Not sure I understand this one

sds · March 10, 2008, 11:55 AM

http://www.kmox.com/City-Police-Miss...arget-/1796081

As I understand it, the officer's union is blaming 32 missed shots on lack of practice and poor guns, which I understand, and "lack of firepower" in the 9mm rounds used.

Not sure how a more powerful round will increase accuracy? Also don't know what standard issue weapon is for Stl PD.

MLeake · March 10, 2008, 11:59 AM

I have a lot of friends who are LEO. Of those, most can shoot pretty well. Unfortunately, they seem to be the exceptions in their departments.

I know a lot of military guys who are not particularly weapons proficient, either.

Problem is the same, it seems: Not much training money available for ammo and range time, so guys shoot the minimum required for recurrent qualification.

On top of that, LEO pay isn't all that great, and some military paygrades don't pay so well. The guys have to be pretty motivated to spend personal dollars on practice time and ammo.

Same goes for unarmed training. It's not provided past the most basic level, and people lack time and money for good training outside, so most don't really have that much skill.

hanno · March 10, 2008, 12:22 PM

Well, it would be nice to know a bit about the actual details of the shooting, the range involved, obstacles, lighting conditions, danger to civilians in the area, etc. Hard to say much without knowing more info.

Erik · March 10, 2008, 01:06 PM

Ditto.

I'll add that rounds seemingly "on target" that don't actually "make it" to the target are regular occurances, and count as "misses." In those instances, and for those rounds only, a more powerful round may be a solution to improving miss ratios.

sds · March 10, 2008, 01:17 PM

probably should have worded this post differently....I am definitely not knocking LEOs and don't mean it to sound that way. I really was just curious about how increased power could improve accuracy. thanks for the info, sorry about how the post was written!

**JohnKSa** · March 10, 2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Problem is the same, it seems: Not much training money available for ammo and range time, so guys shoot the minimum required for recurrent qualification.

I agree this is part of the problem.

A larger problem is the mindset of many** officers who feel that guns are merely an unavoidable evil that is part of their job. They dread qualifying and see it as unnecessary and burdensome. They don't want to practice more, and wouldn't practice more if the ammo/range fees were free and they got to practice while on the time clock.

**Many, NOT all.

rvmichael · March 11, 2008, 05:29 PM

Very interesting,

I know an instructor who stated he wouldn't want to end-up in a gun-fight with the average LEO, as most don't practice and "some" have a hell of a time getting re-qualified.

On the Civilian side:
Last year while taking my CCW class there were thirty people of which one third were women (Who-RA.) It did appear at the end of live round practice, many were struggling to hit minimum requirements, (more-so with the men.) It was apparent after observing their gun skills and later with questions, many had little time with their weapons.

After a year with a Glock 23-40 I now have about seven thousand rounds through it. I've had tactical training and practice on private party, meaning we practice shooting with many different variants.
My friend and I now say, finally we are good, not great but just good. The latter Amo costs were around $1700.00

Wouldn't it be better for civilians to park their weapons till a better level of skill is achieved. Or for LEO's to take desk jobs or find other professions.

What would some real answers, to encourage or demand higher skill levels from LEO's?

Michael

Dwight55 · March 12, 2008, 09:58 AM

The union has to find someone to blame other than their members, . . . that is a given with all unions, . . . and is not always a bad thing.

That said, . . . it still all goes to mind set.

The really proficient attorneys study law books, read transcripts, and have a "legal" mind set.

The really proficient accountants study their trade, . . . keep abreast of legal changes, . . . etc.

The same goes for LEO's: some have the mindset of being this great social change artist, . . . will probably get seriously hurt or killed before retiring. Some to a lesser degree just see it as a "job" or maybe Uncle Willie was a cop.

Unless they (LEO's or civilians) have the mind set to become proficient, . . . there is no way it can be legislated, coerced, or mandated, . . . they just ain't gonna do it

May God bless,
Dwight

Capt. Charlie · March 12, 2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

A larger problem is the mindset of many** officers who feel that guns are merely an unavoidable evil that is part of their job. They dread qualifying and see it as unnecessary and burdensome. They don't want to practice more, and wouldn't practice more if the ammo/range fees were free and they got to practice while on the time clock.

