Surprized by the inaccuracy of a LEO

[jfrey]

I've shot with several local officers whose main concern was hitting the target, from a tactical basis. My main concern when I shoot is those little 3 inch or smaller groups I make in the target. It comes down to a case of perspective in a lot of cases. I too would have expected the officer in question to be a better shot but the fact remains that most LEO's aren't gun people. I practice with funds from my own pocket because I want to improve. If it takes the same from an LEO, then so be it. MY tax dollars aren't buying me any extra ammo.

 

[searcher451]

Some of the comments in this thread to date bring to mind this recent High Road thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=517850

It's not a flattering comparison, I might add.

 

[Sam1911]

Some of the comments in this thread to date bring to mind this recent High Road thread:

Can you be a bit more specific? Aside from the fact that the officer was a woman, which really isn't cogent to the discussion, how is this analogous to the discussion of chauvinism in gun shops?

 

[Manco]

No inherent accuracy in the M&P.

My M&P is just as accurate as any other service pistol I've shot (and I've shot most of the well known ones). Maybe you were shooting 9mm in an M&P40.

Some of the comments in this thread to date bring to mind this recent High Road thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=517850

It's not a flattering comparison, I might add.

Some of the cops I've seen who had difficulty even hitting the paper were guys, so what are you trying to say?

 

[rugerman]

I have several friends who are leo's and some love to shoot and some hate it, the best way to turn the haters around is to make the practice fun. Some of the guys that hated shooting the most were also the most competive and once we made it fun then they became some of the best shots in the group because they hated to lose, its also fun to yank their chains.

 

[Sunray]

"...she IS A POLICE OFFICER..." And? Most of 'em had never seen a real firearm prior to being hired. The training they get is inadequate too.

 

[Dwrice]

The problem is there are a lot of officers who never spend a day in the military so the first time they had any formal firearms training is when they went to the academy.

 

[S&Wfan]

I applaud her for trying. I had a similar instance at an area outdoor WMA range a couple of years ago.

I'd raced out on my lunch hour to check out a new (to me) 1964 S&W Model 36 .38Spl. snubbie . . . and walked up on a lady Probation Officer and her husband. Turns out she was working hard to prepare the next week for annual qualifications . . . and she was all over the B-27, at 25 yards. Her technique was absolutely atrocious, and her firearm was a Glock Model 23.

I quickly set up a sheet of 1" black square targets at my usual 10 yards to test the accuracy of the little M36 and put five rounds INTO the little black square, standing/unsupported. They came over to remark about my target, and I truly felt terrible. I'm sure it had to be discouraging to her to see what I could do with a snubbie so, I put it away.

We all spent about 15 minutes before I left shooting the breeze. I wish I could have helped her but for these things to happen I feel a person needs to be invited. She had the ability to shoot well I feel, but she had a lot of serious little flaws in her technique.

As another mentioned, the most effective tool a cop has is his/her brain . . . and she might just be a better officer due to her ability to keep the peace via NOT using a gun. You can't take back a bullet you've just launched. I hope she passed her quals.

 

[1911Tuner]

There are a good many people who can't seem to shoot for sour apples on a target, but tighten up when the situation is real. I know a guy who couldn't shoot a 3-inch group at a hundred yards from a sandbag with a half-minute rifle to save him...but if he locks onto a groundhog at 400 yards, and the piggie will stand still for a half second...splat.

 

[GLOOB]

Heh?

I'm surprised when ANYONE can shoot a pistol worth a lick. Watching average shooters, whether LEO, military or civilian, makes me feel like a superhero.

On the other hand, watching action movies sometimes makes me think I could use a tad more practice.

 

[Avenger29]

The problem is there are a lot of officers who never spend a day in the military so the first time they had any formal firearms training is when they went to the academy.

Because the military is renowned for it's weapons training

(in reality, the weapons training in the military is just as inadequate as many PDs)

 

[RobMoore]

Depends on the branch

 

[Sport45]

The shooting skills don't surprise me a bit. The sidearm, thankfully, is probably the least used tool in an officer's inventory.

