Big Fish in Small Ponds; Insularity in LE Firearms Instruction

[DaBigBR]

Alabama has instituted a re-cert requirement for firearms instructors, but it appears most are just going back through the same courses they took to get certified.

In my state, firearms instructors must attend an eight hour recertification class every three years. I will go to my fifth recert this year. Every time I have gone, we have shot the state handgun and shotgun qualification with a required 90% score, shot the FBI Instructor Bullseye with no minimum score, and then listened to the same speech about how "next time" they will be making instructors test out of things like reloads, malfunctions, etc. It never happens. It probably never will happen. It's like mandatory, in-service physical agility: if you were willing to accept the cost of instituting it, there would be long term benefits. If they said tomorrow that all recerts must post a 270 bullseye score, meet standards in various skills, and pass a written test or something, they would lose 30%+ of the instructors right away.

The fact is, though, that at least here, the state academy's (which is the certifying board) customer is the agency, and the agencies want certified instructors, so the academy gives them what they want.

[AMC]

In my state, firearms instructors must attend an eight hour recertification class every three years. I will go to my fifth recert this year. Every time I have gone, we have shot the state handgun and shotgun qualification with a required 90% score, shot the FBI Instructor Bullseye with no minimum score, and then listened to the same speech about how "next time" they will be making instructors test out of things like reloads, malfunctions, etc. It never happens. It probably never will happen. It's like mandatory, in-service physical agility: if you were willing to accept the cost of instituting it, there would be long term benefits. If they said tomorrow that all recerts must post a 270 bullseye score, meet standards in various skills, and pass a written test or something, they would lose 30%+ of the instructors right away.

The fact is, though, that at least here, the state academy's (which is the certifying board) customer is the agency, and the agencies want certified instructors, so the academy gives them what they want.

We've used the FBI Bullseye as one of our selection tests for years, first at a 260 passing score, now at 240. It's a good test of your fundamentals, but in my opinion it's flawed thinking to use this as THE instructor qual. We will not be teaching recruits and officers Bullseye type shooting (or shouldn't be). I think better "Instructor Standards" are things like the FBI Qual to 90%, then move on the the CSAT Instructor Standards, etc. Things that measure accuracy at speed and manipulation skills on demand. It's also why I liked using the Bakersfield test on our target (tighter score zones), and making my guys shoot that, to measure immediate performance in just 10 rounds. I personally think the latter 2 make excellent Instructor quals, because they're short and measure "on demand" skill. My 2 cents.

[AMC]

This is our target that I've referenced. Center circle is 5", outer circle is 9". Head circle is 4". Overall area of the silhouette is maybe 25% bigger than a 'C' zone. This one has a facer glued over the cardboard original. I like the 5" circle for maximum score. I think both Daryll and @Wayne Dobbs have talked about 5" as a good accountability zone before. I've had my guys shoot the Bakersfield Test course of fire on our target. They could all pass at least the second time....though a couple went crazy fast thinking they weren't making the times and threw shots on the first attempt. Any miss off the silhouette was an automatic fail, score aside.

Thoughts?

[DaBigBR]

I don't disagree...I just think the performance bar should be pretty high.

Our recert requirement is a 90% on what we're trying to as the "old" FBI handgun course (18 rounds at 25 yards). The state curriculum is heavily based on the FBI's, however I do not know how up to date it is. I find the standard to be impossibly easy and not much of a true test of skills.

Of course, the problem with relying on passing a qualification course to be and remain an instructor is that it does little to validate a skill other than passing a qualification course, and therefore probably engenders some of the "qualification over training" problems.

[HCM]

We've used the FBI Bullseye as one of our selection tests for years, first at a 260 passing score, now at 240. It's a good test of your fundamentals, but in my opinion it's flawed thinking to use this as THE instructor qual. We will not be teaching recruits and officers Bullseye type shooting (or shouldn't be). I think better "Instructor Standards" are things like the FBI Qual to 90%, then move on the the CSAT Instructor Standards, etc. Things that measure accuracy at speed and manipulation skills on demand. It's also why I liked using the Bakersfield test on our target (tighter score zones), and making my guys shoot that, to measure immediate performance in just 10 rounds. I personally think the latter 2 make excellent Instructor quals, because they're short and measure "on demand" skill. My 2 cents.

