Making The Case For Distance Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.

smince

Member.
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
1,329
Location
Northeast Alabama
By Ron Avery

Your sidearm will never be a carbine, but it will be there when you need it, provided you brought it in the first place and you have the skill to use it effectively

Back when I first started in law enforcement, the trend on shooting and qualifying emphasized accuracy over speed and the ability to place your shots, albeit slowly, in a nice tight group. We shot out to 50 yards in qualification. We shot with strong hand and support hand and even shot from a sitting and prone position. We also shot at extended distances up to 200 yards or more with our duty handguns when I was training with my friend and mentor, Sgt. Dalton Carr, as a deputy sheriff.

Time went on and new trends appeared. Faster courses of fire of fire came into vogue. These emphasized close quarter and short range shooting skills with the emphasis on more speed, movement off the X, multiple shots, and more realistic time frames.

This was an improvement. But along the way, many agencies started moving away from distance shooting. Many trainers are now calling 25 yards, “long range.” Some even have qualification courses that go out to only 15 yards. They point out that the majority of incidents occur at less than 21 feet with only occasional shootings past 10 yards or so.

This thinking is rational enough — if you only have so much allowed time to train and qualify your people, you have to train them in the most likely form of encounter they will face.

But let’s take a few moments to examine the times we live in and the possibility that cops today may encounter a threat with more than just rudimentary shooting ability, and far more than just a handgun. Consider the events in Mumbai, India, where terrorists armed with long guns and IEDs killed more 100 people and wounded three times that number.
How prepared would you be to face a terrorist or criminal who is armed with a long gun when you are armed only with your current duty weapon or off-duty handgun? Threats like that need to be a consideration as we work in our training to make a handgun function to its true potential.
Observations

From my own experience and research into shooting performance under stress, I’ve been measured and have measured human performance at all levels from the very best to the most basic.

One observation involves the use of the handgun versus the carbine.
As a rule of thumb, given the same person (or even two people of similar skill and ability), whatever you can do with a handgun you can do with a carbine at about two (and usually three) times the distance.

What do I mean by that? What you can do at five yards with a handgun, you can probably do at 10 to 15 yards with a carbine.

So if you practice on being proficient at seven yards and under, start to slow down at 10 and have to take two to three seconds to get your first hit at 15 or 25 yards, and two seconds or more for subsequent hits, or four to seven seconds to get hits at 50 yards or farther then you are seriously behind the performance curve against a carbine wielding opponent of similar skill.

Consider having to face a carbine in the hands of a committed terrorist in a mall when you are off duty and armed with only your handgun. You see him at 25 yards and he sees you. For him it’s a fairly easy shot if he chooses to aim and not spray bullets in your direction. For you, it may be pushing the envelope to ask you to place a bullet in him in under 1.2 seconds from a ready position.

Getting fight-stopping hits at distance — and at the speed of the gunfight — against a threat beyond 15 and 25 yards requires a greater level of skill than shooting at distances less than 10 yards. This is especially true when you consider that the threat you’re likely to face in the abovementioned scenario will be moving, shifting, or partial (such as someone wearing body armor).

Although the bulk of your time will still be spent on the threat you’re most likely to encounter — a typical criminal, armed with a handgun at short range is — it is absolutely to your advantage to learn something about facing that carbine-wielding terrorist on your off day.

Time to Ponder

It is time to rethink our strategies about how we are going to deal with a terrorist or a well-trained criminal armed with a long gun when we only have a handgun with us.

The North Hollywood shootout was a wakeup call that started the trend to place patrol rifles in our squad cars. However, unlike military personnel or special operations law enforcement, the carbine is not present on our person at all times for most law enforcement activities.

It is very likely that we will be facing more and more criminals (and yes, possibly terrorists) armed with long guns in future engagements. For law enforcement patrol officers, BOTH the handgun and the carbine are primary weapons. You don’t have the luxury of calling the handgun a “secondary weapon.”

I say it is time to start training at distance again and learn how to make rapid, fight-stopping hits at extended ranges with our handguns. I pledge to make it a priority in my column here on PoliceOne to increase the shooting skills of every law enforcement officer who is willing to work at it.
I believe we need to be as proficient with our handguns as military personnel — if not more so — and we need to get our mindset wrapped around the fact that the handgun will do the job when you need it too. It will never be a carbine, but it will be there when you need it, provided you brought it in the first place and you have the skill to use it effectively.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...ance-shooting/
 
I'm going to leave this one running for the time being, with the caveat that S&T is primarily aimed at the armed citizen, not LEOs or the military. And this article is written for LEOs.

