lysanderxiii
Member
Holy crap! What kind of trouble are you expecting?
So you're a police chief of a small department...
- Thread starter Charlie Horse
- Start date
- Status
http://m.ljworld.com/news/2016/sep/01/18-year-old-dead-after-reportedly-pointing-handgun/
I would train and train some more.
I would train and train some more.
Sheepdog1968
Member
I'd probably let the officers pick which weapons they want to use within reason (for example, no perazzi shotguns or Saturday night specials). They'd have to be absolutely reliable weapons which could be demonstrated by the departmental annual training I would run.
For example, if someone grew up hunting and since childhood has used rifle brand x and shotgun brand y and loved to take pistol brand z to,the range then why not let them use them. Again, within reason for which I would give quite a bit of latitude.
For example, if someone grew up hunting and since childhood has used rifle brand x and shotgun brand y and loved to take pistol brand z to,the range then why not let them use them. Again, within reason for which I would give quite a bit of latitude.
Coal Dragger
member
A small department will have little in the way of funding, and if the small town I live in is an indication and the police officers I have dealt with here are the norm, they will also have a shallow talent pool to draw from. So with that in mind I'd strongly consider not issuing them any lethal weapons at all. Maybe issue them tazers and pepper spray.
In fact observing the level of firearms proficiency or extreme lack of proficiency most large departments might consider not allowing their average officers to carry weapons on duty.
For full disclosure one of my best friends is a federal law enforcement officer, he has recently passed through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center firearm instructors course where he was the 2nd ranked instructor student. I know several of his colleagues, he is the only actively practicing shooter among them. They have access to a lot of ammo, he can't remember the last time he paid for his own ammo and he shoots quite a bit. He's also the only officer in his office that utilizes this asset. This is an agency with a pretty good sized budget for training too, not a small town police department.
He has described for me the complete futility of getting his colleagues to actually practice or take any interest in firearms proficiency aside from passing the ridiculously easy qualification. At mandatory firearms training sessions he is constantly frustrated with their lack of desire to learn new things, or actually work at performing better. If the qualification stage calls for 3 shots at 7 yards from the holster in 3 seconds for example, that is all these guys care about doing. He said trying to convince them to slow down and get good hits even in practice is like trying to teach quantum physics to his dog, and I know his dog very well and that dog is freaking dumb.
I get the distinct impression that he doesn't trust any of them to provide good backup in a gun fight. I know I wouldn't. I've seen some of them shoot. Just hold really still and wait for them to run out of ammunition and then run like heck.
Now for officers that could demonstrate sufficient skill I would allow them a tremendous amount of deference in selecting their sidearm and long gun. The only stipulation would be caliber, 9X19mm for the sidearm since modern 9mm duty loads are more than sufficient, and 5.56mm NATO for the patrol carbine and it must feed from NATO STANAG compatible magazines. I would suggest the HK VP9 as a sidearm since it is reliable, accurate, has a good trigger out of the box, can be made to fit any size of hand, and has good regulated sights from the factory. Carbine most likely a Colt M4 with a red dot sight. If an officer wanted something else then they would be responsible for the difference in cost.
In order to keep their qualification and authorization to continue to carry a firearm I would mandate weekly range practice sessions structured to work on improving performance with an emphasis on marksmanship. Not how fast can a shooter run a drill, but how well can they run the drill. Practice ammo would be provided, even if that meant that we had to reload it. An actual set qualification course would be run 3 times per year with a different and unannounced course of fire for each course, to be run with both sidearm and long gun.
In fact observing the level of firearms proficiency or extreme lack of proficiency most large departments might consider not allowing their average officers to carry weapons on duty.
For full disclosure one of my best friends is a federal law enforcement officer, he has recently passed through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center firearm instructors course where he was the 2nd ranked instructor student. I know several of his colleagues, he is the only actively practicing shooter among them. They have access to a lot of ammo, he can't remember the last time he paid for his own ammo and he shoots quite a bit. He's also the only officer in his office that utilizes this asset. This is an agency with a pretty good sized budget for training too, not a small town police department.
He has described for me the complete futility of getting his colleagues to actually practice or take any interest in firearms proficiency aside from passing the ridiculously easy qualification. At mandatory firearms training sessions he is constantly frustrated with their lack of desire to learn new things, or actually work at performing better. If the qualification stage calls for 3 shots at 7 yards from the holster in 3 seconds for example, that is all these guys care about doing. He said trying to convince them to slow down and get good hits even in practice is like trying to teach quantum physics to his dog, and I know his dog very well and that dog is freaking dumb.
I get the distinct impression that he doesn't trust any of them to provide good backup in a gun fight. I know I wouldn't. I've seen some of them shoot. Just hold really still and wait for them to run out of ammunition and then run like heck.
Now for officers that could demonstrate sufficient skill I would allow them a tremendous amount of deference in selecting their sidearm and long gun. The only stipulation would be caliber, 9X19mm for the sidearm since modern 9mm duty loads are more than sufficient, and 5.56mm NATO for the patrol carbine and it must feed from NATO STANAG compatible magazines. I would suggest the HK VP9 as a sidearm since it is reliable, accurate, has a good trigger out of the box, can be made to fit any size of hand, and has good regulated sights from the factory. Carbine most likely a Colt M4 with a red dot sight. If an officer wanted something else then they would be responsible for the difference in cost.
In order to keep their qualification and authorization to continue to carry a firearm I would mandate weekly range practice sessions structured to work on improving performance with an emphasis on marksmanship. Not how fast can a shooter run a drill, but how well can they run the drill. Practice ammo would be provided, even if that meant that we had to reload it. An actual set qualification course would be run 3 times per year with a different and unannounced course of fire for each course, to be run with both sidearm and long gun.
45_auto
Member
Based on my experience as a deputy sheriff for 8 years with an agency with about 500 sworn officers, Coal Dragger describes the ordinary local law enforcement perfectly. The vast majority of officers have no interest at all in weapons, shooting, or practicing beyond the required minimal qualification course, typically fired annually. Comparing their level of shooting skill to that of an enthusiastic shooter who shoots regularly, competes, and pursues training on his own time is like comparing their high speed driving skills (even less training there than with firearms) to a NASCAR or F1 driver. There's a reason that you don't see them in the Daytona 500!
Last edited:
Coal Dragger
member
Expecting the average LEO to seek training on their own time and their own dime is a big ask. My friend and I are attending a Pat McNamara TAPS (tactical application practical shooting) class this month, paid for out of our own pockets. His coleagues had zero interest. You know, because what could you possibly learn about shooting or fighting with your pistol and carbine from a retired Sgt.Maj. who served with 1st SFOD-D and was responsible for a lot of that units firearms training?
I fully expect we're going to get our butts kicked, but I also suspect we're going to learn a lot too.
I fully expect we're going to get our butts kicked, but I also suspect we're going to learn a lot too.
Choctaw
Member
And many in the armed forces will never hear a shot fired in anger nor go in harm's way. What's your point?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked