Marksmanship: Police vs. civilian
- Thread starter jpruitt
- Start date
- Status
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,783
Read "The Choirboys" by Joseph Wambaugh for the cynical answer...
Mousegun
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 744
I, as a civilian, had charge of repairs of a police range that shared its time with my gun club.
After qualification exercises, I had a full time job patching things up.
Club members never caused a needed repair.
Admittedly this is not the norm. A club that shoots every week will by definition, be better than a group of LEOs that qualify two or three times a year and never shoot between.
All I can say is that if my life may depend on a firearm, I would be one of the best of the best.
After qualification exercises, I had a full time job patching things up.
Club members never caused a needed repair.
Admittedly this is not the norm. A club that shoots every week will by definition, be better than a group of LEOs that qualify two or three times a year and never shoot between.
All I can say is that if my life may depend on a firearm, I would be one of the best of the best.
sacp81170a
Member
I would go with "non-sworn citizen". It's both legally correct and non-derogatory. The real difference is that I'm a "sworn" peace officer with specific powers granted on behalf of the state via that oath. The same goes for fire marshals, coroners, judges, prosecutors, etc. Some have arrest powers, some don't.
Vern Humphrey
Member
A friend of mine was a battalion commander in Chicago during the riots in '68. He had a cop -- pretty high ranking -- try to order his troops around. When he told the cop he was in command, the cop tapped his rank insignia -- he wore stars.
My friend said, "Are you impersonating a Federal officer?"
The cop left immediately.
Seems I may have kicked off as bit of a firefight with my comments on nomenclature of function and duty for LEO's, which was not my intent.
To return to the original question on marksmanship.
For MOST (but not all) LEO's, a firearm is a tool that may be frequently drawn but rarely used. The majority of LEO's will only actively shoot their duty weapon as part of their mandatory periodic qualification. Dependent upon the department this may only once a year. As such marksmanship and familiarity will be limited at best
Specialist teams such as hostage rescue, anti-terrorism teams, SWAT or designated marksmen will necessarily, as part of their specific roles, need to practice and qualify far more frequently.
However, the vast majority of these LEO's weapons training will reflect the expected situations they will be called upon to attend so there will be an emphasis on CQB and marksmanship with a rifle will be 200 mts or less.
For MANY but not most non LEO's, who own more than a single firearm, shooting is a personal decision or pleasure and they will almost always shoot far more than a LEO.
Based on this they will be, if not necessarily inherently more accurate, more familiar with their weapons and more likely to be be reliable/accurate shooters.
This does not include the statistically significant population of non LEO's who bench shoot, IPSC or competitively shoot etc. They will by their very nature be better marksmen than all but a very very small percentage of LEO's.
I have deliberately not included the mental state that is required to deliberately pull a trigger on another human being with a small arm. Marksmanship counts for naught if you can't look them in the face and pull the trigger.
A LEO's training and mindset MAY be the differentiator in accuracy then.
It's a hell of a lot easier with a rifle, you can pretend their just a moving Figure 11 target at a distance.
To return to the original question on marksmanship.
For MOST (but not all) LEO's, a firearm is a tool that may be frequently drawn but rarely used. The majority of LEO's will only actively shoot their duty weapon as part of their mandatory periodic qualification. Dependent upon the department this may only once a year. As such marksmanship and familiarity will be limited at best
Specialist teams such as hostage rescue, anti-terrorism teams, SWAT or designated marksmen will necessarily, as part of their specific roles, need to practice and qualify far more frequently.
However, the vast majority of these LEO's weapons training will reflect the expected situations they will be called upon to attend so there will be an emphasis on CQB and marksmanship with a rifle will be 200 mts or less.
For MANY but not most non LEO's, who own more than a single firearm, shooting is a personal decision or pleasure and they will almost always shoot far more than a LEO.
Based on this they will be, if not necessarily inherently more accurate, more familiar with their weapons and more likely to be be reliable/accurate shooters.
This does not include the statistically significant population of non LEO's who bench shoot, IPSC or competitively shoot etc. They will by their very nature be better marksmen than all but a very very small percentage of LEO's.