I am not denigrating the need for maximum possible skill with whatever defensive sidearm any individual choses to carry. Far from it. But for the vast majority of us reading this, what we can do on the range, we can probably do only half as well- or 25% as well, if that- when there's blood on the line, and not paper.

Something to keep in mind and ponder as we study, train and practice...

lpl
 
After reading an article in "Gun Digest" about a Louisville, KY gun club that started handgun shooting at 100 yards and beyond with their S&W M&Ps, at the turn of the 19th century, I decided to try it myself.

Some friends and I shot our Model 14s and M&Ps at 100 and 200 yards. We shot at a man target. As long as you could see the bullet strike it was easy to walk your way onto the target. You just need to pick a repeatable aiming point, not necessarily on the target itself. This was with mediocre Winchester White Box .38 Special 130gr. FMJs.

I'd already shot out to 150-200 yards with my Series 70 Colt in the '70s, using VERY light bullseye loads. We shot at some clay pits near school. We shot at a 55gal. drum on a sandspit next to a pond. It only took seeing a couple of bullet strikes to get and stay on target.
 
S&T is primarily aimed at the armed citizen, not LEOs or the military. And this article is written for LEOs.
True enough, Lee.

I posted this because I see it as a skill anyone who carries should own. I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, however. I've found quite a bit on PoliceOne that translates over (or should anyway) into CCW.
 
I'm going to leave this one running for the time being, with the caveat that S&T is primarily aimed at the armed citizen, not LEOs or the military. And this article is written for LEOs.


While this may be true, imo, it applies to all shooters simply because it reinforces the importance of fundamentals.

There is NOTHING that proves the value of having sound fundamental shooting skills as does engaging targets at extended range. Granted, "extended range" is an individual variable. However, when an individual understands and can apply shooting fundamentals to accurately engage a target at range, it makes target engagement that much easier up close in the more likely defensive ranges that are so frequent.

Too often shooters, and "instructors", blow off sound shooting fundamentals when engaging targets within defensive ranges because they don't "need" them to get hits on target. This creates sloppy shooting, and a false sense of confidence.

There is a compromise one must make between speed and accuracy to maximize your effectiveness when it comes to defensive shooting, however, that compromise does NOT include the use and acceptance of poor fundamentals. What you can do sloppy and fast, you can do more accurately and fast with practice and good fundamentals.

Shot placement trumps luck almost every time. Solid fundamentals facilitate good shot placement.
 
Too many gunowners think that handguns are useless past 25 yds.

This is utter non-sense, but those folks don't want to be confused by the facts.

I often encourage people to shoot at extended ranges with their handguns. Even ranges they "know" are too far, as they'll have a epiphany if they give it a try.
 
While I totally agree that handgun training needs to be long range as well, the operator/CCW holder needs to understand the diminishing effects of a handgun round at such distances. This may be more centered for LEO as well, but I think it applies to the vigilant CCW holder as well.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

At that link you can find many useful studies on the bullets ability to cause damage. This is just so the CCW holder is prepared to continue to fight when the target is still functioning when they shouldn't be. All the more so at long ranges.

This is a small piece taken from one of the many resources on the site. keep in mind that if applied too distance shooting, velocity will be diminished and penetration will suffer.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. the much discusses “shock” of bullet impact is a fable and “knock down” power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, “too little penetration will get you killed.” Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable.
 
It is time to rethink our strategies about how we are going to deal with a terrorist or a well-trained criminal armed with a long gun when we only have a handgun with us.

The North Hollywood shootout was a wakeup call that started the trend to place patrol rifles in our squad cars. However, unlike military personnel or special operations law enforcement, the carbine is not present on our person at all times for most law enforcement activities.

It is very likely that we will be facing more and more criminals (and yes, possibly terrorists) armed with long guns in future engagements. For law enforcement patrol officers, BOTH the handgun and the carbine are primary weapons. You don’t have the luxury of calling the handgun a “secondary weapon.”

I say it is time to start training at distance again and learn how to make rapid, fight-stopping hits at extended ranges with our handguns. I pledge to make it a priority in my column here on PoliceOne to increase the shooting skills of every law enforcement officer who is willing to work at it.

Noble cause, but hugely problematic. There is one hurdle being missed here and it is the hurdle for why cops have been trained at shorter distances...

This thinking is rational enough — if you only have so much allowed time to train and qualify your people, you have to train them in the most likely form of encounter they will face.