I don't expect them to all be able to handle a car like a professional stunt driver either.

 

[Drail]

As a former NRA instructor I have seen many LEO qualifications and it became apparent to me that their marksmanship is only as good as their training and their trainers. Sadly the adminstrative fools who write the checks for most departments would much rather spend money on high tech equipment than range time. This has also become the case at the Pentagon. They would rather fund aircraft that are so expensive they can only purchase a handful and truly believe that today's recruits either cannot be taught expert marksmanship or that it is simply is not "cost effective". When the likes of Robert McNamara were allowed to have authority over funding decisions for the Dept. of Defense in the early sixties the question became "how much will it cost to get the numbers we need" and "is there any way we can do it cheaper" instead of "how can we make them the best in the world and ensure their chances of coming home". When the bottom line is money, performance suffers.

 

[Sam1911]

The problem is there are a lot of officers who never spend a day in the military so the first time they had any formal firearms training is when they went to the academy.

Because the military is renowned for it's weapons training

(in reality, the weapons training in the military is just as inadequate as many PDs)

Very, very few military personnel receive more than the most cursory handgun training. A Marine infantryman will generally have a very good idea of the principles of marksmanship, but only so much translates to defensive/LEO handgun use.

 

[WardenWolf]

The fact that she was a woman probably did factor in some, although not like you would think. Men generally have larger and stronger hands and wrists, and this would certainly have an effect on her ability to use her weapon. If the weapon did not fit her hand well, she would have a much more difficult time shooting accurately with it. Some law enforcement agencies allow their officers to qualify to carry alternate weapons, at least once they've qualified with the standard issue weapon. One weapon does not fit everyone equally well, and this may simply have been a poor fit for her.

 

[RobMoore]

A Marine infantryman will generally have a very good idea of the principles of marksmanship, but only so much translates to defensive/LEO handgun use.

I think what does translate, if the Marine paid attention in grass week, is the trigger press and visual patience to execute the press even when the sights are not perfect. That, combined with the habit of pressing the trigger in a way that doesn't move the gun.

"Letting go" of the desire to instantly snatch up the trigger when the sight picture you desire is seen is a hard thing to break with limited training. Marines get a whole week of dry fire.

 

[Jefferson Herb]

LEO's - shooting

In the navy in the late 70's,all you fired in Boot Camp was a 22 rifle,and not much at that.I would speculate that firearms training in the military varies according to Rate/mos.
As one person recommended,take a .22 to range with you,and is probably one of the best tools/factors in shooting well.Cheap[well was],lack of recoil,can be had in models close to the revolver/pistol you carry,and allow you to see you're mistakes. This concept is wery good when shooting the Magnums we feel we need ,and if you've fired a sporter .338 you understand.
It's interesting that many of the trap shooters in my area are LEO's,active and retired,and they burn a lot of powder and use pounds of lead shot.
If you do bring a .22 to range ,throw in an extra box of shells,you never know who you'll change the life of by putting a smile on their face.If minor is involved ask parent,but it's great to watch a youth fire a 22-250 at 200 and punch the x-ring.

 

[Sam1911]

In the navy in the late 70's

A friend of mine from back in my PPC league days has a daughter who is (was?) a Navy MP (K9, in fact) in Norfolk. While he is a great pistol shot, she was in danger of losing her position becasue she could not qualify with the M9 handgun. There was no (or absurdly little) practice time or ammo provided and her entire exposure to her sidearm was limited to strapping it on at the beginning of her shift, and clearing it and returning it at the end of her shift -- all ammo accounted for. She was so concerned that she called her dad and asked for help.

He drove down from MD one weekend, took her out to a local gun store and helped her select and buy a Beretta 92F -- just like the duty gun she wasn't able to shoot on official duty. This being a more-or-less "free" state, they walked out the door with it in 15 minutes and headed for a public range. After a few hours of coaching she was doing great and she went on to pass her quals with no trouble.

(And then she was nearly killed by another K9 MP's dog, but that's beside the point.)