Very true, John. Cops come from all walks of life, with as many varied interests. Some are into football, some into golf, and only coincidentally, some are into guns.

When you think of a cop, you usually think of two things: A badge and a gun. The truth is, however, firearm skills are far from the top of his list of necessary skills. Probably the most important skills any cop can have are communication skills, both verbal and written.

The vast majority of LEO's will never fire their weapons at a human target during their careers, but the gravity of the situation when it does occur demands that they be more than merely proficient.

Quote:

What would some real answers, to encourage or demand higher skill levels from LEO's?

Well, simply banging away at paper, in stage after stage for hours, won't do it. I'm thinking the old KISMIF principle, i.e., Keep It Simple, Make It Fun. By nature, cops are usually competitive sorts, so taking advantage of that is a start.

Now we all know that the state mandated courses are about as much fun as watching paint dry, so adding a few things to make it fun would help. Our previous RO (now retired

) dreamed up all sorts of stuff, including pin & plate shoots and variations of a dueling tree, all competing for the prestigious "SPD Top Gun" award, . He aways made sure that there were numerous categories, with low cost plaques or trophies for each, so that a lot of guys went home with awards and smiles.

It made a difference. Guys spent more time shooting (because they wanted to; not because they had to) and scores came up.

Tony, our ret. RO, was a long time gun enthusiast and shooter, so this all came naturally to him, and his enthusiasm spilled over to others. Our present range officers simply aren't into it. For them, it's just another duty, and that, too, carries across. Now in fairness to them, the dept. has cut qualification time down to 4 hours (budget cuts), and it's a mad rush just to get through it, so there's little time for "fun".

Even so, I'm convinced that a department's RO's can make a world of difference if he can just add a fun factor.

Colt Delta Elite · March 18, 2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

I really was just curious about how increased power could improve accuracy.

It can't, unless your target is >100 yards away.

drail · March 18, 2008, 06:19 PM

I think most people would be shocked to learn how little time and funding is spent on training our LEOs. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for those willing to put their life on the line for you and I. I have worked with and shot with some fine people in that field and was amazed at the lack of training their administrators provided. I realize they only have so much to spend but I would rather see them spend funds on range time and ammo allowances than fancy equipment. I had a neighbor who was a state trooper ask me to coach him because he wanted to apply for a tactical response team. We went to the range and shot 15 and 25 yard targets and his groups were all over the paper. He told me they never shot 25 yards before. I asked to shoot his issue gun (S&W M59) and I too was all over the paper. Then I handed him an accurized 1911 and he chewed the center out of the bull. I asked if he could maybe request a different piece and he replied this was his fourth one and that they were all just like his. He told me their armorer would just give you a different barrel and say good luck. I'm thinking the people in charge need to do better than this. These guys need good tools and training to do their job Bless them all.

tony pasley · March 18, 2008, 08:01 PM

A friend of mine is the instructor at a S.D. Shortly after taking the job he called and we talked. I went to where they trained and waited until cued to shoot with them. The Officers learned that they never knew who they we meeting and what that persons abilty is with a firearm.

March 10, 2008, 11:55 AM	#1
sds Member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Location: Missouri Posts: 71	Not sure I understand this one http://www.kmox.com/City-Police-Miss...arget-/1796081 As I understand it, the officer's union is blaming 32 missed shots on lack of practice and poor guns, which I understand, and "lack of firepower" in the 9mm rounds used. Not sure how a more powerful round will increase accuracy? Also don't know what standard issue weapon is for Stl PD.

March 10, 2008, 11:59 AM	#2
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Police officers I have a lot of friends who are LEO. Of those, most can shoot pretty well. Unfortunately, they seem to be the exceptions in their departments. I know a lot of military guys who are not particularly weapons proficient, either. Problem is the same, it seems: Not much training money available for ammo and range time, so guys shoot the minimum required for recurrent qualification. On top of that, LEO pay isn't all that great, and some military paygrades don't pay so well. The guys have to be pretty motivated to spend personal dollars on practice time and ammo. Same goes for unarmed training. It's not provided past the most basic level, and people lack time and money for good training outside, so most don't really have that much skill.