So, if you only have so much time (and $$$) to train and qualify people, where are the time and $$$ going to come from to train polices officers to shoot long distances with pistols?

If you are going to train at long distances and are citing North Hollywood as a key example, then I expect that you will need to be training officers to hit head-sized moving targets at 75-150 yards with their pistols. This is critical because a walking target shot from those distances will have moved several inches in the time it takes the bullet to leave the barrel and to reach the target. So officers must not only be taught to understand where their elevational hold must be for longer distances, but also the amount to lead a target that is moving at those distances.

Now the training is getting fairly complicated. You are going to be spending a lot more time on instruction in regard to ballistics and targeting, but going to have to have a moving target range. If your department is large, you will need a moving target range that will allow for training 1, 2, 3, more more dozen officers simultaneously. There is no way a department like Dallas with 3500 officers could do this with moving targets that only allowed 1 or 2 shooters to be shooting at a time.

Okay, once you have your infrastructure in place to make the training be physically possible, the officers have to first be trained with the basics of long range moving target pistol shooting from traditional stances, and then retrained to be able to make those same shots from awkward shooting positions such as around corners, kneeling or prone underneath and around cars, over the tops of cars, etc., as was the case with North Hollywood.

So now we have an even more complicated issue. We have to teach officers to high moving targets at various long ranges with slow moving pistol rounds and they must be able to accomplish the task from non-typical shooting positions.

Next, all of this must be repeated, or intermixed with training with a carbine and quite possibly with shotguns. There isn't any reason why officers can't us slugs out to 150 yards.

So tell me again. If you only have so much time and $$ to train officers for what the are most likely to encounter on the street, where are the time and $$ going to come from to give the officers the necessary additional training to become long range moving target combat pistoleros and carbineros? Keep in mind that they will need to requalify regularly. Some departments it is monthly, quarterly, twice a year, or once a year.

So what all will this involve? There is going to be the modification to police gun ranges to accomodate the long range shooting with moving targets. No doubt this will mean many departments will have to purchase or lease new facilities. That will be expensive.

Next, there will need to be additional firearms instructors to help handle the additional teaching and qualifying loads. More $.

Next will come the $ needed for all the extra training time of both new officers and officers already in service.

Because more training time will require more officers to be off the street for training, qualifications, and requalifications. In order to handle the number of officers missing from the street, more officers will have to be hired. This means more $$$.

Now every department is plagued with a certain percentage of shooters who are not great shooters. These are the officers that qualification after qualification that either barely pass or who must qualify multiple times before getting a passing grade. In some departments, qualification failure after X attempts requires either a mandatory wait time (with re-assignment to desk duty) and/or retraining instruction followed by attempts to requalify yet again. Sadly, the number of problematic officers is higher than anyone would like to admit.

So with the long range moving target pistol and carbine program, not only will there be the standard number of problematic officers, but a larger number of problematic officers as the long range program will reveal shortcomings in skills and skill retention that isn't as much of a factor in the short range (and usually stationary target) programs. This means that there will be that many officers who fail to qualify, that require even more additional training, and hence that means more officers being pulled off the street that will need to be replaced with additional personnel.

None of this even covers the additional expenses of ammo for training, the need for additional weapons, wear and tear, etc.

Where is the money going to come from to make all this happen? Don't get me wrong. I think long range pistol, carbine, and shotgun programs should be implemented, but I am also a realist who understands that police departments and cities have budgets. They are funded by taxpayers who don't want to be paying even higher taxes. Heck, many departments are understaffed as it is and are lacking sufficient equipment for officer staffing. In many departments, officers are carrying personal weapons because the departments cannot afford to provide each patrol officer with a pistol and carbine or shotgun.

So where is all the money going to come from?
 
Not long ago, I worked a murder at an outdoor burger stand. The murderer, who apparently had not liked it when a certain female either cut in line, or insulted him while in line. He got into his truck, and parked at an intersection 70 yards away. He then opened up with a .40 autopistol, and connected with the COM of that female's boyfriend, with one of many shots fired. He probably emptied a magazine.

Of course, diving for cover probably seems the best option, but folks, there was no effective cover. Bullets were zinging right through the plywood walls of the kitchen as if paper. When there is no cover, you can run, and people were running and hiding, because nobody was armed except the murderer. The nearest good cover was a utility pole, several yards away. Could the murderer have been discouraged if a resolute armed citizen had moved laterally, then parked himself behind that pole, and braced against the pole for some precision shooting?

