Shooting proficiency of the average police officer

[JustinJ]

I'm by no means a master but seeing the targets of others after the shooting portion of my CHL renewal class was alarming so to some degree i see the reason for concern. In reality though the majority of people i know with a CHL rarely, if ever, carry. It seems for the most part that the people who do actually carry do also practice somewhat.

 

[Sam1911]

One reason police have low hit rates is their tactics. Police shoot down doors and cinder block walls. They lay down suppression fire and use other military tactics. There is no way to get an fair and accurate count of how many rounds it takes for a LEO to hit a suspect.

I apologize ahead of time if you meant that as a joke.

They WHAT? Suppressive fire and police tactics in a society at peace have nothing to do with each other.

Entry teams do occasionally shoot locks, but they have shotguns for that task, very specific procedures, and often special ammo because they know the risks of stray rounds harming an innocent or bystander.

 

[2DREZQ]

The average police is not what I would consider "proficient". Nor is the average handgun owner in the USA. If I had to guess I'd say the average police is probably a little better than the average non-police.

Exactly.

Two cops in my hometown. Both friends of mine. Cop One shoots well, and often, collects guns and is an avid hunter-quit being a LEO and makes far more more money driving an ice cream delivery truck. Cop Two, was afraid to shoot his Beretta rapid fire after quarterly quals, thought it might damage the pistol. Shoots well enough to easily qualify, poorer than many regular shooters like myself, but better than most pistol owners I've seen on their once every 3 years trip to the range. (Is now a full-time jailer, no longer on patrol)

I think cops get a bad rap because these real-world shootings under life-or-death stress are compared to a sunny day at the range by armchair experts, both pro and anti alike.

 

[Old Dog]

One of the reasons I try to stay out of these cops-can't-shoot-well threads is statements such as this:

One reason police have low hit rates is their tactics. Police shoot down doors and cinder block walls. They lay down suppression fire and use other military tactics.

Just plain horse poop, those statements. We do NOT train to "shoot down doors and cinder block walls." As for "suppression [sic] fire" -- not even worth responding to ...

As a certified firearms instructor for my department, our main emphasis is Rule 4 and ensuring clear field of fire should one find one's self in a deadly force encounter in the community.

I warrant the average shooter in my department is easily a better shooter than the average NON-COMPETITIVE civilian shooter. As an aside, I wonder how many critics here actually ever shoot timed courses for score? With the threat of losing one's livelihood hanging over one's head as a consequence of a couple bad days on the range?

 

[DammitBoy]

He reasons that if "highly trained police officers cannot hit their target, there is no chance civilians will be able to hit their target with a handgun".

Can't this easily be proven by statistics involving civilians vs police in shootings and measures of accuracy?

 

[Iramo94]

I have several friends and family members in a large department (2500+).
They had two weeks of "use of force" training in the academy, then they requalify every year.

Can they outshoot some of the pros on this forum?
No.

Can they outshoot the average gun owner?
Hell yes.

 

[DammitBoy]

So are there records and stats that would prove or disprove the claim that the police are either better or worse than civilians in shootings?

Anybody?

 

[razorback2003]

Most police that I have seen are pretty decent shots. I have seen one that had a 5946 Smith and Wesson about 10 years ago and the target looked like a shotgun pattern from within 5 yards.

I have seen folks shoot pretty bad at the range who got a license and couldn't hit the target.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

Not all military qualifications are the same. I had a shooting qualification in the military called "Battle March and shoot." It involved team fireman carry a LIVE person in full vest, helmet, and combat load while you wore the same gear for 1.5 miles. Then you had to drop that person down, administer an IV. Turn and shoot at a head/shoulders target at 100 meters from standing with an M16. Run 100 meters and shoot at the same target from prone. Any shots that didn't strike a vital area got points deducted, drop too low on points and that meant no graduation. To top it all off this was during Georgia in August. I have not had to do a course of fire that difficult as an LEO.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Shooting proficiency of the average police officer

There is no 'average' kemosabe.

Average means 50 percentile as in mediocre ability.

Kind of like 'average height' or 'average weight'.

