Appropriate level of skill to carry concealed, responsibly?

[1Rangemaster]

Yeah, again, this isn’t about legal requirements. This is about what standard a novice shooter of good intent should adopt for him/herself.

I think it was FL where the other day “Constitutional Carry” was signed into law, causing over 50% of the states to now have that in place. There was nothing about standards. On your earlier suggestion of the 5 yard roundup as a standard, that is one of mine at present. But I would vigorously oppose it as a bureaucratic standard. To begin with, I’d suggest not many citizens could meet the single handed shooting strings. And, it’s not easy for many to practice shooting. Time, money and perhaps most critical, a range are in very short supply. There are several indoor ranges near me, but the time and money issues for, say, a single parent may be daunting. Or an elderly person-and I say this as a recent septuagenarian (70!)
Werner, the “Tactical Professor” has written about the LAPD retired officers course: 7 yard B27(which you’ve referenced), no time limit, 10 rounds; 70% hits to “qualify”. I’d start there, but would personally wish for more. Werner has an ongoing dry and live fire program for small autos-usually .380s-and the Illinois CCW COF is up next. No time standards, but he’s suggesting 3 seconds for single rounds from the holster(concealed). That seems relatively reasonable. I’m reminded of a church shooting in TX several years back. One of the defenders was killed by the mass murderer, before he could clear his weapon(it was recorded on church cameras). Seconds after, the shooting instructor for the church scored a head shot on the moving murderer at over 12 yards or so-well done! But as a “standard”-nope.
My mother (RIP), as a single mom protected us with a High Standard Sentinel.22 revolver, 9 rounds. She did not have to fire shot(s) in anger, but she would have passed the LAPD qual above at 100%. Indeed, she did a few years before her passing, braced against her walker in an indoor range booth. So I’d suggest that on the low end, Werner’s ILCCW next, and the others listed above as heights to strive for. But NO government edicts please…
I’ll just add I’m coming to the conclusion dry practice weekly may be a standard to strive for.

Edit to emphasize: I’d much rather carriers dry practice weekly, 2-3 times on a few basics, than live fire a standard. I would respectfully suggest 5-10 concealed draws to a ready. 10 single snaps, two handed and with each hand and 10 reloads if one were inclined. Just about all on this site are way past the “average” CCW.

[JHC]

I don't think splits are a requirement. If someone can fire a single shot accurately and appropriately and won't fire when they can't, I'm good with that.

I think that is very reasonable for the wider world of gun carriers and I'm pretty sure Claude Werner would think his studies would back that up more or less.

[JimCunn]

What about a guy in his 80s who doesn't know what a B-27 is and has no range experience?
He doesn't need glasses to read or shoot, and can hit a coke can or rabbit most of the time at random distances of 20-30 yards.
Should unfamiliarity with ranges and the B-27 preclude him from carrying?

[CalAlumnus]

Should unfamiliarity with ranges and the B-27 preclude him from carrying?

No. That kind of person can probably pass the type of qual I’m talking about (and in any event, I’m not talking about a legal requirement).

But “I can hit a coke can at 20 yards most of the time” isn’t really a quantifiable metric. What I’m getting at is, what’s a clearly defined base level measure of competence? That means the combination of accuracy, distance, and time. Someone who says “I can hit a coke can at 20 yards most of the time” doesn’t know how good he/she is, really.

(And by the way… I keep mentioning B-27s because they’re ubiquitous and enormous, but they’re actually a pretty garbage target. I would never recommend it as a training tool.)

[JimCunn]

"But “I can hit a coke can at 20 yards most of the time” isn’t really a quantifiable metric".

True. Neither is his ability to hit a running rabbit most of the time at similar distances. But I'd be pleased to shoot as well.
Personally, I don't think quantifiable metrics are necessarily a prerequisite for safe concealed carry.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I thought about writing a long response but I'll say, law abiding citizens can vote and don't have to take a civics and IQ test.

That being said - I thought it was my responsibility to train and of course, I enjoyed it. Have you measured your split times on designating candidates on the voting machines?

[revchuck38]

<thread drift>

...law abiding citizens can vote and don't have to take a civics and IQ test.

And it shows in the knuckleheads we've elected from both parties.

</thread drift>

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BTW, I have hit and taken down a charging TX jack rabbit that avoided or absorbed a hail of 22LR from a lever gun with a G27.

Speed criteria - fine but there are no disqualifying absolutes. Getting the gun out and hitting the target before you lose is hard to define. It isn't all a showdown at Dodge City. That being said, I'm all for the drills and tests. Just I don't see the application for the average person as go/no go carry standard.

[CalAlumnus]

I thought about writing a long response but I'll say, law abiding citizens can vote and don't have to take a civics and IQ test.

That being said - I thought it was my responsibility to train and of course, I enjoyed it. Have you measured your split times on designating candidates on the voting machines?

I have the right to vote, but if I don’t know enough to make an informed decision, I leave the office blank. Community college district… Water board… Lots of blanks from me.

Maybe I’m the weird one in taking personal responsibility for this sort of thing.

[JCN]

Good questions, and great topic for a thread.

My answer is: know your limits and have the discipline to stay within them.

I don't think splits are a requirement. If someone can fire a single shot accurately and appropriately and won't fire when they can't, I'm good with that.

100% agree with this.

Especially since a number of attacks are aborted by even presenting a gun without firing a shot.

Or a psychological stop where the impact doesn’t break contact, the sound of the gunshot does.

In those cases a CCWer successfully defended themself without a marksmanship standard.

For example, if my wife carried I would want her to be safe and know her limits and adjust tactics accordingly.

Yeah, again, this isn’t about legal requirements. This is about what standard a novice shooter of good intent should adopt for him/herself.

I think that’s a personal decision.

I personally (for a civilian) break it down into what @Clusterfrack said and then separately: do they want to get better because they enjoy getting better?

For that second part, LEO or MIL standards work but sometimes gun games can be more fun and motivating for improvement of skills. Or at least have a robust standard of judgment and assessment for them to chart progress.