For that matter, could an armed citizen, perhaps a bullseye competitor, familiar with 50-yard shooting, or a silhouette shooter, or just a serious handgunner, have pulled a concealed 1911 or 4" sixgun, or such weapon, and made a difference at any of the recent mall shootings, or bank robberies like the North Hollywood incident? I fully agree that the vast majority of shootings involving private citizens are short-range affairs, and I don't always carry service-type handguns when off the clock myself, but I usually do carry service-type weapons, and think it quite normal for a private citizen to do so, and practice long-range shooting. Just don't neglect the short-range training! :)

Putting myself in the place of the folks at that burger stand, if my aging eyes had not enabled me to connect with the murderer, I might have been able to hit his truck, compelling him to seek safer environments, rather than keep blasting away at the burger stand.
 
I think that one reason be either overlooked, or not addresses is that YOU own every bullet that goes down range, I am confident to say 10 yards with my pocket mouse, further I can hit, just not to the degree of consistency I would like, as for 100 yard shots, I would save those to a rifle or carbine, or if you happen to have a competition or hunting pistol, for most day to day encounters, if the shooter is 100 yards away, in all likeliness, you would better severed by gaining cover and or concealment to plan you next move, including a move out of the area.

Only in the extreme would I even think of engaging, say a lone gunman with a nice brick wall as a back stop, even then it would be more for suppression than a true hope to end the situation.

And finally, this article is in someways completely outdated, as Rexster said, would you really expect cops to take handguns to a say, Northridge B of A shootout? Now just about every department either has shotguns or M-16's in their patrol cars, so for a cop to be shooting at those distances with a hand gun means that something has gone very wrong.
 
Now just about every department either has shotguns or M-16's in their patrol cars, so for a cop to be shooting at those distances with a hand gun means that something has gone very wrong.
Like, say, he was away from the car when the incident started and couldn't get back to his long gun?
 
As a newbie to handgun shooting (last 5 years or so), I would like to ask you all what the max range of a .45 ACP is. Personally I struggle to hold an 8" to 10" group at 50 yards...what could I possible do out at 100? My range's handgun range only goes out to 75 yards. With my .357 mag (6" barrel) I can hold roughly 6" to 8" groups out to 75 yards.
 
It will be unlikely that you will ever have to take a shot at a distance so just practice at the 7 yard line. Thats where you will be involved in a shooting you know. Never practice advancing on a target either as most of the time you will be retreating. Never practice a reload either as most shootings only involve a couple of shots. A whole bunch of sarcasm there. Point is just because it is unlikely that you will ever use it doesn't mean you shouldn't train for that incident.

As for most departments having m-16 or shotguns. Not too sure how effective the shotgun would be at them distances. Plus like many have said you are responsible for each of the projectiles. Using a pistol might be a little better as you only worring about 1 projectile not 9 at a time. M-16 good choice to reach out and touch someone, if they got the training. I would venture to say that many of them officers get even less time behind the rifle than they do there service pistol. Which for many of them is one or two days twice a year. I am also curious how many of them have actually zeroed there rifle?
 
Nothing wrong with practicing long range shooting.
The first time I shot a snub .38 at 200 yards I was stunned to see that I could easily hit a man sized target.
I later experimented with other guns/calibers at this distance ( as well as 25-100 yards) and found it no big deal to score solid hits.
 
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/07Feb10.html
Changing Requirements:

American police pistol-qualification courses used to include stages of fire with targets as far distant as fifty meters. When I was first sworn-in, back in 1970, I remember it well! Subsequently, most such long-distance stages were gradually withdrawn, and now the majority of qualifications require reasonable accuracy at ranges no greater than ten meters.

However, with new challenges on the horizon, we are now obligated to reverse the trend and go back in the other direction!

Recent terrorist incidents in Beslan and Mumbai have compelled us all to soberly re-consider several important points:

(1) Mumbai/Beslan-style attacks are far easier for terrorists to organize and export than are more grandiose assaults involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. But, they still generate relatively high body-counts among the innocent, embarrassingly reveal the impotence of western governments, and yield wide-spread publicity, along with paralyzing fear.

(2) More such well-organized attacks, involving squad-sized (or even larger) amalgamations of rifle-armed terrorists, on schools, shopping areas, hotels, and other densely-populated locations in the USA and other Western Countries, after their demonstrated success at Mumbai and Beslan, are probably inevitable! We've seen them on a small scale already.

(3) First-responders, legally-armed citizens and uniformed patrol officers, are likely to be armed only with pistols, at least in the short-term.