I have deliberately not included the mental state that is required to deliberately pull a trigger on another human being with a small arm. Marksmanship counts for naught if you can't look them in the face and pull the trigger.
A LEO's training and mindset MAY be the differentiator in accuracy then.
It's a hell of a lot easier with a rifle, you can pretend their just a moving Figure 11 target at a distance.
Mauserguy
Member
The range nearest my house is frequented by the local cops and by Marines from Camp Pendalton. The cops display unimpressive skills. They are roughly on par with the average civilian. The Marines, however, are good with headshots. They plug them with quiet confidence.
Mauserguy
Mauserguy
I've been an avid shooter all my life for both self satisfaction and competition.
Having spent 20 years with the NYPD, I regrettably agree with the above statement. I witnessed this for the first time when I was assigned to the firearms and tactics unit at the out door range in Rodman's Neck, Bronx, NY.
Don't get me wrong, there were many excellent shooters, quite a few very good shooters, but for the most part, the remainder of patrol force were in need of practice, lots of practice.
"As to "them vs. us" feelings: It happens. It's inevitable. Any group you train with and spend time with will become "us," and everybody else will become "them."""
My problem with that is that I agree that when you belong to a group you do have an "us vs. them" mentality. But for cops, that is not an acceptable attitude to have since you work for the citizens, or the "them" as you would refer to us. The police are a professional organization (or should be anyway), and should be above that type of mentality. If LEO's insist on an "us vs. them" then it should be US (law abiding citizens) vs. Them (criminals). I have witnessed first hand a few times where an officer was flat out lying his ass off and another officer arrived after the fact and backed up the other officer without ever hearing the other side of the story. The other situation was similar only it involved me, and I got pissed, and I wouldn't let it go and demanded that the shift supervisor arrive. They tried to intimidate me, told me that they would arrest me impound the vehicle and even arrest the witnesses that were with me who told him that he had the wrong person. So, no, the "us vs. them" is not ok or acceptable. Once again, LE is to enforce laws and assist the public whom they work for, and damn well better do it with respect to those they serve.
As far as marksmanship goes, there are people who can shoot well and those that can't. Putting on a badge does make a person a good marksman, so yes, there are officers who can't shoot for crap. Luckily the majority of officers are not involved in a shooting. As far as police shooting the wrong people...isn't knowing your target one of the 4 rules? If you shoot the wrong person, then you must've not assessed the situation correctly and take the time to correctly identify the threat.
My problem with that is that I agree that when you belong to a group you do have an "us vs. them" mentality. But for cops, that is not an acceptable attitude to have since you work for the citizens, or the "them" as you would refer to us. The police are a professional organization (or should be anyway), and should be above that type of mentality. If LEO's insist on an "us vs. them" then it should be US (law abiding citizens) vs. Them (criminals). I have witnessed first hand a few times where an officer was flat out lying his ass off and another officer arrived after the fact and backed up the other officer without ever hearing the other side of the story. The other situation was similar only it involved me, and I got pissed, and I wouldn't let it go and demanded that the shift supervisor arrive. They tried to intimidate me, told me that they would arrest me impound the vehicle and even arrest the witnesses that were with me who told him that he had the wrong person. So, no, the "us vs. them" is not ok or acceptable. Once again, LE is to enforce laws and assist the public whom they work for, and damn well better do it with respect to those they serve.
As far as marksmanship goes, there are people who can shoot well and those that can't. Putting on a badge does make a person a good marksman, so yes, there are officers who can't shoot for crap. Luckily the majority of officers are not involved in a shooting. As far as police shooting the wrong people...isn't knowing your target one of the 4 rules? If you shoot the wrong person, then you must've not assessed the situation correctly and take the time to correctly identify the threat.
TRGRHPY writes:
I'm sure many officers wished they could have taken their time. Let's not Monday morning quarterback. Mistakes happen in all occupations where innocent people are injured or killed, that's the reality of it all. We are all human and subject to mistakes. We all have made them at one point or another, and will probbly make others as we go through life. Let's just hope they are small mistakes, and kept at a mininum.
