, benched, dismissed, or retrained and retested?
I have often learned a lot more from things I got wrong than from things I got right.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Most quals are not relevant. They are intended to show a basic proficiency in shooting so the agency and state can avoid liability.
Grab some popcorn and go over to Vigr Training’s IG page or YT channel and watch him shoot the state qual courses from the various states. He’s shooting them in the order they became states. I stopped after watching for a few weeks. Most state quals make baby Jesus cry.
Failing leads to remedial training. Keep failing and ultimately it can cost you your job. Maybe. Might depend on if you’re union or not.
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
Just curious why they went 25 vs 50? Was that influenced by OCONUS ranges ? I ask because most US LE ranges are 50 yards.
Our rifle qual starts at 100 but it’s frequently shot at 50 using a 50% reduced size target.
Reply With Quote