About LEO qualifying

[keith44spl]

Originally Posted by fredj338 View Post
It might be location driven, but the avg leo is a poor shooter past contact distances, just fact. Why quals are pretty easy in most dept. ypu have to practice to actually be good with a pistol.
Check out the air marshal's qual for a realistic time/distance qual.

What? Has that been disseminated???


I shot my 357 Sig purty good at fightin' distance, that's all I'm saying.


Back in the day........I carried this rig out on the rural route or a horseback in the boonies.

I could shoot it a bit...

I qualified on the course of the day...With whatever agency I was working with.

(The first qual I ever shot, was starting at 3 yds from the hip, and out to 50 yards, prone.


.

 

[SMSgt]

Frankly, as a retired fed, my observation was just the opposite. Too many agents took too much time (in order to raise the score) rather than trying to be "first".

I wasn't the best shot in my agency, either as an agent or on SRT, but I was damn near always first to break leather and put my rounds on target every time the command to fire was given.

I didn't care if I lost a few points. It's better than losing one's life if one has to draw their firearm in anger.

Opinions vary. This is mine.

That is fine and well if one is fast and scores, but fast and missing and failing to qualify isn't so good either.

 

[blues7]

That is fine and well if one is fast and scores, but fast and missing and failing to qualify isn't so good either.

Well, it's pretty obvious that missing is not the goal.

But we're not training for unlimited time bulls-eye shooting.

We're training to survive a deadly encounter. My thought is that you're better served to shoot as quickly and accurately as possible...with an emphasis on quickly.

I'd rather be faster with shots in the 9 ring than slower with a perfect score is the only point I'm trying to make.

Obviously, if one can't pass the test in any fashion, go as slow as you need to. (But I'd recommend additional training on one's own initiative to be better prepared for the real world.)

 

[fredj338]

Most people don't shoot inside aircraft. What facts do you base your declarations upon?

The reason the airmarshal's qual is realistic is its time & distance & all from a concealment garment. Nothing soecific to aircraft.
Not sure what proof you seek, but look at most leo shooting scores on simple quals, throw I. 100s of police reports on leo response, you can see marginal is a pretty accurate description of majority of leo handgun skills.
I shoot with leo pretty much every weekend in some form of taining or competition. So at leadt in kalif, marginal is the correct adjective.

 

[fredj338]

Well, it's pretty obvious that missing is not the goal.

But we're not training for unlimited time bulls-eye shooting.

We're training to survive a deadly encounter. My thought is that you're better served to shoot as quickly and accurately as possible...with an emphasis on quickly.

I'd rather be faster with shots in the 9 ring than slower with a perfect score is the only point I'm trying to make.

Obviously, if one can't pass the test in any fashion, go as slow as you need to. (But I'd recommend additional training on one's own initiative to be better prepared for the real world.)

I o,unless a qualification has skinny time limits, it isnt valid for just the reasons you state. A slow zero is never as good as 3 fast 1s. While you are lining up your perfect zero, the bad guy plunks in 3 com hits, you never get off your shot. Why number of rds on target in the shortest amount if time matters.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Not sure what proof you seek, but look at most leo shooting scores on simple quals, throw I. 100s of police reports on leo response, you can see marginal is a pretty accurate description of majority of leo handgun skills.

I don't have access to most leo shooting scores, nor to 100's of police reports on leo response, and I believe it to be unlikely that you do either. Again, upon what facts do you base your declarations?

 

[prairieviper]

It might be location driven, but the avg leo is a poor shooter past contact distances, just fact. Why quals are pretty easy in most dept. ypu have to practice to actually be good with a pistol.

No, it isn't a fact but merely an opinion. For as long as I can remember, I have either read or heard people say that the average law enforcement officer is a poor shooter but I have yet to see or hear of a credible source of this information. If you would like to cite some, I would be interested in reviewing them.

I do agree that live fire practice is one of the things (but not the only thing) you should do to be good with a handgun.

 

[ispcapt]

No, it isn't a fact but merely an opinion. For as long as I can remember, I have either read or heard people say that the average law enforcement officer is a poor shooter but I have yet to see or hear of a credible source of this information. If you would like to cite some, I would be interested in reviewing them.

