Predictions

[Utm]

I don't fit into the age demographic to call myself a boomer but i have to side with the boomers on this one. Having gone through both a state LE academy and CITP in relatively recent memory I can confidently say today's LE shooting standards are absurdly low. I don't have any statistics to support this, but I'd speculate if you gave a FLETC class of 48 novice shooters an RDS pistol from day 1, they would qual faster and with less range time, less rounds fired, and less 1-on-1 instruction with a competent instructor. If i were an agency bean counter i'd say that's great. But as a field agent taking these probies out on search warrants, I'll say that sucks.

The ideal scenario to me...is to let the basic courses (CITP/UPTP) be basic. Get them to a baseline level of competency with irons. Then if their agency allows RDS pistols, introduce them to it in their follow on course. The entire point of the FLETC basic courses is to establish a common baseline across all federal agencies. Throwing the RDS issue into that just seems like a bureaucratic headache at best, and at worst its an excuse for the bean counters to allow fewer training hours to firearms training.

Edit: I got a perfect 300 score on a P229 when I completed CITP. That wasn't because I was anything special. It was more of a testament to the quality of FLETC FIs. They were able to take me as a decent shooter whose prior formal training was on Glocks, and made me a better shooter on a more difficult handgun to shoot well. They didn't just try and get me to pass the qual, they did their best to make me get to that 300. I fear that RDS pistols at the basic course level will dumb down the program in general to simply meet the standard.

The amount of training does not have to change just because the sighting system does. It doesn't really make sense to make someone shoot irons for the whole academy if they are going to use an RDS from day one of their FTO

[HCM]

I don't fit into the age demographic to call myself a boomer but i have to side with the boomers on this one. Having gone through both a state LE academy and CITP in relatively recent memory I can confidently say today's LE shooting standards are absurdly low. I don't have any statistics to support this, but I'd speculate if you gave a FLETC class of 48 novice shooters an RDS pistol from day 1, they would qual faster and with less range time, less rounds fired, and less 1-on-1 instruction with a competent instructor. If i were an agency bean counter i'd say that's great. But as a field agent taking these probies out on search warrants, I'll say that sucks.

The ideal scenario to me...is to let the basic courses (CITP/UPTP) be basic. Get them to a baseline level of competency with irons. Then if their agency allows RDS pistols, introduce them to it in their follow on course. The entire point of the FLETC basic courses is to establish a common baseline across all federal agencies. Throwing the RDS issue into that just seems like a bureaucratic headache at best, and at worst its an excuse for the bean counters to allow fewer training hours to firearms training.

Edit: I got a perfect 300 score on a P229 when I completed CITP. That wasn't because I was anything special. It was more of a testament to the quality of FLETC FIs. They were able to take me as a decent shooter whose prior formal training was on Glocks, and made me a better shooter on a more difficult handgun to shoot well. They didn't just try and get me to pass the qual, they did their best to make me get to that 300. I fear that RDS pistols at the basic course level will dumb down the program in general to simply meet the standard.

The FLETC pistol qual is not particularly challenging. In our agency the rise in qual scores has been an opportunity to do more actual training and less “teaching to the test.”

Beyond that….. you seem to be operating under some misapprehensions.

Our agency’s issued pistol (as referenced by @TGS) is optics equipped. It is the basic issue, not an “allowed option.”

While we were the first federal agency to issue everyone an optics equipped pistol several others have or are following suite. Just like everything else in law enforcement we (at the federal level) are a few years behind the more progressive state and local agencies.

Pistol optics are the emerging common standard.

Irons are not necessarily the “basic” standard just because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Like most of us, I started shooting pistols with irons, but that doesn’t mean it’s the simplest or easiest way.

Having started with irons, we are victims of our own frame of reference. The principle of primacy: what’s learned first is learned best, and the fact changing established programming is more difficult than novel programming both apply.

