It has been suggested that there is no connection between results on the range and in the real world.
Skill is skill and it can be measured. A firearm is inanimate and has no idea what it is being pointed at. An ability to consistently, quickly and accurately engage combatants in a fight or an animal in the field will yield similar results on the range, provided the targets and course of fire resemble the real world problem. A person that can’t reliably hit a target on the range won’t magically obtain that ability in the woods.
Some time ago the NYPD published findings in their SOP 9 study of Police combat. 300 hundred comparisons were made between qualification scores and the officer’s result in a fight. A connection between them was not established.
I am not surprised.
No, this doesn’t mean I’m contradicting myself. The problem here is LEO, military and other public sector qualifications are typically poorly designed and intended to be passed, or even maxed, at a low level of skill. Using most police or military qualifications as a measure of shooting skill is like using a simple arithmetic test intended for second graders as a measure of mathematics knowledge. Even scoring 100% doesn’t mean much.
Here’s an example.
While at Camp Bullis a group of us were practicing for an upcoming NATO-designed handgun shooting competition. We were shooting the old 221 EIC course, which consists of eight fairly quick strings of fire on scored Figure 11 silhouettes. Soldiers on shooting teams from every NATO country shot this course for well over two decades. Despite having literally Olympic-level competitors attempt it, this course has never been cleaned. Out of a possible 180 points the best shooters are happy with anything over 170.
Amongst our group scores ranged from highs in the 170s for the better, experienced competitors and lows in the 70s-80s for the newer, less skilled shooters. That is a 100 point difference in scores on a 180 point course, indicating the range of skills in attendance.
Upon completion, the OIC had our group finish the day with an official US Army pistol qualification (Alternate Pistol Qualification Course) to satisfy our annual qualification requirements because the Army, stupidly, doesn’t count competition as qualification.
Everyone in attendance shot 100% on the APQC qualification. Not a mere “Expert” score, mind you, which allows a few misses, but 100%. According to the qualification results, everyone in our group was a perfect pistol shot beyond an “Expert” rating and all equally good. Yet, as our previous scores on the more stringent course of fire indicate, there was a large range of skills. This qualification is so poorly designed that it is incapable of measuring skill beyond a novice level. Most police qualifications suffer this fault as well, so the SOP 9 results are no surprise.
Range results can be reliable indication of real world skill IF the course of fire used is relevant to real world needs and is a reliable measure of skill.
KR
Sep 18, 2011 @ 08:57:39
Tom Givens of Rangemaster gives this example in his classes: NYPD shoots 50 rounds a year and averages < 30% hits in gunfights. Their range drills are old school timed fire PPC-esque courses of fire. LAPD shoots 50 rounds a month, on more IPSC/IDPA-esque courses of fire, and are hitting 80%+ of their shots. Tom's own students (56 of them in the past 5 years), trained on the type of defensive pistol drills common at private sector schools, are also hitting 80%+ of their shots. Frequency and quality of training play a huge factor.
Roger Conroy
Sep 18, 2011 @ 09:24:29
Makes some good points. I scored 230 on the local police pistol qualification course (out of 250), but find myself about halfway down in the annual LE International Invitational Shoot.
a) It is more difficult
b) top shooters aren’t always local police, but USBP
I’m also not at the top of SASS competition, even thought I’ve been doing that for 7 years. I can’t always practice on a regular basis and shoot more for enjoyment, but still do better than 1/2 the LE guys, who sometimes only shoot for qualification.
Sounds like we all need more practice.
Tim Busse
Sep 18, 2011 @ 17:20:18
Johnny B, tell us what you really think!
Buss, OUT!
John Veit
Sep 19, 2011 @ 08:36:55
Odd to see someone on a gun blog promoting the banning of guns???
Let me explain:
Pistols are lethal tools. They are for killing are they not?
They certainly are not just for making noise.
So, if one says that one must practice a certain amount or qualify a certain way, to establish proficiency in the use of a such deadly weapon, then it also follows that to protect the public, pistols should be taken away from anyone who has not done just that, been certified as a proficient shooter, and regularly gets certified by a government agency ever so often, like at least every six months.
Excuse me.
That that will go over like a lead balloon in the world of the gun. :)
———-
Most past Police and military shooting quals required most all shooting to be done at non gunfighting distances, which is sort of an oxymoron if you think about it.
———-
As I understand it, the SOP 9 was not able to establish a connection between range and street results.
It did establish that most all gunfights occur at less than 21 feet, and FBI stats show that if you are going to be shot and/or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet.
Ergo, if you practice at distances exceeding that, you are oxymoronically practicing at distances that have little relevance to the real world if you have a lethal weapon for self defense purposes.
Basically and statistically, distance training = bad training, and it will ill equip you for real world encounters.
(A pistol is not a rifle, so why shoot one like it is.)
———-
Moreover, in real world life or death CQ situations (< 20 feet), our instinctive FoF response kicks in and makes moot the statement and conclusion:
"Skill is skill and it can be measured. A firearm is inanimate and has no idea what it is being pointed at. An ability to consistently, quickly and accurately engage combatants in a fight or an animal in the field will yield similar results on the range, provided the targets and course of fire resemble the real world problem."
An apple is a fruit. An orange is a fruit. Ergo: apples = oranges.
———-
Would like to see a presentation of the LA stats in SOP 9 form . And ditto with the Givens stats.
(What makes the SOP 9 stats credible, is that 5,000 plus combat cases were studied. So, even if some data was not good, the affect on the findings would be small.)
John Veit
Sep 22, 2011 @ 10:24:07
I like pineapple upside down cake, but not upside down thinking when it comes to advice about living or dying in shooting situations.
I think it is fair to say that the prime criteria for judging the effectiveness of a shooting method is: is it useable, effective in terms of a high hit rate, and has it resulted in a reduction of officer casualty rates in real gunfights.
The SOP 9 tells us what is used or useable, not what one thinks should be useable.
But rational thinking and hard data has yet to deter those who continually attempt to convince others that square pegs can be pounded into round holes and vice versa.
For example, most trainers and gun maker catalogues, have pictures showing a two handed grip rather than a one handed grip that the stats have established as being what really is used in gunfights where there is the greatest chance of one being shot and/or killed.
And that erroneous way of shooting in real combat, is currently and continually reinforced in words and videos as being what one is to do.
Also, I just read a new article on learning how to manipulate the trigger to increase precision when shooting fast and at distance. Reads great, but according to the literature, in a real combat situation you will have a crush grip on your gun, and secondly, in a real on the street gunfight, you won’t be shooting at distance.
And so it goes in the land of the gun, or are we in OZ. :-)
And don’t get me going on using the sights or the FSP technique in CQB. :-)
In response, some might say, but if all you really need do to be able to shoot effectively in most every armed encounter, per the studies and stats, is learn to point shoot at less than 21 feet – which is not difficult, and depending on the method, requires little if any training – what will trainers do, or how will I or my team be able to show the world whose the bestest ever at pistol shooting.
Grant Guess
Sep 29, 2011 @ 08:40:02
Where the connection REALLY comes is when those people doing the range firing are shooting in high-stress, high-level competitions. They do that for a while and learn how to deal with the mental stress, they will be far more effective “when the caca hits the fan” shooters.
karlrehn
Sep 29, 2011 @ 09:15:47
Jim Cirillo – the famous NYPD officer who was in 17 documented gunfights – was also a PPC competitor. In his book “Guns Bullets and Gunfights”, he recommends participating in firearms competition as useful training (for fundamentals and for learning to shoot under stress) and comments that “none of my gunfights were as stressful as some of the matches I shot”. His book should be required reading for anyone interested in the topic in this thread.