I'm sure many officers wished they could have taken their time. Let's not Monday morning quarterback. Mistakes happen in all occupations where innocent people are injured or killed, that's the reality of it all. We are all human and subject to mistakes. We all have made them at one point or another, and will probbly make others as we go through life. Let's just hope they are small mistakes, and kept at a mininum.
Tom Servo
Member
Slomo brings up a number of good points. I've seen some dreadful shooting on the part of LEO's. I've also seen some truly frightening safety/marksmanship issues with civilian "gun people."
I think we're just more inclined to notice when it comes from LEO's.
I've asked about police qualifications before, and while they vary, they all fall far short of what I'd consider acceptable (with the exception of the FAM quals, which are brutal). The plain fact is, back in the "old days," officers grew up shooting. There were alot more Bill Jordan types up until the 1960s.
In the modern world, it's quite normal for someone to show up at the academy having never handled a gun in their life before. There's a limited amount of time and budget the department can devote to training new shooters, so something has to give.
That usually means qualifications are made easier. It's the nature of bureaucracy.
Personally, I think qualifications should be much more stringent. Ammunition and range time (and possibly mentoring) should be given to officers as they think they need. Of course, this translates into money, which has to come from somewhere.
Thus the catch-22.
All this is easy for me to say, because I work a predictable 40-hour work week, with a normal sleep schedule. I'm not under the stress police officers encounter, so it's no big deal for me to make time a couple of times a week to shoot.
There are some great shooters in law enforcement, but that percentage is falling with time. I'd argue that they all need to be great shooters, but the sad fact is, they're not given the resources on an institutional level.
I think we're just more inclined to notice when it comes from LEO's.
I've asked about police qualifications before, and while they vary, they all fall far short of what I'd consider acceptable (with the exception of the FAM quals, which are brutal). The plain fact is, back in the "old days," officers grew up shooting. There were alot more Bill Jordan types up until the 1960s.
In the modern world, it's quite normal for someone to show up at the academy having never handled a gun in their life before. There's a limited amount of time and budget the department can devote to training new shooters, so something has to give.
That usually means qualifications are made easier. It's the nature of bureaucracy.
Personally, I think qualifications should be much more stringent. Ammunition and range time (and possibly mentoring) should be given to officers as they think they need. Of course, this translates into money, which has to come from somewhere.
Thus the catch-22.
All this is easy for me to say, because I work a predictable 40-hour work week, with a normal sleep schedule. I'm not under the stress police officers encounter, so it's no big deal for me to make time a couple of times a week to shoot.
There are some great shooters in law enforcement, but that percentage is falling with time. I'd argue that they all need to be great shooters, but the sad fact is, they're not given the resources on an institutional level.
I routinely shoot at a range that is also used by local law enforcement.
Several officers shoot regularly....and as a result shoot well. But unfortunately most officers only show up in the weeks prior to their certification.....and shoot poorly. (And they are regular and repeat violators of range safety rules.)
Several years ago, a traffic stop turned into a pursuit...which ended with the officers using a spike strip to deflate the car's tires. The officers (8) closed to within 25m of the suspect's vehicle. When he did not respond to their order to exit the vehicle, they opened fire. After over 100 rounds from issue sidearms (Glock .40cal), patrol shotguns and patrol carbines (M4s) were fired at the occupant, he opened the door and exited the vehicle......unscathed.
Officers were firing at the drivers side of the non moving vehicle from approx 25m, and the subject in plain view (no excessive window tint, etc). The car looked like swiss cheese with bullet holes from front to rear. I consider that an example of poor marksmanship and poor shot placement.
Several officers shoot regularly....and as a result shoot well. But unfortunately most officers only show up in the weeks prior to their certification.....and shoot poorly. (And they are regular and repeat violators of range safety rules.)
Several years ago, a traffic stop turned into a pursuit...which ended with the officers using a spike strip to deflate the car's tires. The officers (8) closed to within 25m of the suspect's vehicle. When he did not respond to their order to exit the vehicle, they opened fire. After over 100 rounds from issue sidearms (Glock .40cal), patrol shotguns and patrol carbines (M4s) were fired at the occupant, he opened the door and exited the vehicle......unscathed.