LEOs need to get pay raises if they make expert ON A DEMANDING COURSE. They need free or very low cost ammo. They need skilled outside instructors now and then to give classes. They need TIME to practice.

Most importantly they need to be brought up in a gun culture where guns are not bad or evil or to dangerous to touch.

Only then will you see and overall increase in real marksmanship from the cops.

Deaf

 

[mister_murphy]

So are there records and stats that would prove or disprove the claim that the police are either better or worse than civilians in shootings?

Anybody?

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by prove or disprove....

I hear this quoted alot..."Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal."

Which is also on http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf and states:

Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:
Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. [146]
In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

So you have a link to the "news paper" study, and a clip from it...So, with that said, at what distance do most self defense shootings take place? At what distance to what police shootings take place? If both an average non police officer and an average police officer are shooting at someone at 25 yards defending theirself, will there be a huge difference? I doubt it...The main reason this study is skewed is twofold...first, its a study based on a newspaper. Secondly, At least locally speaking, most non police self defense situations are at point blank range, and also with a shotgun usually. Most police shootings are with a pistol at some distance, generally at least 10 yards, if not more, and also at a moving target. Should we compare the same event, police, vs non-police, the results would be similar, if not an edge toward the police since they generally have to shoot once a year. Most folks with a ccw do not have to shoot every year. Some folks with a ccw have not shot a firearm since they went through their ccw class.

Edit to add...

I guess it also depends on a persons view of innocent. You can search and find results for folks on death row who are "innocent" but again with this study its an "innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal." So...Since its based off of newspaper clippings, just what exactly is an "innocent person thought to be a criminal?" The study doesnt say...

 

[jrmiddleton425]

You're (not you personally) are really trying to compare apples to oranges. If you're even SLIGHTLY involved in competition, you will shoot more than the average beat cop.

For example, the DHS-standard basic pistol course is 25 yards standing, 12 shots/12 minutes, (2) strings of 6 rounds, 24 seconds per string, (1) string of 6 rounds, 12 seconds. 30 shots, 150 possible points, 114 needed to qualify. Quals every 6 months.

I'd bet most people shoot more than this breaking in a new pistol in an afternoon.

 

[mister_murphy]

You're (not you personally) are really trying to compare apples to oranges. If you're even SLIGHTLY involved in competition, you will shoot more than the average beat cop.

For example, the DHS-standard basic pistol course is 25 yards standing, 12 shots/12 minutes, (2) strings of 6 rounds, 24 seconds per string, (1) string of 6 rounds, 12 seconds. 30 shots, 150 possible points, 114 needed to qualify. Quals every 6 months.

I dont know abot DHS, but as I mentioned here in NC at 25 yards an officer has 60 seconds to fire 12 rounds, 6 standing, 6 prone, with a mag change, and on top of that, the "average beat cop" doesnt have a competition to worry about, he has his pay check, career, retirement, and family riding on his qualification. I wish I would have 12 minutes to fire 12 shots qualifying without risking my job! Kinda hard to compare losing your job to losing a competition. It can be more pressure then some folks realize at times...

Also, I know nikn10 mentioned wanting to test hisself against a LEO qualification type shoot. Its kind of hard to test without having the pressure of losing your job if you fail. I do better shooting the same course with friends then I do putting my job on the line when I qualify.

If a person really wants to compare an "average police officer" to an "average non police officer" lets compare stats as to 2 shootings at the same distance with a very similar target (stationary or moving for both) and see how it goes...My bet it would be similar as to the results. Also I am comparing average against average. Im not trying to compare a regular top competition shooter to a LEO who shoots only at qualification. Id love to compare several different groups of shootings, that involve an average LEO defending his/herself at "X" distance vs an average non LEO defending his/herself at "X" distance, who both have similar skill level. Again, I will say if we are comparing 2 shootings that are very similar in regards to distance, target, cover, skill, etc, the results will more then likely be similar. There is nothing that makes a LEO better then a non-LEO, and there is nothing that makes a non-LEO better then a LEO if both are the "same average" and face the same type of threat/target.

