Round count and training hours for total novice

[Tired_and_hungry]

I am based in a South East Asian country and had the chance to speak to a local off duty cop at a social event. He mentioned that most youngsters there who did not participate in the local version of JROTC would never have fired a gun in their lives and when the time came to be drafted for a compulsory 2 years of uniformed service, those draftees assigned to the police force showed mediocre pistol skills even after attending the mandatory revolver training at the academy. He went on to mention that side arm training involved 3 hours of classroom instruction, 3 hours of dry fire practice and 6 man hours spent in live fire practice at the range where most of the time was spend waiting your turn while others shot their training ammo allotments. He concluded by telling me that each police cadet was given 200 rounds to train with and 50 rounds to qualify with the .38 special revolver that is standard issue. He lamented that even though cadets were given two tries at a 25 round course of fire, most failed and had to have their scores "fudged" in order to graduate as rookie draftee cops.

Therefore, lemme ask you guys....if you were the weapons training officer in charge of a bunch or military police/coast guard or civilian police trainees who are total novices to handguns, how many manhours and how many rounds of training ammo AT THE MINIMUM for each individual would be required to turn zero competence trainess into personnel who could shoot well enough to do their jobs, protect their and the lives of others and handle handguns safely?

Please assume that the issue sidearm is a common .38 revolver or 9mm pistol.

 

[David E]

Jeff Cooper found it took 25 hours to get revolver shooters up to an acceptable level. (auto shooters took 20 hrs)

While I'd like 1000 rds each, I could do quite a bit with dryfire and those 200 rds if I had to.

If I were given 12 hours as stipulated above (altho 6 man hours on the range could mean less than 6 hrs for the shooter) and presuming that ALL I had to teach was how to shoot a gun, I'd spend one hour in the classroom, 8 hrs dryfire and 3 hrs on the range.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I agree with David E. It isn't the number of rounds available, it is the level of instruction...most of the skills needed to become competent with a handgun can be taught prior to getting on the firing line

 

[BCRider]

I've been "lucky" (?) enough to act as a safety officer for a lot of first time shooters. And I meand a LOT. I filled in part time for two years at a commercial Rent-A-Gun range.

I found that about 1 in 4 did well right off the bat with a bit of explanation. Or if they started rough it only took a suggestion to try to get good. The rest were simply put... abysmal.

A few of those which did well the first time out came back and I got to be the attending safety officer. About 1 in 4 did as well the second time out. The others came back full of piss and vinegar convinced that they were the next succesor for Harry Calahan. But instead they had developed a king size flinch issue. About half of those were able to be corrected.

So all in all I'd say about 1 in 6 to maybe 1 in 8 would be able to pass a shooting skills test after a training regimen as described.

You THR folks don't count. The simple fact that you're all here testifies to how smitten you were. We're talking about a cross section of the Great Unwashed Masses....

 

[David E]

But I'm talking about teaching those "unwashed masses" within the given time and ammo.

The only thing that would thwart me would be the "I already know everything, so there's nothing you can teach me" attitude. I typically find that among gun braggarts of mediocre skill.

 

[BCRider]

A passable skill for MOST should be possible given some dry fire and other non loaded training followed by a 200 round budget. But it would require darn near one on one training to ensure they don't waste the rounds. Hell, in a lot of cases 200 rounds would be just enough to cement in a great flinch issue.

And I agree, the macho guys with all the attitude are the ones which will tend to fail unless by some odd chance they get it right off the bat.

And one thing that would be a certainty. In only 200 rounds the shooter will simply NOT commit all this to muscle memory. For many of us 200 rounds is a short evening of shooting. So unfortunetly the whole thing would be a blur for a lot of gun unfriendly or nervous candidates that would be forgotten shortly after the qualifier is done. Even if they somehow make it through the qualifier with an honest passing grade I'll bet a dozen E-donuts that within a month or less the skill will be too rusty to re-pass the same qualifier.