Officers were firing at the drivers side of the non moving vehicle from approx 25m, and the subject in plain view (no excessive window tint, etc). The car looked like swiss cheese with bullet holes from front to rear. I consider that an example of poor marksmanship and poor shot placement.
Officers'Wife
Member
Gramps used to tell the story of 6 deputies trying to shoot a dog @ 75 yards with their service weapons. He shot it with his rifle without destroying the brain need for the rabies examination.
On the other hand there is a pistol range in Pulaski County Indiana where I watched a White County deputy make shots with a sidearm I would have said were impossible.
Bottom line, some police officers are well versed and professional with their tools. Others could care less as long as they can pass muster.
Selena
On the other hand there is a pistol range in Pulaski County Indiana where I watched a White County deputy make shots with a sidearm I would have said were impossible.
Bottom line, some police officers are well versed and professional with their tools. Others could care less as long as they can pass muster.
Selena
Dan the Man
Member
Well, getting back to the initial topic. Again. There is not a lot of information, especially regarding citizens' marksmanship. Here are a few interesting pieces of information:
1. Peace officers involved in violent encounters had a hit rate of 39-41% at an average range of 21-25 feet.
2. The assailants of peace officers involved in the same encounters had a hit rate of 68-91% at an average range of 14-15 feet. It was noted in the study that the average range was misleading, as one incident occurred at 70 feet (no hits). The majority of the incidents occurred at 0-10 feet. Police average distance was longer because the range increased as the encounter played out.
In the encounters studied, 90% of the time the assailant fired first. So, police officers had a hit rate of about 40% while under fire (sometimes wounded, sometimes fatally). The study notes that the assailants generally were 'point shooters' (didn't use sights), had been in previous gunfights, and practiced.
(note: above information from 'Violent Encounters' published by the FBI)
For citizens, data is sparse and wildly variable. Using BJS information, citizens use their guns for defensive purposes 62,300 times per year. In that time, they commit about 200 justifiable homicides. There are anywhere from 40 million to 80 million gun owners in the United States. In any year, approximately 19 million of them actually shoot the guns they own (i.e. go to a range or some place and pull the trigger...). I found no information on hit rates by citizens in violent encounters.
Continuing with justifiable homicides, citizens generally commit theirs while interrupting a crime. Peace officers generally commit theirs while stopping an assault.
I think one of the misapprehensions I see in this thread is the belief that citizens are better shooters than peace officers because of experience with both groups at the range. The average gun owning citizen doesn't go to the range, and doesn't shoot their gun. The fact that someone is at the range indicates they are already well above average for citizen gun owners.
I see a lot of comments denigrating peace officers' marksmanship, so I suggest a course of fire based on a friend's personal experience. In his first gunfight, he had 0% hits in 15 shots from a high-cap .45. Of course, looking back, he understands why and he has made adjustments. He has done better since. Anyway, you will need a friend. He will need a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 7 1/2 shot. Place one B-27 target at 20 yards. Keep your gun at low-ready. You'll need a nearby barricade for cover. When your friend is ready, he should shoot you twice with a 12 gauge shotgun in the leg and back. You should then move to cover, and fire at the B-27 silhouette. Your friend should shoot you any time you expose part of your body outside the cover. I haven't tried this myself, because I note my friend has arthritis in the knee, hip, and hand from where he was shot. He still occasionally has surgery on his knee when a shot pellet works its way behind his kneecap. (note: please don't really try this. Its meant for illustrative purposes only.)
And so, summing up all this information (plus information from this thread and others like it)...I conclude:
The average peace officer is a better marksman than the average citizen gun owner.
The 'committed shooter' citizen gun owner is a better marksman than the average peace officer. By 'committed shooter', I mean one that actively participates in shooting sports, attends shooting schools on some frequency, and/or gets to the range once per month (or maybe every other month...I'm flexible).
Once you get to the kind of level described by 'committed shooter', I conclude there isn't a difference in marksmanship skill between citizens and peace officers. (i.e. a 'committed shooter' peace officer will, on average, shoot the same as a 'committed shooter' citizen).
At the very top end, I believe the best sport-shooters are citizens, not peace officers. I don't necessarily believe that those very best sport-shooters are better than the very best peace officers in a gunfight. That's one for more speculation.