 

[Smokin Gator]

"Also, I know nikn10 mentioned wanting to test hisself against a LEO qualification type shoot. Its kind of hard to test without having the pressure of losing your job if you fail. I do better shooting the same course with friends then I do putting my job on the line when I qualify. "

This should really only be a factor for those officers who know they have trouble qualifying. For those who are comfortably above the minimum standard, it shouldn't matter much.

Isn't it pretty rare for a dept. to actually time and score officers during qualification and identify them as Expert or whatever you would call someone who barely qualifies? From what I've seen, a very high percentage of depts. will only have pass or fail.

Mark

 

[Steve in PA]

I'm a LEO and a LEO firearms instructor, so I have lots of experience in how LEO's shoot.

LEO's are just like a slice of society; some are great shooters, some are good shooters, some and okay shooters, and some are.......well, less than okay.

All have to pass a minimum standard. Some try to score as high as possible, some are middle of the road while others are happy to make a passing score.

 

[9mmepiphany]

We always timed and scored every qualification...granted we only awarded shooting medals once a year...Expert needed a mid-80 percentile score.

My main objection were the overly generous time limits...12 rounds with a reload from 25 yards in 90 secs is pretty leisurely; I think it would be at least more challenging in 30 secs

 

[Smokin Gator]

What did they call the various levels for those that qualified? I still wonder what percentage of depts. are willing to identify officers as having just qualified or being experts vs those that stick to the pass/fail recognition. Mark

 

[Warp]

In my experience the average police officer is less skilled with a handgun than the typical avid shooter, which regulars on a forum like this frequently are.

Also, IME, the average police officer can more safely handle firearms than the average private citizen/civilian who owns guns and I'll bet the average LEO is a better shot than the average licensed citizen. But my perception might be colored by what I see at the public ranges when I go.

The fact that LEOs have a standard to pass at least goes a long way towards guaranteeing that the floor for their competency is a lot higher than it is for the average private citizen.

In terms of arguing against the antis, point out there are literally millions of licensed carriers out there, and there has been for years (many states have been shall issue for decades)...then ask them to show you where licensed carriers have shot innocent bystanders. These cases are extremely, extremely rare. It is not enough of a concern to limit carry licenses...or require training.

Personal note: I went through most of a police academy a few years ago. This included all of both basic and advanced firearms at a dept that had more firearms training than many, and more stringent qualification standards than most. (they have their own course done quarterly that is faster than the state mandated course and involves movement, cover, tac reloads, and combat reloads)

Out of my class (30 initially, 11 prior military) I had the highest qualification scores. The running joke/gag was that I learned to shoot out of a book (I did, had no training until I went there), which was hard for some to comprehend.

 

[JohnKSa]

There are officers that tend to be "involved" with firearms. They achieve a high degree of proficiency. They are interested in the weapons, the gear, the ammunition, the training. They see this as an important part of their job.

There are also those who are not "involved". They carry the weapon because they have to. They are not interested in firearms or shooting, and only attain such proficiency as necessary to qualify. (and that's a pretty low standard on most departments)

This.

As an interesting aside, I've run into one researcher who firmly believes that the reason the .45ACP/1911 gained such a favorable reputation in LE was because the 1911 was not a common issue weapon during that era and officers who wanted to carry one usually had to buy it themselves. It follows that those who were willing to go to that expense fit into the "involved" group. As you point out, that type of officer generally places a premium on proficiency. Proficiency is obviously a huge asset in a gunfight.

Those carrying the issue weapon tended to fit into the "uninvolved" category and therefore were more likely to do only what was necessary to remain qualified. Their reduced proficiency resulted in a lower level of success in shootings and, naturally, that was often blamed on the gun/cartridge.

His belief was that it was the proficiency of the "involved" officers that built the reputation of the cartridge & platform and that, in reality, it had little to do with anything related to terminal effect and much to do with the associated proficiency levels.

It's an interesting perspective to consider--one that highlights the difficulty of establishing cause and effect, even after a strong correlation has been established.

Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal."