Those are quick WAG that people like to throw out. It makes them think they are "special". Same as the group who claim the FBI SAs couldn't handle the 10mm but they can so therefore their conclusion is they're better than the BU's SAs. Again, not a shred basis in fact. Nothing factual about it except what they make up in their own minds. Just something they throw out to make them feel like they have a bigger pair. Same as the 'small man syndrome".
There are over 800,000 LEOs in the US. When they spout off they're better shots than most cops it just proves they're blowing smoke and trying to make themselves feel so self important.
Now on topic - Qualification scores aren't training. Two completely separate things. Our people, as do the LEOs who attend our academy, will fire a minimum of 3500 rds just while attending the academy. This is not at all like the range cowboys shoot where they go to their local range and fire at 5 yards then think they're great shots. That's 3500 rds of tactical shooting, moving, various positions, conditions, and environments, and scenarios. That does not count the numerous hours spent on shoot/don't shoot and immediate action drill training. None of that is qualification. That's training and it continues year after year.
Non-LEOs don't understand that. To them going to the range and burning up ammo is the same as qualification. Or they think standing in front of a stationary target and firing a box of ammo is training. Far from it.

 

[fredj338]

What? Has that been disseminated???


I shot my 357 Sig purty good at fightin' distance, that's all I'm saying.


Back in the day........I carried this rig out on the rural route or a horseback in the boonies.

I could shoot it a bit...



I qualified on the course of the day...With whatever agency I was working with.

(The first qual I ever shot, was starting at 3 yds from the hip, and out to 50 yards, prone.


.

I said average, if that doesn't fit you then you are in the top 10% of LEO skills sets with a handgun. Good for you, now go train up your fellow officers.

 

[fredj338]

I don't have access to most leo shooting scores, nor to 100's of police reports on leo response, and I believe it to be unlikely that you do either. Again, upon what facts do you base your declarations?

You can google LEO involved shootings & number of shots fired & even distances. Yes I have had privy to several LEA qual scores thru friend of mine at various dept. Plus my lying eyes tell me every weekend what many of us know, the avg LEO is at best an average shooter.

 

[fredj338]

No, it isn't a fact but merely an opinion. For as long as I can remember, I have either read or heard people say that the average law enforcement officer is a poor shooter but I have yet to see or hear of a credible source of this information. If you would like to cite some, I would be interested in reviewing them.

I do agree that live fire practice is one of the things (but not the only thing) you should do to be good with a handgun.

Again look it up for yourself, number of shots fired per engagement, number of innocent people shot/hit annually. Don't pretend this stuff doesn't happen. qualifications are to keep agencies honest but most quals are pretty easy for an average shooters skill level for a reason; you can not have paid officers riding a desk because that can not qual with their weapons. Yes that is fact.

 

[RoninPhx]

a long time ago in a different age, i use to shoot qualification/practice courses for the sheriff's dept i was associated with. people were average to poor at shooting various events, to some that were quite good. We did night time, stress, left hand, right hand, kneeling, prone barricade at distances u p to 50yards. Then there is today. When arizona still required it, my wife was shooting a qual course for renewal of her ccw. She had groups you could cover with your hand out to 15yards, and was complaining she wasn't doing better. The RO for the course was a police lt for a local dept and he heard her complaining. His comment to her was "lady, i wish half the people on my dept could shoot as good" there is truth in this. The question is there are a lot of dept's in the country, lot of people carrying firearms, and it's a poor assumption that they are all good just as it is that they are all poor shooters. I do remember the first time i fired a highway patrol course, it made me giggle.

 

[elm_creek_smith]

Unsuccessful file load.

 

[Muss Muggins]

You can google LEO involved shootings & number of shots fired & even distances. Yes I have had privy to several LEA qual scores thru friend of mine at various dept. Plus my lying eyes tell me every weekend what many of us know, the avg LEO is at best an average shooter.

You can say it as many times as you want, but your de minimus personal sampling is inadequate to use the words "most" or "average . . . "

As for "googling" data, I certainly don't claim to be able to collate and interpret random internet searches.

Done here . . .

 

[oink]

I'll have to agree that the average LEO shooter is average at best with a good percentage poor shooters. What Stats do I have to back that statement? Well none. I do have years of experience with numerous qualifications with mainly 3 different Depts. and 2 academy's in 2 States.

In earlier years in departments that included rural areas I think marksmanship was better as there was a fair amount of impromptu practice on duty when things were slow. I don't think that happens much now days but in very rural areas perhaps it does.

Plus in my experience qualifications were harder in the past although there is, in many cases, more "realistic" training thrown in now. Also, in the past a large percentage of officers were veterans with some increased familiarity with firearms. I also believe that in the past more officers had more of an affinity for firearms and just a greater interest. I don't think that is anywhere near as universal now. Plus the increased percentage of female LEOs probably had an effect.* That percentage of officers that didn't qualify on the first attempt do not, IMHO, rate as average shooters. They rate as poor shooters, and there has always been a bunch that had to have a second go at it.