As such transitioning from Irons to optics is challenging. However it’s important to distinguish this from the fact it is demonstrably easier for brand new shooters to start shooting with an optic and then add irons as an intermediate skill. It’s no surprise data from the U.S. Army’s basic training program (with carbines) and the Houston PD Academy (as well as our own agency) support this.

Having new shooters initially learn shooting with the simpler sighting system which proves more feed back then layering on the more complex sighting system which provides less feed back after they have a handle on other skills (grip, trigger, etc) is consistent with adult learning principles of phased / layered learning for complex skills.

The arguments for forcing everyone to start with irons because they are “basic” sound a lot like the arguments for making everyone start with revolvers instead of semi autos when I started in the 90s.

It’s 2023, I don’t make trainees learn report writing on typewriters with carbon paper instead of computers or fingerprinting with ink instead of live scan just because I did.

PS

As a former FLETC Instructor the politics of FLETC and its 80 plus partner organizations are Byzantine and beyond the scope of this thread.

Then there’s the variance in FLETC’s instructor cadre. I’m glad you had positive experiences but the bell curve for that population ranges from skilled, knowledgeable instructors who can both shoot and teach to frauds, hacks, and individuals placed on the range for punitive reasons.

[TGS]

Edit: I got a perfect 300 score on a P229 when I completed CITP. That wasn't because I was anything special. It was more of a testament to the quality of FLETC FIs. They were able to take me as a decent shooter whose prior formal training was on Glocks, and made me a better shooter on a more difficult handgun to shoot well. They didn't just try and get me to pass the qual, they did their best to make me get to that 300. I fear that RDS pistols at the basic course level will dumb down the program in general to simply meet the standard.

That's amazing about your instructors. The only FI for my CITP that could even shoot a 300 themselves was our lead FI, and he was running the tower. The rank and file FIs were universally goobers, and it was without a doubt the worst firearms program and worst instructors from any discipline I've ever witnessed. One of the instructors even admitted to me that he was ported to the firearms program from PTD only because they were short and he could squeak out a 255, and had zero interest and or skill in being an FI.

There's a reason that everyone runs an in-house follow-on course (except for the small OIGs who are too small to do so). I shudder when I think about the idea of having OIG agents with no follow on go straight from CITP to the job. Even if there's no agency mission-specific job specialization training required in a follow-on, other agencies like PFPA will still do a follow-on course just to get their shooting up to snuff. So, I'm not really understanding the apprehension about the quality of FLETCs dismal firearms program and godawful FIs going downhill when it's already in the gutter and completely inadequate to put people on the street to begin with.

Other than that, I understand your apprehension about bean counters taking advantage to cut the program. It's not an invalid fear, but RDS's are the future....so what you're describing is a threat to basic programs that we will have to inevitably fight regardless.

[ST911]

It's funny... Much of today's irons-first argument for pistols is what we said when dots were getting popular on rifles in the 90's and early 2000's. We were wrong then, and it's wrong now. As we collectively rack up experience, students starting on pistols with dots are multiple measures of better earlier and backwards-transition to irons is simpler. The reverse is not true, and harms shooters.

And if you use Larry Mudgett's skip-loading design with dot shooters, they're even better than they were on irons as they're quicker to call a bad press because they can see more movement in the gun via the dot.

[konkapot]

Haven't logged on in awhile. Love the discussion.

Agreed 99% on the comments about FLETC instructors. The other 1% is..................the POs tolerate it, and in some cases condone the incompetence.

[HCM]

That's amazing about your instructors. The only FI for my CITP that could even shoot a 300 themselves was our lead FI, and he was running the tower. The rank and file FIs were universally goobers, and it was without a doubt the worst firearms program and worst instructors from any discipline I've ever witnessed. One of the instructors even admitted to me that he was ported to the firearms program from PTD only because they were short and he could squeak out a 255, and had zero interest and or skill in being an FI.