The FBI has a new target which is essentially a Q target with a full (all outer rings) B8/IP-1 in the body. In addition to 260 on the FBI bullseye I believe their FI candidates must shot the standard pistol qual with all shots in the outermost ring of the B8/IP-1.

They are now shooting the qualifying COF at their home station vs at day one of FI school. Personally I think the extra pressure of not being on one’s home range is a valuable selector.

My own agency requires a two week FI school. On day one all shooters must pass our regular rifle and pistol qual at 90% vs the normal 80%, plus a bullseye COF which requires a 240/300. It is the same COF as the FBI bullseye but it is shot on a B-27 repair center, which IMHO is easier than the B8/IP-1.

They also must pass teach backs. Previously there were 3 progressively longer / more challenging teach backs, it was reduced to one for a while when the FI school became more of a shooting package but now things have shifted back to an emphasis on instruction and coaching.

We are required to attend a week of re-certification training every 5 years. There is usually a theme / emphasis for a 3 to 5 year cycle such as M-4 Instructor, active shooter instructor and now RDS/Pistol Optics instructor. Instructors coming back for recertification must pass the same day one shooting qualifications as new FI candidates. There is also usually at least one graded teach back. An FI from my office DNQ’ed on the M4 this year and an FI in my last recertification failed the pistol pistol optics teach back on the last day and was denied recertification.

As for selection of FI candidates it has varied considerably over the years and from office to office.

In my first office it was you were a good shooter and willing to apprentice as a range safety officer you could go to firearms instructor school after a year or two. In my second office it was pure politics. This is bad enough when the person selected is competent and passes the score but when two candidates in a row are selected based on office politics and both fail out on the first day wasting those training slots it could be irksome. My third office operated on the if you were a good shot and willing to apprentice model.

When I took over the firearms program in my current office I instituted our current process which started with a screening process that stated by rating candidates in two areas:

The average of their last four pistol qualification scores, and prior training and experience with teaching / public speaking.

We then had tryouts on at least two or three separate days where the candidates shot and had to teach back an agency lesson plan. They were than ranked in order of preference for available slots at FI school.

We are no longer allowed to use uncertified range safety officers but we bring the FI candidates to our quarterly instructor development day as a form of green team until they go to the school.

That model has worked well for us so my successors have continued it but every office is its own little kingdom on some ways.

The local FBI office uses a similar try out /green team process. Locally their FIs were encouraged to take two to three outside firearms related courses per year.

For us, attending or hosting outside training is a thing at our national firearms unit and our Academy but not so much in field offices. The majority of the outside training I’ve attended has been on my time and at my expense. I have occasionally gotten permission to attend local training on government time or had ammo provided but I’ve never had a “full ride” other than while working at the academy.

Locally the best I’ve been able to do is have exchange programs where we invite instructors from other agencies to our Instructor Development Day each quarter and vice versa.

Although titled instructor development day or quarterly instructor day is more of a instructor qualification and coordination day to make sure all the instructors are on the same page about how we are teaching the topics for that quarter.

[HCM]

I don't disagree...I just think the performance bar should be pretty high.

Our recert requirement is a 90% on what we're trying to as the "old" FBI handgun course (18 rounds at 25 yards). The state curriculum is heavily based on the FBI's, however I do not know how up to date it is. I find the standard to be impossibly easy and not much of a true test of skills.

Of course, the problem with relying on passing a qualification course to be and remain an instructor is that it does little to validate a skill other than passing a qualification course, and therefore probably engenders some of the "qualification over training" problems.

18 rounds at 25 yards is from the 1997 FBI qual. The qual has changed twice since then (2012 and 2019).

Instructor does need a certain level of confidence and periodic Qualls like my agencies once every five years requirement for a good idea but they should not be the sole metric.

[DDTSGM]

Thoughts?

Didn't repost the target picture. From my POV the chest circles are too low if you want to condition shooters to shoot upper center mass.

