What does it mean to "qualify"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nachosgrande

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
282
I keep hearing military/LEO on this board referring to their having to qualify with their weapons. I'm just wondering what this entails. Distance, score, etc. Is it just standing at a range firing, or do you have to get a certain score under simulated combat situations?
 
It's a million different standards for a million different organizations.

I'm a military police officer and I can't remember ever doing the same "qualification" more than twice in my career.

A manshaped paper target at 50 meters. Fifty 9mm rounds and you had to hit it 35 times. That used to be the standard.

Recently I had popup targets ( a la hogan's alley) at 10, 15, 25, and 35 meters. 40 rounds with a 9mm. You had to score 16 hits to qualify.

It's just a way for your superiors to judge how proficient you are with your weapon.
 
pop up targets on the range for me, 20 shots from the unsupported prone position and 20 shots from the supported foxhole position. the bare min to qualify was something like 19 I believe. 36 and higher was Expert, never shot worse than 39 though. Lots of guys wouldn't shoot at the 4 300 yard pop ups cause that would leave them second shots for the other 36 targets so they could have a better chance at qualifying as an expert. Had to qualify on paper targets once as well, don't remember it as well, but it was all from the prone 20 unsupported, 20 supported and the guy to my right was left handed and somehow kept arching his hot brass over into my face.....bastard :evil: don't even recall how I did on that qual.
 
In the US Army back in 1981 in basic I qualified expert with 36 out of 40 with an M16A1. Hit all 4 of my 300 meter targets. The tricky part on our qualifying range was seeing the silhouette F-type targets and the long distance E-type targets pop up against a grass or brush background.
 
Every department/branch/organization that has armed personnel has some course of fire that must be shot at least annually and a minimum score achieved to maintain status/employment. Here in Maine the Maine Criminal Justice Academy is the clearing house for all things law enforcement and they set the standards for all LEOs, regardless of department. There is different course of fire for handguns, rifles, shotguns. You to shoot at different distances, different positions, single and mutiple rounds. You don't quaify you run the risk of losing your certification, no certification, no job.
 
Current Army minimum Qualififcation standards are as follows:

Rifle M4/M16 Required Either every 6 months or annually depending upon assignment
Standard- 23 of 40 hits on pop up targets at various ranges 50-300 meters with or without optic. Half will be from a supported position half from an unsupported position.

Alternate Qualification involves hitting 26 of 40 simulated range targets at 25 meters. Half will be from a supported position half from an unsupported position.

These days you are not considered fully qualified unless you also shoot night qualification. This table varies based upon your equipment.
 
Just qualified last month (im in the Army Reserve) 20 shots from the prone supported using sandbags at pop up targets at distances of 50, 100, 150, 200 , 250 and 300m . Then same thing but 10 rounds in the prone unsupported and then 10 more rounds in the kneeling unsupported position. All this is with full battle rattle on (kevlar, body armor, etc...) Might I add it was a very long long day at the range, I would say a good 25-50 percent of my battalion didn't even get the minimum to qualify I thought it was pretty sad that the highest score in my company was mine and I didn't even shoot expert ( I hit 35 out of 40, 36 and higher is expert)
 
"What does it mean to "qualify"?"

It means an agency's armed personnel demonstrating, and having recorded, that they meet their agency's minimum standards of proficiency with their authorized firearms. Key words:"agency's" in that the standards vary widely and "minimum" in that it the standard is often not reflective of the shooter's knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Which as I glance through the posts, is basically what WC145 already said.

Note: "Qualifying" is not "training."
 
I got sharpshooter on the M-14. I also qualified with a M-9 bazooka and a M-60 machine gun. I can't remember any score, you either qualified or not. Three from my company got to qualify. The M-9 was mostly class and safety with 3 dud rounds at a moving tank at 300 meters. We all hit it every time. The M-60 was really fun, we had all the ammo in the world and used a lot of it up. The hardest part was squezing off single shots, 3 in a row as part of qualifing. It's funny here in Florida they give you a CCW with no test, range or class time if you served in the military even though I never fired a handgun in the Army.
 
Navy 45 qualification: Suffer through a 5 minute gun safety lecture jam packed into an hour, followed by 30 rounds at a man sized target not very far away. Qualifying means putting at least 20 into the man shape. They weren't supposed to issue you a weapon you weren't qualified on. A lot of guys on my submarine never shot at all and were only supposed to pick up a wrench or improvised club if we had to repel boarders, most of the guys who qualified were the Petty Officers who stood topside watch, and some of the Chiefs and Officers. Perhaps nowadays post-9/11 it's taken more seriously.
 
Thanks for all the replies. I thought this would be a pretty boring thread, but you guys have some interesting stories. I will admit I'm fairly surprised at how weak the weapons training seems to be for both law enforcement and military. I understand there's much more to your jobs than just shooting guns, but you more than likely will at some point in your career have to rely on it for your life. Law enforcement, in particular, you have so many things going through your head at once under stressful situations that I figured you would want weapons usage to be second nature. What surprises me is that I'm hearing stories from Iraq and Afghanistan that soldiers are making kills from ridiculous distances with just a simple M16. You can't do that unless you have some serious skill with a rifle. Where are they learning that if they aren't learning it in basic?
 