There's a reason that everyone runs an in-house follow-on course (except for the small OIGs who are too small to do so). I shudder when I think about the idea of having OIG agents with no follow on go straight from CITP to the job. Even if there's no agency mission-specific job specialization training required in a follow-on, other agencies like PFPA will still do a follow-on course just to get their shooting up to snuff. So, I'm not really understanding the apprehension about the quality of FLETCs dismal firearms program and godawful FIs going downhill when it's already in the gutter and completely inadequate to put people on the street to begin with.

Other than that, I understand your apprehension about bean counters taking advantage to cut the program. It's not an invalid fear, but RDS's are the future....so what you're describing is a threat to basic programs that we will have to inevitably fight regardless.

Sorry about your experience but the FLETC instructor pool is truly a bell curve. On one end you have a few nationally ranked competition shooters (PPC, USPSA etc) and my old boss, a pre GWOT Unit guy who helped stand up the current FAMS. At the other end I've seen a guy punitively sent to firearms from PTD due to inappropriate student interactions and an FI telling CBP students with egregious low left issues to aim at the scoring diagram in the upper right corner of the target in order to "Kentucky windage" their rounds into the actual target instead of actually fixing the problem.

I've been through two different programs as a basic student. The first had solid instructors including an "detailer" AI who was a member of the agency's national PPC team. The second had a lead FI who was the epitome of "no man is useless, he can always serve as a bad example." Sent to the Academy after a very questionable UOF which he was unsuccessfully prosecuted for, he was a both a screamer and a "range daddy" who was "hands on" with female students. Not sure how well he shot, since he never shot in front of us, but his insecurity and tendency to treat competent shooters as a threat was a clue. Of course married but at the G bar several night a week.....

Ironically I learned more about shooting from a fellow student, an Army E-8 who retired out of AMU, than from that clown.

[Jimichanga]

As a former FLETC Instructor the politics of FLETC and its 80 plus partner organizations are Byzantine and beyond the scope of this thread.

Then there’s the variance in FLETC’s instructor cadre. I’m glad you had positive experiences but the bell curve for that population ranges from skilled, knowledgeable instructors who can both shoot and teach to frauds, hacks, and individuals placed on the range for punitive reasons.

lol. Truth!

It's funny... Much of today's irons-first argument for pistols is what we said when dots were getting popular on rifles in the 90's and early 2000's. We were wrong then, and it's wrong now. As we collectively rack up experience, students starting on pistols with dots are multiple measures of better earlier and backwards-transition to irons is simpler. The reverse is not true, and harms shooters.

I totally agree with this. I was that old infantryman that didn't see the point of a dot on an M4 until I was issued one and used it. I quickly became a believer. I did not hesitate when my agency made the transition to dots on our pistols. As an fi in my small sample of 30 shooters I've seen scores improve and the dots have been a positive overall. Even my on the bubble/problem shooters are confident they can qualify now. That said, the dots are not magic and I see the same guys who don't give a shit fish for the dot or fail to transition to irons if their dot is not on. Many of the older shooters who would benefit the most refuse to give up their iron sights. Overall, the advantages for the shooters who "get it" i.e. calling their shots, observing the dot through recoil have progressed through concepts to competence much more quickly than with irons alone. After trying to teach the same concepts to shooters with irons for years the shooter on a dot makes the connection much more rapidly.

[DaBigBR]

I don't fit into the age demographic to call myself a boomer but i have to side with the boomers on this one. Having gone through both a state LE academy and CITP in relatively recent memory I can confidently say today's LE shooting standards are absurdly low. I don't have any statistics to support this, but I'd speculate if you gave a FLETC class of 48 novice shooters an RDS pistol from day 1, they would qual faster and with less range time, less rounds fired, and less 1-on-1 instruction with a competent instructor. If i were an agency bean counter i'd say that's great. But as a field agent taking these probies out on search warrants, I'll say that sucks.

The ideal scenario to me...is to let the basic courses (CITP/UPTP) be basic. Get them to a baseline level of competency with irons. Then if their agency allows RDS pistols, introduce them to it in their follow on course. The entire point of the FLETC basic courses is to establish a common baseline across all federal agencies. Throwing the RDS issue into that just seems like a bureaucratic headache at best, and at worst its an excuse for the bean counters to allow fewer training hours to firearms training.