 

[Onward Allusion]

I would dare say that most LEO's only shoot to qualify. It's a job not a hobby. This is one of the main reasons I purchase law enforcement trade-ins; carried a lot but fired little...

nerd-with-a-gun
Surprized by the inaccuracy of a LEO
I was at the range today for a little lead therapy after a very frustrating day at work. In the lane next to me was a LEO shooting at the same type target as me (a standard B-27 silhouette) at the same distance (10 yards). Her target looked like it had been hit with buckshot although she was using a S&W M&P semi-auto. There wasn't a bullet hole within 6" of the 10 ring. Now I have only been shooting since December of 2009 and I can pretty much consistently get 50 out of 50 in the 9 ring with 20+ in the 10 ring. Now I am not trying to brag, I just like shooting and my goal when I started out was to be able to get all of my shots in the 8 ring at 7 yards within 3 months of practice with my .357. I have achieved my goal plus, but the accuracy of the LEO next to me really surprised me. I thought that a LEO should be able to shoot better than that.

This is no negative comment on you LEOs out there that read this forum, but am I not wrong to think that a LEO should be able to do better than that? If you looked at her target, if it were a real bad guy, she might have disabled his right arm, and that is about it. Not one shot was anywhere near a vital area of the body.

 

[PT1911]

a story was once relayed to me about a traffic stop in which the perp pulled a gun.... lets back up, the perp was in a LARGE suv.... So, the policemen pull the guy over and his gun comes into view... each of the policemen empties his Glock and not only do they miss the perp (hiding behind the door of his SUV) THEY MISS THE SUV!!!!!

As stated, not all LEO's are gun people, it is a sad truth. If only the anti's new that the great majority of their would-be saviors are less proficient and familiar with their sidearm than are the every day citizens that they are wishing to disarm.

 

[thezoltar]

Well, lots of opinions here all over the landscape. The one thing I've noticed is a lot of folks are obsessed with a 'tight group'. I know of at least one federal agency that trains to avoid this in the interest of maximum effect of energy placement. Sometimes you hit exactly what you are aiming at even though each shot goes to a different place. Probably doesn't apply in the case of the OP, but just a thought to consider.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

As a Tax Payer I believe it is a reasonable expectation that the LEO's in my Town and County know how to shoot at least good enough to pass the TX CCW Test. IMO if a gun is part of your tool box you dang sure owe it to yourself to know how to handle it.

 

[Onward Allusion]

It's not just about the group. Grouping is one indicator of shot placement and it is always good to be consistent. I shoot center of mass groups and arms and head. Heck, I even sometimes try to draw a smiley face.

If you shoot a 3 shot group that is low and to the left, you can adjust your aim, stance, & trigger pull. However, if you shoot all over the target, how do you know if your shots are landing on where your aiming and that it wasn't just luck?

It's about consistency - without groups, you can't work your shot placement and all the other stuff that goes with good marksmanship.

thezoltar
Well, lots of opinions here all over the landscape. The one thing I've noticed is a lot of folks are obsessed with a 'tight group'. I know of at least one federal agency that trains to avoid this in the interest of maximum effect of energy placement. Sometimes you hit exactly what you are aiming at even though each shot goes to a different place. Probably doesn't apply in the case of the OP, but just a thought to consider.

 

[nitetrane98]

The Texas LEO qualifying course is so ridiculously easy that if you take all of the time allowed in most stages one can easily print up nice little tennis ball sized holes. Our instructor was not overly impressed with tight groups. He urged us to speed things up a bit if he thought we were Bullseye shooting out there. Of course some needed every second to put up a basketball size group but a few of us "shooter types" competed to get the first round off and holster first. Doing that did spread the group a little. But then you worked to tighten the group with more speed. There was always some point where speed affected accuracy too much. Just as in IDPA etc, certainly in a gunfight, you cannot miss fast enough to win.

It's always a tradeoff. TCLEOSE, the Texas LE qualifying agency, does not specify a course of fire. The trainer who designs the course of fire has to strike a happy medium. He could easily design a course where none but the most highly proficient shooters would be able to squeak by with a 70 %.