I'm not really a fan of circles on a qual target, but sometimes you have to compromise. I would move the circles up, and move the inner circle straight up until it touches the top line of the outer circle. This gives you the same square inch area of the circles as scoring, but rewards the shooter who puts their rounds where I think they should go. This is just my opinion, but it is reflected in the target we designed for academy quals - until they went full on crazy and adopted that POS FBI coke bottle after I retired.

Agree with zero rounds off target for instructor quals.

[AMC]

Didn't repost the target picture. From my POV the chest circles are too low if you want to condition shooters to shoot upper center mass.

I'm not really a fan of circles on a qual target, but sometimes you have to compromise. I would move the circles up, and move the inner circle straight up until it touches the top line of the outer circle. This gives you the same square inch area of the circles as scoring, but rewards the shooter who puts their rounds where I think they should go. This is just my opinion, but it is reflected in the target we designed for academy quals - until they went full on crazy and adopted that POS FBI coke bottle after I retired.

Agree with zero rounds off target for instructor quals.

Were I designing THIS target today, I would slightly raise the ri gs as you describe. The target predates my involvement in training by perhaps 11 years. I have twice reached out to Action Targets Design Team to work with us on a new target over the last 2 years, but never got a reply back. That's been a problem with many vendors during the pandemic IME.

@HCM I like the "Green Team" idea and just resubmitted my proposal for an Adjunct Firearms Instructor Program....largely because it may be the only way for the department to keep the range open at this point as our staffing collapses. It would take the guys on the list who pass the selection tests, send them to the relevant instructor courses, and then a 40 hr In-House course on our current methods. They'd essentially be 'part timers' filling in spots as needed, under the supervision of full-time staff. It got back doored by some of my own staff, who wanted increased overtime opportunities, and others who viewed it through the lens of some twisted Union/Scab view. As I said, at this point it might be the only way to keep the lights on.

[DaBigBR]

HCM's selection process is similar to what I would like to see implemented where I am. It makes sense, requires candidates to buy in, and hopefully keeps the current staff engaged.

Internal instructor development can be a real challenge. Everybody has a reason not to do it (usually "we're too small of an agency", "we're too busy", or "we can't afford it"). There is also significant hesitancy to want to teach your peers and some hesitancy to want to listen to one of your peers. I find that teaching things to our instructor cadre is a good test of my skills...if I can get them to listen and apply the lesson, I'm being effective.

When I went to firearms instructor school, they specified 2000 rounds handgun, but only shot about 1,200. The rest was intended to be yours to keep because they believed that, as an instructor, you were going to shoot less than ever. In large part, they aren't wrong. At my first agency, I was "the guy" and my range days involved very little actual shooting and a lot of running the range by myself. I would generally wait until a neighboring agency had range and go shoot my mandatory quals with their instructors at lunch.

I think states like Texas and Ohio with organizations like TTPOA and OTOA are on to something with the trainings that they seem to bring in.

[HCM]

HCM's selection process is similar to what I would like to see implemented where I am. It makes sense, requires candidates to buy in, and hopefully keeps the current staff engaged.

Internal instructor development can be a real challenge. Everybody has a reason not to do it (usually "we're too small of an agency", "we're too busy", or "we can't afford it"). There is also significant hesitancy to want to teach your peers and some hesitancy to want to listen to one of your peers. I find that teaching things to our instructor cadre is a good test of my skills...if I can get them to listen and apply the lesson, I'm being effective.

When I went to firearms instructor school, they specified 2000 rounds handgun, but only shot about 1,200. The rest was intended to be yours to keep because they believed that, as an instructor, you were going to shoot less than ever. In large part, they aren't wrong. At my first agency, I was "the guy" and my range days involved very little actual shooting and a lot of running the range by myself. I would generally wait until a neighboring agency had range and go shoot my mandatory quals with their instructors at lunch.

I think states like Texas and Ohio with organizations like TTPOA and OTOA are on to something with the trainings that they seem to bring in.

As an instructor I generally have to skip or bring my lunch if I want to shoot. One of the original drivers of our quarterly instructor development day was myself and two other instructors literally each other at the conclusion of the last range day of the quarter and said “have you qualified yet?” - “No have you qualified yet?” The classic “shoemaker got no shoes” scenario.