So, the question is: How much capability is it reasonable to expect from pistol-armed officers? Can my pistol-armed, patrol officers be depended upon to neutralize rifle-armed terrorists at ranges between twenty and fifty meters?

My colleague and professional shooter, Ron Avery, points out the any pistol with a sight-radius significantly less than four inches (10.2cm), in the hands of all but extremely talented shooters, will be limited in effectiveness to twenty meters. Conversely, nearly everyone can be trained to hit human-sized targets at fifty meters, when they are supplied with a pistol with a sight-radius of four inches or more.

Admittedly, in order to make these difficult shots with our pistols, we will have to persuade the target to hold still for several seconds, but it can still be done, and our officers, and non-police students, need to know it can be done, and be confident that they can do it!

"Oh, how I wish I had a rifle," will be a plaintiff and hollow cry when the attack begins! We are all going to have to respond without delay, and it will be on a "come-as-you-are" basis. We know we'll all have pistols! We are a good deal less sure of what other weapons we will have immediately at hand. Our pistols may indeed be the only weapons we get to use, and we must have supreme confidence in them, and ourselves!

With the currently-exploding market in "concealed-carry" pistols, manufacturers are focused on producing small guns. Many such pistols, though otherwise perfectly functional, have short slides and, thus, short sight-radiuses. While suitable as back-up pistols, these short guns, with their limited range, need to be re-evaluated with the foregoing in mind.

As a main, carry pistol, a four-inch (or longer) sight radius is now a critical feature, if we are going to have the range capability that is likely to be acutely necessary for first-responders. Our sincere affection for small pistols must thus be tempered with the necessity of honestly confronting these new challenges.

As an ancillary comment, every police beat-car needs to be equipped, as soon as possible, with a high-capacity military rifle (and a bandoleer of spare magazines) in the cab-portion of the vehicle, so that it is instantly available to patrol officers. Rifles locked in precinct stations, or even in trunks of patrol vehicles, have scant chance of ever being involved in a gunfight.

Look what happened to FBI Special Agents in FL in 1986 and to the LAPD in North Hollywood in 1997. In both cases, heavy weapons, locked securely in trunks of vehicles, remained there, safe and sound, for the duration!

/John Farnam
 
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=58803&highlight=long+distance+pistol+shooting
I know all about how pistol fights tend toward being close and fast. However, there have been several instances where a long shot could have saved the day. I recall reading statements from some witnesses of various “Active Shooters” detailing how they saw the shooter twenty-five, or forty yards away reloading his rifle. And there have also been instances where the lack of skill, or the lack of confidence, on the part of police officers to take a longer than usual shot could have stopped the action and saved the day. I know a story about officers who were within 15 yards of a fully armored rifle-armed active shooter who did not try to fire head shots for fear of missing.

I think that while we should definitely prioritize the close range problem, we should not ignore the possibility of the longer shots.

We have pushed our Advanced Close Range Gunfighting students out to 200 yards with CCW carry pistols. I know the "close range" thing sounds like a misnomer, but we do plenty of close and fast point shooting in that class as well. Recently, at a class in Houston, Texas, after several hours of training, a full 1/3 of the class was able to hit a man-sized steel target from a standing position at 200 yards. The reason we shot from standing was simply that there was too much brush to use any sort of supported shooting position.

As a matter of note we had one gentleman in Houston repeatedly shoot a 50 yard metal silhouette (all were human sized or smaller) with a totally sightless pistol!

What we found as we began shooting past the close range envelope at 50 yards was that any type of dots, bars or other designs found on the front or rear sights were distracting to the shooter's objective of aligning the front sight with the rear sight. Misalignment of a small degree spelled complete misses here.

The mission was this - Top of the Front Sight must be held level with the top of the Rear Sight, and the shooter must see an equal amount of light visible on either side of the Front Sight. Fiber optics, or pronounced dots made it exceedingly difficult to determine the exact top of the front sight. It could be done, but with some greater effort required.

Additionally and excessively thick front sight made long shots difficult because the width prevented indexing on the visibly smaller target. I have always favored a thin front sight....as thin as possible without making it weak. Thick front sights tended to totally cover the target as soon as we moved out farther than 50 yards. At 100 yards, hits could still be made but not very often, requiring the shooter to align the sights as best he could and then estimate where the target was. At 200 yards, it became even more obvious that the type of sights on the pistol helped or prevented any hits.