Regards
--Dan
There is not a lot of information, especially regarding citizens' marksmanship. Here are a few interesting pieces of information:1. Peace officers involved in violent encounters had a hit rate of 39-41% at an average range of 21-25 feet.
2. The assailants of peace officers involved in the same encounters had a hit rate of 68-91% at an average range of 14-15 feet. It was noted in the study that the average range was misleading, as one incident occurred at 70 feet (no hits). The majority of the incidents occurred at 0-10 feet. Police average distance was longer because the range increased as the encounter played out.
In the encounters studied, 90% of the time the assailant fired first. So, police officers had a hit rate of about 40% while under fire (sometimes wounded, sometimes fatally). The study notes that the assailants generally were 'point shooters' (didn't use sights), had been in previous gunfights, and practiced.
(note: above information from 'Violent Encounters' published by the FBI)
For citizens, data is sparse and wildly variable. Using BJS information, citizens use their guns for defensive purposes 62,300 times per year. In that time, they commit about 200 justifiable homicides. There are anywhere from 40 million to 80 million gun owners in the United States. In any year, approximately 19 million of them actually shoot the guns they own (i.e. go to a range or some place and pull the trigger...). I found no information on hit rates by citizens in violent encounters.
Continuing with justifiable homicides, citizens generally commit theirs while interrupting a crime. Peace officers generally commit theirs while stopping an assault.
I think one of the misapprehensions I see in this thread is the belief that citizens are better shooters than peace officers because of experience with both groups at the range. The average gun owning citizen doesn't go to the range, and doesn't shoot their gun.
The fact that someone is at the range indicates they are already well above average for citizen gun owners. I see a lot of comments denigrating peace officers' marksmanship, so I suggest a course of fire based on a friend's personal experience. In his first gunfight, he had 0% hits in 15 shots from a high-cap .45. Of course, looking back, he understands why and he has made adjustments. He has done better since. Anyway, you will need a friend. He will need a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 7 1/2 shot. Place one B-27 target at 20 yards. Keep your gun at low-ready. You'll need a nearby barricade for cover. When your friend is ready, he should shoot you twice with a 12 gauge shotgun in the leg and back. You should then move to cover, and fire at the B-27 silhouette. Your friend should shoot you any time you expose part of your body outside the cover. I haven't tried this myself, because I note my friend has arthritis in the knee, hip, and hand from where he was shot. He still occasionally has surgery on his knee when a shot pellet works its way behind his kneecap. (note: please don't really try this. Its meant for illustrative purposes only.)
And so, summing up all this information (plus information from this thread and others like it)...I conclude:
The average peace officer is a better marksman than the average citizen gun owner.
The 'committed shooter' citizen gun owner is a better marksman than the average peace officer. By 'committed shooter', I mean one that actively participates in shooting sports, attends shooting schools on some frequency, and/or gets to the range once per month (or maybe every other month...I'm flexible).
Once you get to the kind of level described by 'committed shooter', I conclude there isn't a difference in marksmanship skill between citizens and peace officers. (i.e. a 'committed shooter' peace officer will, on average, shoot the same as a 'committed shooter' citizen).
At the very top end, I believe the best sport-shooters are citizens, not peace officers. I don't necessarily believe that those very best sport-shooters are better than the very best peace officers in a gunfight. That's one for more speculation.
Regards
--Dan
I think that it depends on the INDIVIDUAL too and his or her skills. That goes for shooting up close and personal or far away. Hunting, swimming, boating under sail or power, running, hiking, you name it. Talent, practice and skill with the firearm of your choice or ANY other object aka TOOL.
I think that it depends on how much a person practices along with the SKILL of that person.
Some people can 'practice' often but they don't have the SKILL of a good gun man/lady because they keep repeating the same old mistakes.
Some people do not practice as a Citizen or legal immigrant.
They may only have to QUALIFY once a year, twice a year, etc.
Perhaps it is a physical problem or their eyes for the person although they have to pass a physical for most jobs including the military.
I shoot better with a handgun than I do with a rifle due to an old injury, bad fall, I rolled and screwed up myself, broken arm, weakness, arthritis, etc. I wear eyeglasses and have since the age of 5 years old. I now have bifocals but tend to be 'near sighted'.