This is an unrelated issue. It has nothing to do with marksmanship. It's not that the cops miss more often, it's that they tend to arrive on the scene later than the bystanders and they are therefore a bit more likely to incorrectly assess the situation than the bystanders who saw it develop from the beginning. It's a matter of the cops mistaking someone for a bad guy more often than civilians, not of missing more often.

 

[Warp]

It has nothing to do with marksmanship. It's not that the cops miss more often, it's that they tend to arrive on the scene later than the bystanders and they are therefore a bit more likely to incorrectly assess the situation than the bystanders who saw it develop from the beginning. It's a matter of the cops mistaking someone for a bad guy more often than civilians, not of missing more often.

It's also that officers are more likely to be pro-active, more likely to take action, more likely to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others. The police are the ones who seek out the bad guys. Private citizens are more likely to be shooting when they are proverbially cornered and there is little mistaking who the threat is.

 

[9mmepiphany]

What did they call the various levels for those that qualified? I still wonder what percentage of depts. are willing to identify officers as having just qualified or being experts vs those that stick to the pass/fail recognition. Mark

Perhaps you are mis-understand. All working officers qualified, there is no recognition for qualifying...it is a requirement of the job.

Higher levels of performance are recognized with shooting medals that may be worn on the uniform...I seldom wore any of my awards or citations. The is likely a relationship between medals and department size. Smaller departments seldom have shooting medals.

Another reason for how departments track qualifying scores has to do with civil liability. There are divergent schools of thought on the pros and cons of the practice

 

[HankB]

I shoot at a range, most often the only other folks there are police.

And they are shooting pretty damn well thank you very much, and I notice it is full powered +p 40 cal HPs, not walmart bulk pack.

I'd like to know what ammo maker is providing .40 ammo marked "+p" . . .

I've seen and shot alongside police on a great many occasions; when in lived in MN I shot with a pistol club that used the police range, and we had a league that used what was at that time the Minneapolis PD qualification test - but we cut all the times in half just to make it interesting. And even so, typical scores were in the high 90s . . . and the instructors told us that many officers struggled to qualify on the original test with, IIRC, a 70.

To obtain a Texas CHL, the shooting test is based on "typical" police shooting requirements, has portions fired from 3, 7, and 15 yards, and it only takes a 180/250 to pass. First time I went through this, a woman who hit my target instead of hers . . . still passed. Which is an indicator of how demanding it is.

And in local IDPA competition, most officers that show up would only qualify as "Novice."

Yes, there are some notable exceptions - police officers who are VERY good shots. But they are rare, and most likely are on the department's pistol team. (If they have one.)

 

[dom1104]

I'd like to know what ammo maker is providing .40 ammo marked "+p" . . .

I've seen and shot alongside police on a great many occasions; when in lived in MN I shot with a pistol club that used the police range, and we had a league that used what was at that time the Minneapolis PD qualification test - but we cut all the times in half just to make it interesting. And even so, typical scores were in the high 90s . . . and the instructors told us that many officers struggled to qualify on the original test with, IIRC, a 70.

To obtain a Texas CHL, the shooting test is based on "typical" police shooting requirements, has portions fired from 3, 7, and 15 yards, and it only takes a 180/250 to pass. First time I went through this, a woman who hit my target instead of hers . . . still passed. Which is an indicator of how demanding it is.

And in local IDPA competition, most officers that show up would only qualify as "Novice."

Yes, there are some notable exceptions - police officers who are VERY good shots. But they are rare, and most likely are on the department's pistol team. (If they have one.)

Haha, nice catch.

What I mean is, they are full power Federal HP rounds. Not some watered down reloads at a steel match.

 

[Robert]

When I was in the CSP we had somewhere on the order of 100 hours of firearms training. Our average Trooper could shoot pretty well. We were required to qualify once a year but could request as much ammo for training as we could use, and were encouraged to do so. Well at least my Sgt. encouraged regular training.

But it really varies from department to department, different budgets dictate different training.

 

[abq87120]

Another factor when comparing LEOs shooting situations with those of civilians is that I read that the range for 70% of civilian SD situations is just out of arm's reach. I suspect the police tend to shoot at greater distances. I cannot cite any of these "facts". But the arms-reach is one I read online recently.