If an optic allows you to get a person to the same testable level of proficiency with less ammunition and time, what's the difference? If optics are the destination, why does the journey require learning iron sights "as classically taught?" The red dot is not an evolution of irons any more than a flashlight is an evolution of the candle. The same bean-counting agency heads that might look at optics as a way to save time and ammo will likely be averse to buying optics in the first place. Shame on any of them that follow through with that, but I don't see it as a way to justify handicapping everybody with an optic.

[Gadfly]

FLETC went full boomer and protested against the use of agency issues RDS-equipped pistols by students during the basic courses (CITP and UPTP) because of a dramatic difference in qualification scores, which ended up making the task of achieving a perfect score almost trivial. Maybe that's an overstatement, but I remember hearing it was a night and day difference in scores between students with RDSs and students without, to the point that FLETC protested that its unfair to other students and they shouldn't be allowed to use RDSs during the basic courses. I believe the "offending" agency was HSI.

ETA: @Gadfly was detailed to FLETC as an FI during this time, he might have more concrete data on the scores.

My apologies for taking so long to respond. I am at FLETC as I type this... about to teach a 2 hour block on Human Smuggling. In two weeks, I am finished with my 6 month rotation, and back to the field office.

You are correct in your post. FLETC proper runs the Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) that ALL agencies investigators have to attend, so that all agencies are on the same page for federal prosecution procedures. These CITP classes end up with a mix of several different agencies per class. Different agencies means different issued Firearms and holsters. This is what started the conflict.

So HSI is the first federal agency to start "across the board" issue of RDS to all agents, including basic students. And that resulted in HSI students dominating CITP firearm quals. FLETC basically shut down the RDS program in CITP. The students could have the sights, but the 'batteries had to be removed, and irons had to be used. Their excuse was "FLETC does not have a certification course that allows their instructors to teach use of the RDS", so since they can not teach it, it cant be used in the basic class. That was going on as of 2022. The only upside is it forced new shooters to at least learn irons before getting to RDS.

Now, FLETC has an RDS course for their instructors to be certified. So our basic students can turn on the RDS in CITP. If a parent agency does not issue an RDS, well the scores will be lower for that class. But there are a few other agencies jumping in. Probably 20-25% of agencies here issuing RDS or in the process of approving them. They will be standard in 10 years.

We have an agency qual with a max of 250. Its not a hard course at all. When we issued a 229 DAK in.40, with irons, the average scores hovered in the 220s. Now, with a p320X Carry and Romeo 1 Pro, the average class scores hover around 246. There are usually half the class scoring 250s, with one "that guy" student shooting a 235 and dragging down the average.

The RDS is a game changer to get new students up to speed. But it is not the only reason. I am sure if we simply went from the 229DAK to the p320 and still kept irons, the scores would have improved. Probably not as much, but they would have improved.

[Gadfly]

To add to what I posted above...

Agency priorities shift. Sometimes not for the better. The RDS shift is good. BUT, the academy has dropped other weapons. In the past you got a week of Shotgun and Rifle. We removed shotguns (870 14") from the inventory for general issue a couple years back. That left us with M4 (11.5") rifles.

Well, the good ideal fairy landed at FLETC. Our policy in the field is typically "one long gun per four agents in the field". My office has 200 agents, so I get 50 rifles to issue out. FLETC decided since 75% of the students wont get a rifle issued, to drop ALL rifle training from the basic academy, and leave it to the field office. Policy states I have to give 40 hours of rifle training before I can issue it. The basic academy used to cover this requirement, and we just did an 8 hour refresher to field agents when they first got the rifle. NOW, i have to spend 40 hours of my time to issue a rifle. It is a pain in the ass for scheduling, and to get a week of time at our agency range (which we share with 5 other agencies.

The logic is, we devote that academy time to more pistol practice. That is not a bad thing. More pistol is good, but I miss the rifle training here.