I learned on a handgun and I PREFER a handgun.
I am NO expert but I can and would defend myself. I shoot for self defense reasons and I 'plink' too. I was taught for UP close and personal shooting = self defense. I don't hunt but I do go on hunts to observe. I prefer to fish.
Come to think of it, at my former outdoor range, at a bowling pin shoot, there was a policeman who shot pretty dang good. Of course, he practiced OFTEN and he even let me shoot his gun. Vice versa.
Some men and ladies are 'naturals' too. Great eyes, good vision in all ways, strong hands/arms, good REFLEXES, etc.
Catherine
I think that it depends on how much a person practices along with the SKILL of that person.
Some people can 'practice' often but they don't have the SKILL of a good gun man/lady because they keep repeating the same old mistakes.
Some people do not practice as a Citizen or legal immigrant.
They may only have to QUALIFY once a year, twice a year, etc.
Perhaps it is a physical problem or their eyes for the person although they have to pass a physical for most jobs including the military.
I shoot better with a handgun than I do with a rifle due to an old injury, bad fall, I rolled and screwed up myself, broken arm, weakness, arthritis, etc. I wear eyeglasses and have since the age of 5 years old. I now have bifocals but tend to be 'near sighted'.
I learned on a handgun and I PREFER a handgun.
I am NO expert but I can and would defend myself. I shoot for self defense reasons and I 'plink' too. I was taught for UP close and personal shooting = self defense. I don't hunt but I do go on hunts to observe. I prefer to fish.
Come to think of it, at my former outdoor range, at a bowling pin shoot, there was a policeman who shot pretty dang good. Of course, he practiced OFTEN and he even let me shoot his gun. Vice versa.
Some men and ladies are 'naturals' too. Great eyes, good vision in all ways, strong hands/arms, good REFLEXES, etc.
Catherine
Sunray
Member
"...how often police hit their target..." Dunno. I do know that the days of cops being shooters before they got hired are long gone. Most of 'em, just like military recruits, have never seen any real firearm before they got hired. Their degree/education is more important.
When I shot ISU(same idea as NRA bullseye), long ago, we regularly shot circles around the TO cop team. Mind you, some of 'em would show up with their service revolver(long ago) to target shoot. No trigger job, no adjustable sights, etc. Good guys, for the most part, though.
When I shot ISU(same idea as NRA bullseye), long ago, we regularly shot circles around the TO cop team. Mind you, some of 'em would show up with their service revolver(long ago) to target shoot. No trigger job, no adjustable sights, etc. Good guys, for the most part, though.
Shung
Member
Just one question Catherine. I know I am not in the USA, and maybe you have no words for that, but how would you call us swiss for example ? We are Citizens, or Civilian, whatever, but get a military training and equipment for 4 months.. and than 3 weeks a year for ar least 6 or 7 years (more if you are an officer..)
"Week-end warriors" seems fine to me, but it seems that the term is already in use..
"Week-end warriors" seems fine to me, but it seems that the term is already in use..
Vern Humphrey
Member
Head shots have three advantages:
In combat, the head is often the only part of the enemy you can see.
In practice, adopting a higher standard (head versus center of mass) produces better shots.
Head shots tend to demoralize the enemy.
Over many years of quiet observation, I have noted that the sole difference between LEOs' and non-LEOs' shooting competency is the individual's commitment to practice. I have noted high quality shootists, as well as poor quality shootists in both walks of life.
My BIL was a terrible shot before he became an LEO. As he prepared to enter the academy, he committed to considerable practice. He eventually achieved "Expert" classification. He wore that uniform pin with great pride. Not all of his fellow officers had that, nor even the "Marksman" pin. Some had no pin at all.
The community took great pride in our LEOs who made commitment to achieve excellence.
My BIL was a terrible shot before he became an LEO. As he prepared to enter the academy, he committed to considerable practice. He eventually achieved "Expert" classification. He wore that uniform pin with great pride. Not all of his fellow officers had that, nor even the "Marksman" pin. Some had no pin at all.
The community took great pride in our LEOs who made commitment to achieve excellence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