That's not including the "brass" that would either have to come back for a "special" session or went to a "Special" session initially. I think I can imagine how those "special" qualifications for the brass went, especially when you saw during the regular qualification that they couldn't shoot worth a hoot and couldn't pass. Not all of them of course. There were a few that were excellent, well at least a couple.

* My earlier statement might infer that I think most female LEOs are poor shots. I do. However, that's obviously not universal. In Academy I got the marksmanship trophy. But I must confess I won only because the scoring for it was at least partially cumulative. There was a very petite female in the class that at the very end of the Academy was outshooting me by a small but noticeable amount. If judged strictly on a final qualification shoot she would have stood probably a 60% chance of winning. Whew!

But yeah, IMHO most cops aren't great shots. And no I can't state Stats. It's just my humble opinion based on my personal experiences.

 

[BE Mike]

Really? Try passing the LEOSA course at 25 yards with 72 year old eyes!

At your age, you probably had the marksmanship skills ingrained from the beginning. With an educated trigger finger, you probably are way above the skill level of the average millenial LEO with 20 something eyes!

 

[BE Mike]

I frequent an indoor range. I can safely say that over 90% of the gun owners I see shooting handguns there are very poor shooters. A buddy of mine has been involved in leo firearm's training for quite a number of years. He has stated that leo's hit their intended target about 20% of the time in actual shootings. Considering the stress level and difficulty of the target and circumstances, i.e. low light and going from no perceived threat to DANGER CLOSE in a very short time, I would think that statistic is reasonable and not too bad considering. Most of the "cops are poor shooters" diatribe are macho men beating their chests.

 

[oink]

LOL, I'm fully aware that I'm no macho man, and I'm not pushing any diatribe but I'm a realist. During my recent interactions with the Dept. Range Officer he indicated that my shooting skills stacked up pretty well against the average department shooter. That's a very bad sign! IMHO, I can no longer shoot for shlt. That's mainly due to less practice, gone farther South eyes and unsteady hands. I'm hoping my new glasses help some when they get here. I currently shoot for the fuzzy dark thing and I have to hope the thing goes off while my sight is drifting past the center or bull. I'm just a non-macho man older guy. I never was a super tough macho man but they sure are handy to have around when the s*** starts.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

This is a fascinating thread. Having a military expert pistol medal and a concealed carry license doesn't come close to some of these tests being described. Stand still, put 50 rounds in your targets up close and at distance, have a nice day, here's your medal. Not nearly strenuous nor difficult without kneeling or prone or exiting doors or cars. Which brings me to this question:

Plus my lying eyes tell me every weekend what many of us know, the avg LEO is at best an average shooter.

Average compared to whom? Under what conditions? You can't compare average police officers to IPSC or even IDPA or 3-Gun champions but that's a set of disciplines they don't need to have due to the speed involved and the specialized weapons, although I guess IDPA is kind of more closely related to police work.

I consider myself an above average shooter (the Navy said I was an expert but, well...... never mind - see above) but not when you throw in movement and such. As a cowboy action shooter I shot several major matches "clean" but not at the kind of speed that the winners evidenced. I bet the average LEO is quite a good shooter if he is not extremely pressured and assuming he does practice. ICBW......but I'd prefer to not be a police officer's target at any time!

 

[The Big D]

In my crime fighting days...

...as a youngster, I was a very, very good shooter. Regularly 300/300. That's with timed courses of fire and with reloading components. Varying distances, daylight, low light, kneeling, standing, barricades, etc. Often quals were with emergency radio broadcasts and with sirens blaring/emergency lights flashing to induce a stress component. That said, that's a controlled environment...nobody shooting back at you.

Training was far more stressful. Run and gun; arrive in a vehicle, grab a long gun, fire from 'cover,' dump long gun, engage bad guy targets, ignore good guys, take 'cover' at a curb (yes, on the ground), and whatever else the training staff could imagine.

Then there were 'shoot, don't shoot' simulators with laser guns, Hogan's Alleys, building clearing exercises, and many others.

My skills have diminished but still qualify rather easily during my LEOSA shoots. Those are the SAME as for Maryland off duty LEO's and include night fire, reloads, kneeling/standing, barricades, and distances including the 25 yard line.

Some folks seem to believe punching holes in paper makes them a great shooter. That's marksmanship; not shooting, if you ask me.

And knowing WHEN to shoot is every bit as important as knowing HOW to shoot.

Be safe.