Times in training

[Jeff22]

Some states have a specified qualification course that all the cops are required to shoot once a year for score. Some states don't.

Most agencies have a standard qualification course that they use to evaluate basic skills. Some do not, feeling that keeping scores creates a liability issue if a cop who can't shoot gets involved in a bad/unjustified shooting, or in a circumstance where they miss and hit a bystander by mistake.

Let me let you in on a little secret -- if you shoot somebody that didn't need to be shot, or if you miss and hit a bystander, you have plenty of problems regardless. It doesn't matter if your agency keeps a numerical score of your performance on the QC or not . . .

Targets used and time limits and scoring systems vary greatly.

I began my career as a Law Enforcement Specialist in the Security Police in the Air Force. Using a S&W 15 .38 revolver. The Air Force Qualification Course in those days (1980) was fired on the International Center Fire Target (The NRA B-18 target) at 25 yards and I think all of it was fired single action. The Security Police Handgun Course was at closer distance (15 yards) and (I think) had some double action shooting in it. I still have copies of all of those courses of fire but I can't remember them right now.

When I went to the Police Academy back home we shot a modified PPC course at 7, 15, and 25 yards. We shot at 50 yards but it wasn't required for the qualification. We shot on the NRA B-27 and B-21 target.

The first two firearms instructor classes I went to were run by the NRA and the FBI. In both of them we shot PPC courses on the NRA B-27 target out to 50 yards.

Since that time, in police training around here at least, the targets have become more realistic in the size of the scoring zone (much smaller), more realistic in the time limits involved (much shorter) and we do almost all of our training from 3 to 15 yards. Given limited training time and ammunition, it's probably best to train to deal with with the most likely dynamics of confrontation, which probably involves engaging multiple targets close, dark, and fast.

But I think it's a mistake to eliminate shooting at 25 and 50 yards. You never know what the circumstances of your gunfight might be, so you need to be prepared to deal with a multitude of threats. One of those threats might well be an active shooter down a long hallway in a school or a shopping mall. You can't always presume that you will know what kind of situation you're walking into, or that you'll always have your patrol rifle with you.

Several years ago I took a handgun/carbine class with Pat McNamara. He greatly focuses on accuracy in his training, and we did lots of shooting at distance. Several of the guys in the class (the class was all LEOs) really struggled because all of their department training and their personal practice had involved shooting lots of rounds fast up close. They couldn't slow down and hit at distance and really struggled and became frustrated.

An 8 x 12 sheet of paper actually works pretty well as a primary scoring zone for practice. An 8 x 12 rectangle is about the same size as the upper hydraulics on an adult male, and that's what you're aiming for if you shoot to incapacitate. I've been to a couple of classes where we did lots of shooting on 8 x 12 sheets of paper in the chest and 3 x 5 cards in the head for primary scoring zones. Or paper plates of different sizes. Those work too.

[Buzzcook]

I shoot 25yd slow fire because that's what I like to do. If someone else likes to shoot 7ft rapid fire, good for them.

The most important part is showing up.

[5whiskey]

Most police qualifications are pretty much a joke by the standard that would likely be set by the majority of this forum's members. NC still has the 25 yard line in our day-time qualification, but the majority of shots are fired from 10 yards in. The time limits are an eternity, as well. I have qualified with one 7 round magazine during a 10-round course of fire that required a magazine change. I just stripped the mag when I ran dry, added 2 rounds, and fired them out. Still had 10 seconds left over to show clear to the range master before the targets turned back, and all hits were in the 5 zone (8 ring). We only have to score 70%, too (at least my agency requires 85%, we have one thing going for us).

With that being said, I wouldn't mind 40 yards being added to our pistol qualification. We already use the 40 yard line for a shotgun qual, why not let us chuck a few pistol rounds from that distance? As has been said, you don't improve if you don't push yourself.

[Sarge]

We do lots of close/fast but we have a Precision Pistol exercise, at least once a year, where I have the troops shoot a 6x16 clanger at 50 yards unsupported with issue G22's. They love it.

[Metal god]

For LEOs I get why they should have to show they can hit a target at 25yds . They are obligated to respond and have the shield to protect them selves in court . How ever for Joe blow to carry a CCW I see no reason why he should show that he can hit a target at more then 10 yards / 30' .

Why you ask ? Because if I Joe blow shoot a guy more then 30' away I will need to show in court why I felt the need to use deadly force past the 21' rule . Now for shooting 75' away . Sure I do that pretty well just standing there with the perfect stance and hold . Now put some real stress and movement into the equation and there's no way I hit anything smaller then a 3' or 4' area meaning I've got bullets flying all over the place . It's just not realistic to say a guy that can hit a 12" target at 75' will be able to do that in a real world situation . More so The DA will ask Why did you not run or take cover . The bad guy is not likely to hit you either .

I'm not saying all the above is right or how it should be . Just that's how I see it playing out .

[Nanuk]

Law Enforcement qualification distances have indeed shortened over three decades. The objective was to qualify more people easier and cheaper. Unfortunately, we have succeeded.

That is a fact!

Up until 1996 the US Border Patrol qualifications called for 12 shots at 50 yards as part of the 72 round qual course. When we transitioned to the Italian tomahawk (Beretta 96D) The 50 yard requirement was dropped.

As lousy as many cops shoot I think the CCW standard should be at least as high as the LE standard. Every bullet has a price tag attached, you must make every bullet count.