It doesn't take a lot of skill to shoot great groups a tremendious distances. I qualified on an M-14 in 1966 but also fired the M-1 and M-16 and they were all amazing to me.
 
nachosgrande: "What surprises me is that I'm hearing stories from Iraq and Afghanistan that soldiers are making kills from ridiculous distances with just a simple M16. You can't do that unless you have some serious skill with a rifle. Where are they learning that if they aren't learning it in basic?"

B4 school, at Fort Benning.

Also, keep in mind some of the kills aren't exactly being made with a single round of .223.
 
==> lots of guys wouldn't shoot at the 4 300 yard pop ups cause that would leave them second shots for the other 36 targets so they could have a better chance at qualifying as an expert


Our popups (ca. 1987 (ish)) were green. The same green as the field grass and the woodline behind the range. That 300 yard bad-guy? I saw him while he was moving (popping up) but after it stood up and stopped moving ... no way, no how. Couldn't see him. Blended right into the green grass and trees (I wear glasses and have never been correctable to 20/20).


So ... yeah. I was the guy not taking those long range shots and saving 'em for a second shot at something closer.
 
Our popups (ca. 1987 (ish)) were green... Blended right into the green grass and trees.
Click to expand...
That's basically what I was trying to say earlier. A green pop up target in a grass/brush/wooded area is tough at 300 meters with iron sights. I know a lot of guys who never missed shooting their targets---they just never saw some of them pop up. I was 19 yrs old then. Now I don't think I could do it again that my eyesight has gotten so bad.
 
Last edited:
Showing my age but when I qualified in the Corps the last round was at 500 meters prone. We were hitting man size targets at that distance with iron sights on beat up M16's. That's after a week of warm up. Of course that is with 23 year old eyes......
 
nachosgrande: "What surprises me is that I'm hearing stories from Iraq and Afghanistan that soldiers are making kills from ridiculous distances with just a simple M16. You can't do that unless you have some serious skill with a rifle. Where are they learning that if they aren't learning it in basic?"

B4 school, at Fort Benning.

Also, keep in mind some of the kills aren't exactly being made with a single round of .223.
Click to expand...

yeah the stories of those amazing shots don't sound as amazing when you find out they went through 2 thirty round magazines to do it. Of course a soldier would never leave that part out of the story :rolleyes:
 
I wouldn't be so dismissive of military shooting. We were training to hit pop up targets at 500 meters in basic at Ft Lewis with the m14. And the m16 is very accurate. I don't know how they train now but our guys were pretty good with both. If you weren't there, have a cup of shut the...up.
 
I guess I will keep sipping on my cup of "keep on talking" then, since I was there. I wasn't being dismissive of all military shooting, just being realistic that not everyone in all units qualifies expert or even sharpshooter for that matter. A marksman is all it takes anyways when they have enough ammo.

Here in Colorado you can just use your DD214(I think its 3 or 5 years since you got it though). I had been out for to long though and had to take the class. I liked it though anyways, learned some useful information. Seeing as I had never shot a handgun in the military either, I wasn't upset having to go take the course. Amazing how all that other weapons training made me a great shot with a pistol as well :D
 
Thanks for all the replies. I thought this would be a pretty boring thread, but you guys have some interesting stories. I will admit I'm fairly surprised at how weak the weapons training seems to be for both law enforcement and military. I understand there's much more to your jobs than just shooting guns, but you more than likely will at some point in your career have to rely on it for your life. Law enforcement, in particular, you have so many things going through your head at once under stressful situations that I figured you would want weapons usage to be second nature. What surprises me is that I'm hearing stories from Iraq and Afghanistan that soldiers are making kills from ridiculous distances with just a simple M16. You can't do that unless you have some serious skill with a rifle. Where are they learning that if they aren't learning it in basic?
Click to expand...

Don't make assumptions about training from the answers to your question about qualifying. Qualifying, regardless of the course of fire, shows competency with your weapon at preset ranges on a predetermined target in a manner that taxes (to some degree) the weapon skills you need for your job. Many people in the military get very little weapons training beyond basic training because their jobs do not normally require them to carry and deploy any sort of weapon, they generally only qualify annually with minimal preparation. On the other hand, combat troops, those whose job it is to actually be on the frontline helping the enemy to die for their country get plenty of advanced training. They also train with a number of different weapons depending on their job.

The same goes for law enforcement. When I qualify next month I will shoot a 50rd course of fire twice, back to back, for each handgun I qualify with (I generally qualify with my duty, off duty, and BUG guns). For patrol rifle I will shoot a 36rd course of fire twice, back to back, for each rifle (probably two). We also train with shotguns and shoot a "familiarization" course. That's "qualifying". I, and every other officer training, will end up expending several hundred more rounds of ammunition during the training that we will do in addition to qualifying.

So, like Erik said, "Qualifying" is not "training". And vice versa.
 
BikerRN:

I wish the agencies would provide the training - too many LEO's consider a yearly qualification as all the training they need. You don't have to be the best shot in the world, but life isn't punching holes in paper....

Not to mention the ancient FTO who thinks flintlocks are just a passing fad.... Not that those guys don't have something to teach us, but I once worked with a Sergeant who said that he was handed a badge and a gun and told to "go out and arrest people".... I don't think he was kidding....

(I think his boss was handed a crossbow....)

My (private) Agency never really carried, but the City PD, who's butt we had to kiss, really didn't appreciate .357 revolvers, and a 9mm was the outer limits at the time.

Regards,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top