The angle of the sights was a factor as well. Serrations on the front and rear sights seemed to help provide a visible sharp sight picture at various lighting levels regardless of distance. That said, some folks in class were using those fiber optic sights as well with good effect. Most of our distance shooting was done in the afternoon as the sun was dropping lower in the sky. - Gabe Suarez
 
Successful shooting at any distance is a matter of training, practice and skill - as well as a positive attitude that doesn't prevent someone from trying because "it can't be done." Long range shooting (100 yards or more) is somewhat more difficult because of the modern trend toward very low front sights. In this respect the old pencil-barreled revolvers were better. Back when longer range shooting was more acceptable I once examined an interesting conversion made using a S&W K-38 Masterpiece as a platform. The barrel had been shortened to 3 1/2 inches, and in place of the ramp front sight a high blade had been installed. The owner could "hold over" and elevate the front sight in the rear sight notch. He was absolutely deadly at 100 yards and well beyond.

If pistols are equipped with appropriate sights they will do as well.
 
Not being a cop, I can't post a response on Police One.

I think it is great that folks like John Farnam and Gabe Suarez are behind the notion of long range defensive shooting for our officers (and public). They have echoed the need, but neither have suggested how this can be made to happen. It will be extremely expensive to implement such a program in departments across the US. We aren't even willing to have programs that properly train officers for real world shooting situations and having those officers maintain the necessary proficiency.

Our pistols may indeed be the only weapons we get to use, and we must have supreme confidence in them, and ourselves!


Babysteps. Maybe we should stress more emphasis on actual close range training for officers and see to it that officers are properly proficient at the distances most of their shootings occur. Depending on the source cited and departments surveyed, national averages range between 25-30% hit ratios. Some departments do better, some do worse. If with the current programs that we have in place, officers are only hitting their targets less than 1/3 of the time at predominately short distances, obviously we have a problem with training and maintaining proficiency. Officers are not getting the shooting training that they need that will actually prepare them for real battle situations. Yes, they are learning to shoot, and yet many are challenged by the regular shooting qualifications, most of which are stationary shooting at various fixed distances. These are the absolute easiest sort of shooting situations and yet some officers fail and some fail time after time.

Officers aren't being taught to fight. They are being taught to shoot. Even then the standards are too lax.

Who will pay for the upgrades needed?

One answer was SWAT. SWAT teams were supposed to handle these sorts of situations. SWAT teams tend to be composed of better trained officers who receive training throughout the year. Their proficiency remains high throughout the year because of the constant training. However, as we have learned, SWAT teams are not timely responders unless the are in place when the crisis occurs (e.g. doing raids). So SWAT teams aren't likely to be the first responders who will solve our developing crtical situations.

Our local department has a part time SWAT-type team. All of the members are involved first in other duties such as being patrol officers or detectives. They have department-issued vehicles that are loaded with their SWAT gear such that they can roll out as fast as possible to a situation. 3-4 days a week, they perform their regular jobs. So in our town, there is a good chance that there is at least one SWAT officer on patrol, unless the SWAT team is involved in training (1 day per week) or doing raids. So we do have some highly trained officers doing regular patrols, which is nice as it means that if such a situation arises, there is a decent chance that an actual SWAT member will be one of the first responders, not the whole team, but at least one member.

Can we beef up the training for all officers? What would it take to get all officers 2 days of gunfight training per month? We know that skills, if unpracticed, deteriorate. If we want officers to be able to hit targets at long ranges with the proficiency to stop threats (and ideally with greater success than they are currently getting at short distances), then they are going to have to regular and ongoing training.

Who will pay for it?
 
I think the problems with law enforcement training are well known, but unfortunately there isn't much that members of this forum can do about it.

On the other had we have members who are part of the law enforcement community - as well as others - who as individuals are interested in improving their skills to meet any and all kinds of situations they might encounter.

What we should and can do is encourage such individuals to go forth and exceed the norm - even if they have to do so with their own resources, financial and otherwise. Discussions such as this one can provide information and support, and within obvious limits they are useful.

Clearly, for those in professions that require them to go into harm's way, shooting skills of all kinds are an important form of life insurance. To a lesser degree that's true for the rest of us.
 
"On the other had we have members who are part of the law enforcement community - as well as others - who as individuals are interested in improving their skills to meet any and all kinds of situations they might encounter".
A big 10-4 to that.
Many officers have to be led to requalification kicking and screaming and are a lost cause when it comes to firearms skill.
The officers who I meet--both as an instructor and a student--are excellent shots/tactications who are always seeking ways to improve.
This is to be accepted and embraced as reality.
Teach what you can to who you can and don't sweat the small stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top