So I guess I'm changing my tune. 200 rounds is simply not enough. Now if it were 300 to 400 at first then 100 a month from there on in to maintain the skills or hopefuly better them then I could see the officers progressing. But it sure doesn't sound like that's what is happening.

 

[David E]

I'd be curious what the 25 rd "qualification" course consists of.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Thanks for asking our advice.

I have no idea what my answer would be if I could come up with one, so I will answer the question that I COULD answer, and think it actually might be doable and one possible solution to your acquaintance's dilemma.

Since every officer carries a virtually identical 38 revolver, I would add one more sidearm to the training inventory and as many rounds as it takes (in place of the 200 practice 38s) of 22 rimfire.

A single 22 rimfire in the same model revolver as the duty 38s would provide for a LOT more practice time (and cadets would not stand around in line waiting, but make appointments for range and gun use).

Practicing with the 22 is a lot cheaper than with the 38, feels very much the same and, I think, could be with a lot lower ammunition cost and to a higher degree of marksmanship, possibly in less time than with centerfire ammo.

There's a lot to be said for proficiency maintenance with duty ammo, but for novice training, a low-recoiling and cheap but accurate ammunition is the best place to start. Add recoil and muzzle blast AFTER handling familiarization, sight alignment, trigger control and "hot range" safety behaviors are well established.

Lost Sheep

 

[Trebor]

A lot depends on how motivated the student shooter is.

I've had brand new shooters, we're talking "never touched a gun before" who were doing very well after a single three hour session. But, they WANTED to be there, wanted to learn to shoot, and were spending their own time and money to learn.

For draftee's, who don't want to be there, and have no interest in learning to shoot other than the fact it's required, sometimes it won't matter how much time you spend. If they aren't motivated to learn, most of the teaching will go in one ear and out the other.

 

[coalman]

Ergonomics of the gun to shooter matter too. I shoot the Glock 30 better than 9mm Glocks that I have 10x the # of rounds through. Same for the 1911 vs. 9mm Glocks. The CZ, SIG and XD vs. Glock, too. The 9mm Glocks require much more practice for me to retain proficiency; the 92FS as well.

 

[David E]

Coalman, I agree, but it doesn't sound like these folks get a choice in the matter.

 

[beatledog7]

Proficiency is not driven by hours or round count. It is driven by the quality of instruction and the attentiveness and natural talent of the learner.

A dedicated, motivated learner with some natural ability, a grasp of the concepts, and the right coach might achieve proficiency in ten minutes with a couple dozen rounds.

Conversely, a hapless instructor and a clueless, flighty student could work for weeks and go through thousands of rounds without accomplishing anything.

 

[coalman]

Coalman, I agree, but it doesn't sound like these folks get a choice in the matter.

Understood and agreed. However, a key concept I hoped to communicate is some shooters will require more or less practice/training depending on platform. It's not just about innate "skill" or ability to learn; it's also about an individual's ergonomic compatibility with the platform. I think many people overlook or ignore this thinking practice/training trumps all.

Training/Practice does not "fix" ergonomics, though it can help mitigate it, even to the point of near elimination. Fatigue and stress though will amplify ergonomics as instict (e.g. point shooting) kicks in. Choose a gun with compatible ergonomics and you start out ahead IMO.

The first time I shot the XD I shot it as well as or better than Glocks I'd fired for years. Same with the 1911, the CZ and SIG. All these (XD, 1911, SIG and CZ) are SA guns (or can be fired SA). Glocks can be a difficult gun to shoot well at first and take more trigger time IMO to retain skills.

I think the Glock 19 is a near perfect 9mm. But, I shoot it very poorly. Buying it five times and putting >25k downrange did not change how well I shot it. I got better, but still fired the G17 and G26 better. And, the Glock 30 and 1911 WAY better. My issues were amplified in drills or anything other than two-hand, solid stance, aimed, slow fire. The ergonomics just don't work well with my hands. I've accepted this and no longer waste ammo, range time or my nerves in frustration trying to master it.

 

[David E]

I've always said its silly to fight your own equipment when you can choose your own equipment.