March 10, 2008, 01:06 PM	#4
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	Ditto. I'll add that rounds seemingly "on target" that don't actually "make it" to the target are regular occurances, and count as "misses." In those instances, and for those rounds only, a more powerful round may be a solution to improving miss ratios. __________________ Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective

March 11, 2008, 05:29 PM	#7
rvmichael Junior Member Join Date: March 4, 2008 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 1	Leo's & Civilian's Very interesting, I know an instructor who stated he wouldn't want to end-up in a gun-fight with the average LEO, as most don't practice and "some" have a hell of a time getting re-qualified. On the Civilian side: Last year while taking my CCW class there were thirty people of which one third were women (Who-RA.) It did appear at the end of live round practice, many were struggling to hit minimum requirements, (more-so with the men.) It was apparent after observing their gun skills and later with questions, many had little time with their weapons. After a year with a Glock 23-40 I now have about seven thousand rounds through it. I've had tactical training and practice on private party, meaning we practice shooting with many different variants. My friend and I now say, finally we are good, not great but just good. The latter Amo costs were around $1700.00 Wouldn't it be better for civilians to park their weapons till a better level of skill is achieved. Or for LEO's to take desk jobs or find other professions. What would some real answers, to encourage or demand higher skill levels from LEO's? Michael __________________ Here's my weekend Job: http://traprental.com/ http://traprental.com/114320250.jpg

March 12, 2008, 09:58 AM	#8
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	The union has to find someone to blame other than their members, . . . that is a given with all unions, . . . and is not always a bad thing. That said, . . . it still all goes to mind set. The really proficient attorneys study law books, read transcripts, and have a "legal" mind set. The really proficient accountants study their trade, . . . keep abreast of legal changes, . . . etc. The same goes for LEO's: some have the mindset of being this great social change artist, . . . will probably get seriously hurt or killed before retiring. Some to a lesser degree just see it as a "job" or maybe Uncle Willie was a cop. Unless they (LEO's or civilians) have the mind set to become proficient, . . . there is no way it can be legislated, coerced, or mandated, . . . they just ain't gonna do it May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

March 10, 2008, 12:22 PM	#3
hanno Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2008 Posts: 394	Well, it would be nice to know a bit about the actual details of the shooting, the range involved, obstacles, lighting conditions, danger to civilians in the area, etc. Hard to say much without knowing more info.

March 10, 2008, 01:17 PM	#5
sds Member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Location: Missouri Posts: 71	probably should have worded this post differently....I am definitely not knocking LEOs and don't mean it to sound that way. I really was just curious about how increased power could improve accuracy. thanks for the info, sorry about how the post was written!

March 18, 2008, 06:19 PM	#11
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	I think most people would be shocked to learn how little time and funding is spent on training our LEOs. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for those willing to put their life on the line for you and I. I have worked with and shot with some fine people in that field and was amazed at the lack of training their administrators provided. I realize they only have so much to spend but I would rather see them spend funds on range time and ammo allowances than fancy equipment. I had a neighbor who was a state trooper ask me to coach him because he wanted to apply for a tactical response team. We went to the range and shot 15 and 25 yard targets and his groups were all over the paper. He told me they never shot 25 yards before. I asked to shoot his issue gun (S&W M59) and I too was all over the paper. Then I handed him an accurized 1911 and he chewed the center out of the bull. I asked if he could maybe request a different piece and he replied this was his fourth one and that they were all just like his. He told me their armorer would just give you a different barrel and say good luck. I'm thinking the people in charge need to do better than this. These guys need good tools and training to do their job Bless them all.

March 18, 2008, 08:01 PM	#12
tony pasley Senior Member Join Date: April 13, 2006 Location: western north carolina Posts: 1,641	A friend of mine is the instructor at a S.D. Shortly after taking the job he called and we talked. I went to where they trained and waited until cued to shoot with them. The Officers learned that they never knew who they we meeting and what that persons abilty is with a firearm.