[Nanuk]

Why you ask ? Because if I Joe blow shoot a guy more then 30' away I will need to show in court why I felt the need to use deadly force past the 21' rule . Now for shooting 75' away .

You will be looked at under the auspices of reasonableness, ie; would a reasonable man do this. The totality of the circumstances are going to be looked at.

Everybody keeps parroting about "The overzealous DA" and the same 4 or 5 cases out of thousands of self defense shootings. Every prosecutor I have ever worked with did not have time for BS cases and would never waste time on a maybe.

[Metal god]

You will be looked at under the auspices of reasonableness

Not here on the left coast They want to pass a law here that you must retreat if at all possible first . At a glance that sound reasonable . Anyone that's done any real training knows If your first thought is to run and hide things will end bad for you . The fact bad things happen so fast . By the time you realize there is no retreat you or others are dead .

[Nanuk]

At a glance that sound reasonable . Anyone that's done any real training knows If your first thought is to run and hide things will end bad for you . The fact bad things happen so fast . By the time you realize there is no retreat you or others are dead .

I would call US Army and LE real training. I was always taught to seek cover first, then engage if possible. Most states have laws that you must retreat if possible first. As a civilian that is sound doctrine, to attempt to de-escalate or disengage if safe to do so. It is up to you if involved in a shooting to articulate why you did what you did.

[Sarge]

Everybody keeps parroting about "The overzealous DA" and the same 4 or 5 cases out of thousands of self defense shootings. Every prosecutor I have ever worked with did not have time for BS cases and would never waste time on a maybe.

Same here Nanuk and I worked for one for 12 years.

[Metal god]

Nanuk : when I siad "anyone with any real training" was not a knock on you and sorry if it came off that way . I was speaking to the law makers passing laws with no real knowledge to what they are talking about .

[leprechaun50]

As lousy as many cops shoot I think the CCW standard should be at least as high as the LE standard. Every bullet has a price tag attached, you must make every bullet count.

It is always pointed out on gun forums that CCW's are not LEO's, and this is true. However if the CCW holder is to be held to the same shooting qualification standards as an LEO they should have the same protections, under the law, when involved in a shooting situation as LEO. IMHO YMMV

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The abstract equality of CCW and LEO standards sounds fine except for the fact that one would expect the LEOs to have exercises that entail physical fitness beyond that of many CCW types.

They should run and shoot. They should go through some FOF. They shoot a rather large gun.

Now do I expect older folks, etc. to go through the same physicality? Or is it just popping at some paper.

I could do the physical stuff in the day - but as an old toot - and getting older - is that a fair demand for CCW?

I don't think so.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by leprechaun50

...if the CCW holder is to be held to the same shooting qualification standards as an LEO they should have the same protections, under the law, when involved in a shooting situation as LEO....

Except those protections aren't related to shooting ability. They are related to the roles and responsibilities assigned to LEOs by society.

[Nanuk]

Nanuk : when I siad "anyone with any real training" was not a knock on you and sorry if it came off that way . I was speaking to the law makers passing laws with no real knowledge to what they are talking about .

Never took it as an attack, I was just disagreeing. My training says take cover when possible. After a career in LE, I believe that if you can get out of a bad situation safely you should. I fully understand that sometimes attempting to flee either makes you look weak and a target or exposes you to unnecessary risk, hence to "safely" remark.

[Nanuk]

The abstract equality of CCW and LEO standards sounds fine except for the fact that one would expect the LEOs to have exercises that entail physical fitness beyond that of many CCW types.

They should run and shoot. They should go through some FOF. They shoot a rather large gun.

Now do I expect older folks, etc. to go through the same physicality? Or is it just popping at some paper.

I could do the physical stuff in the day - but as an old toot - and getting older - is that a fair demand for CCW?

I don't think so.

I was simply referring to a marksmanship standard. I believe it should be mandated, more of your personal responsibility as a CCW holder. I am sure most people here are above average, just by expressing interest in learning from others.

[leprechaun50]

Except those protections aren't related to shooting ability.

I felt that we were talking about shooting ability and that the point being made was that CC should have shooting qualifications equal to or greater than LEO. The point I was trying to make was under those circumstances they should be entitled to the same legal protections as LEO in regards to a shooting incident. Maybe I wasn't on the same page as everyone else. Its been known to happen.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by leprechaun50

I felt that we were talking about shooting ability and that the point being made was that CC should have shooting qualifications equal to or greater than LEO. The point I was trying to make was under those circumstances they should be entitled to the same legal protections as LEO in regards to a shooting incident....

Yes, I know exactly the point you were trying to make. The point I was making is that's preposterous. The two have nothing to do with each other. The protections afforded an LEO under 42 USC 1983 case law are not prizes to be found in boxes of Cracker Jacks. They reflect certain unique characteristics of the role and responsibilities society imposes on LEOs.

[Sarge]

In MO the po-po don't have extra 'protections' though there are provisions in 563 that set forth various levels of force permitted in making arrests, preventing escapes and other activities common to the trade. I never got a Fargo North decoder ring, either.

[Nanuk]

I don't know what protections he is referring too. I never had any special protection. I have been investigated and sued for actions within policy and law.

[pax]

Not sure how we got to 42 USC 1983 from a discussion about the distances at which someone interested in self-defense might need to be proficient.

But I am pretty clear on this one: the role of law enforcement in America does not fall into the "Tactics and Training" subject of this forum. If you'd like to continue that aspect of the discussion, I suggest you do so down in the Legal forum.

pax