I agree a PMO course is not very different than an iron sighted course outside some specific issues.
So I have to ask: why is it so difficult for your people to succeed? Is it an instructor issue, a student issue, a department culture issue, or a combination of the previous?
Are you evaluating component skill proficiency with iron sights and PMOs or are qualifications your sole discriminator?
@
HCM stated his people are seeing more success than yours. @
HCM, are your people evaluating and training component skill proficiency or just using the qualification course as the metric of success? Why is there a success difference between your two organizations?
I ask because we (the training community) know qualification scores are a poor indicator of proficiency and are a dubious (at best) indicator of real-world performance. It is well established that qualification courses of fire create a false sense of security in shooters, instructors, and administrators because they mask component skill deficiencies.
In my opinion, the big question at the end of a PMO transition course should be: can the shooter complete component skills equal to or better than they do with iron sights?
This answer should determine whether the individual carries/uses the PMO.