Have all these new styles of training Worked ?

[BigO01]

I was just wondering as I was reading the various gun boards etc. if after the last few decades starting as far back as the 60's when Jeff Cooper and others started all the different pistol competitions and shooting schools if they have realy made a positive difference in performance for the armed civilians and or LEO's when using deadly force .

My understand is that even into the middle 70's even Police force firearms trainers were trained themselves and certified as NRA instructors .

Now here we are decades later with many Police forces seemingly thumbing their noses at the NRA and using whatever seems to be the hottest trend in shooting starting with the weaver stance , to isosceles in the 80's or so to who knows what these days .

But has all of it made any significant difference in the ability for officers/civilains to 1) survive a gunfight and 2) actually improve their hit percentage on live targets that are trying to hurt/kill them at the time they fired said shots .

Also just as a point of interest has all of this increased training helped to reduce the instances of accidental discharges within the Law enforcement/shooting community ?

After all doing a simple seach of gun training Schools on the internet you'll get a bunch of different places to go not to mention what you'll find reading the various gun magazines or asking on the Progun forums .

 

[EddieNFL]

Also just as a point of interest has all of this increased training helped to reduce the instances of accidental discharges within the Law enforcement/shooting community ?

IMO all the training in the world won't make a safe shooter if he doesn't have the proper attitude.

 

[Free2game]

Not sure, but most cops I've seen use the Chapman Stance, so I'm pretty sure that's standard training for most departments. Imo for lighter vested officers it gives you good maneuverability, ease of follow up, and balance. I believe the military trains you to shoot in the isolese stance because a weaver style would be harder with a large vest and it leaves a weaker part of armor more exposed, but I haven't seen any actual statistics, but if competitive shooting has shown anything, using one of these is a hell of an improvement over one handed techniques and the older isosceles stance.

 

[flyinrob]

More schools, more instructors, and increased availability of training is a good thing. More people end up getting training. Not everyone can or will make it to the big name schools. Also, different shooters learn better under different instructors and styles. No statistics, but IMO, a very good thing.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, there are a lot of competing training schools and instructors these days. And some police forces are taking advantage of them to some degree. And some "civilian" shooters are taking advantage of them -- actually far more so than are the LEOs.

BUT. The total numbers of shooters who ever seek out these kinds of even mid-level training appear to be still distressingly low. And the "training" that most LE agencies give their officers is so rudimentary (and the qualification standards most officers are held to achieve are so low) as to be only "generously" considered basic.

Now what percentage of armed citizens will ever be involved in a shooting incident? 0.1%? Maybe? And how many armed citizens avail themselves of ANY of the professional training or advanced practice that has been developed in the last half-century? (i.e.: something more than square-range plinking) Surely the number isn't as high as 5%. Assuming those groups overlap, you're looking at something like 0.005% of the "civilian" shooters who are both involved in armed encounters and had any professional training.

You can make the same guesstimates for LEOs. Maybe 1% of LEOs go seek training beyond their yearly qualifications. Maybe 10% (guessing, here) of LEOs might ever fire shots in anger. So you're looking at something on the order of magnitude of 0.01% of LEOs who both had intermediate training and got into gun fights.

So when you look at large-pool statistics of hit rates and survivability, you're going to have to accept that there is unlikely to be any measurable impact.

However, on an individual basis, the difference is night-and-day. Take an individual shooter or officer and put them through almost ANY of the professional courses and the sheer trigger time alone, especially as it is applied outside of the "square-range," stand-and-shoot kind of discipline, is going to show significant improvements in both accuracy under stress and survivability.

-Sam

 

[9mmepiphany]

Sam1911 makes very good points only a very small percentage of LEOs will every fire their gun in anger and the percentage of officers interested in becoming proficient in use of their gun is very small also.

but having been a LEO for 28 years, i can tell you that watching officers progress through the academy with their shooting ability, that modern shooting techniques really do make a difference...it would be really ugly without the level of training they do get. just in my years on the department, i've seen training progress from the FBI "point shooting" (gun at waist level, one handed, support hand in fist over heart), through the Weaver/Chapman phase then transitioning through the PPC stance to the current Isosceles (less technical, maximizes body armor protection).

i should add that one needs to be able to put rounds on target on a "square range", before they should progress to dynamic movement...misses don't count for much.

attitude (willingness/desire to learn) really makes a world of difference. i've had a student in a class who was only 10 years old who had no trouble keeping up with the adults in the class, once we adapted the instruction to her smaller hands...she was definitely the safest shooter on the line, she took the safety rules literally

 

[gym]

To most people who get a license, that's where it stops. They figure they have the gun just in case. That's the extent of their training, too bad, but I have wasted my breath for years trying to get people to train or at least practice to little or no avail. and now with the economy in the toilet forget it. They are having a hard enough time paying bills.Very few people train, they have a gun like they have a fire extinguisher.