I’ve run a number of guest articles about point shooting vs. sight shooting. One of the comments posited by point shooting advocates against sight shooting is that the low hit rates among law enforcement personnel is due to shooting everything with the sights at distance. So, how does an actual, current law enforcement pistol qualification break this down?
AACOG (Alamo Area Council of Governments) runs the AARLEA (Alamo Area Regional Law Enforcement Academy) and I am an adjunct instructor for them.
During the firearms portion of every class we shoot a qualification that exceeds TCLEOSE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education) standards and is a requirement for graduation.
The 50 round qual we’ve been using for the last several years for all classes has 88% of the shots fired at 21 feet or less and 20% shot at three feet from retention and incorporating movement. Everything at nine feet and less is shot one handed and all shots within potential contact distance of the target is shot from retention.
That is how actual, current law enforcement qualifications are being run today.
Note I haven’t mentioned time limits. In truth, when used at all, they are overly generous. This “progressive” approach, while getting distances more realistic, don’t take the time frames into account. Lower level shooters pass that might have otherwise received more remedial training had the challenge been higher.
Firearm User Network 
Dec 28, 2011 @ 13:49:50
Tom Givens often cites the following stats in his classes: NYPD officers shoot 50 rounds, twice a year, in a PPC/bullseye course of fire, and hit less than 30% of their shots in real incidents. LAPD Metro division officers shoot 50 rounds or more per month, in IPSC/IDPA style courses of fire, using aimed fire, and they hit > 80% of their shots in real incidents. Anyone that has put any time in mastering the handgun, particularly practical/defensive handgun, knows these truths:
1) Most shots are missed not from improper sight alignment, but as a result of jerking & yanking the trigger.
2) There is no “point vs sighted” shooting. It’s not “A or B” as the solution to every shot at every distance. The larger and closer the target, the less precise the sights have to be aligned; the farther and smaller, the more the sights are needed.
3) Those that learn to use their sights can quickly learn to go faster and “see less”; those that learn “point shooting” often have terrible trigger control and struggle to get acceptable hits on smaller and farther targets. (In Tom Givens’ data set of 56 student-involved shootings, most occurred at ranges less than 15 feet, but one occurred at 20 yards. In that incident, the one shot fired hit the attacker in the “X-ring” and stopped the fight.)
4) Competence with a handgun requires frequent, realistic practice. That means drawing, moving, shooting from cover, shooting humanoid targets (and partially exposed humanoid targets), with realistic time limits. The “everyone needs to qualify today” mindset of law enforcement and military programs, and the desire to run many shooters all in parallel, on a square range, often causes handgun training in these institutions to fall back to bullseye/PPC style courses with overly large targets (B27) and overly slow time limits. The 90 round IDPA classifier is an excellent test of practical handgun skills, as is the 6 round “FAST” drill from Todd Louis Green. Sadly most law enforcement and military shooters would be hard-pressed to score at the 50% mark on these tests – at least based on my observations of them, because the amount of practice required to get to that 50% level exceeds the time programmed for handgun training and qualification.
LikeLike
Dec 29, 2011 @ 10:14:53
In Texas the LE quals are being run like that which from what you describe is practical. However you will find a wide variety of qual courses that do not represent what is happening in your state. Most do not include movement, low light, or even reloads. Be glad your way above the curve
LikeLike
Jan 04, 2012 @ 09:03:00
I must agree with KR on several fronts. I think Clint Smith said it best many years ago, “you use the sights… unless you can’t” It is that simple. It is the environment in which you are thrust that makes that determination. It is always a mix, not an either / or proposition. Also, officers in the real world shoot people, not targets, and that carries with it far more implications than what sighting method is “best” as described by any shooting instructor. The more tools you have in the box the better. Each is better in any given circumstance, neither is superior to the other.
I would also agree that firearms training for police officers should revolve around frequency and applicability. The more frequent the better. Shooting guns, especially pistols is a very perishable skill, at the very least it degrades quickly. The longer you go between shoots the more likely you are to have a degraded skill level. If you have ammo constraints shoot less ammunition but more frequently. Add force on force or other simulation training, but frequency is key. Training needs to be real and as closely as possible replicate real shootings in real environments. Courses with large targets, no time limit, no stress, and no requirement to move are nothing more than tests of accuracy, not the ability to win a gunfight. Qualifications that allow you to hit 50 percent of the time insure you will do far worse in the real world. We have not had an officer involved in awhile, but similar changes I made at our department saw our hit ratio go through the roof. Post this change we had a 100 percent hit ratio for the next four shootings. In one case it was through a chain link fence at 25 yards.
The bottom line is pretty simple, police officers should be training for gunfights, not accuracy contests. The more rounded the training the better. Officers need to be accurate, but they need to be accurate while moving, from kneeling or prone, from behind cars, walls, through fences, and under stress. Keeping it real is critical.
LikeLike
Jan 04, 2012 @ 11:15:47
I think that AARLEA (Alamo Area Regional Law Enforcement Academy) pistol qualification standard represents a sea change in shooting dogma in that it recognizes: the distance in which most all handgun shootings occur, and where one has the greatest chance of being shot or killed, as well as the effective distance for the use of handguns, and that shootings are not static situations.
If the course materials present a rationale for the qualification components, I would like to see it or them here, or get a copy. And ditto for the particulars of the COF as to stages, distances, etc.
Of particular interest would be information on the technique used for retention shooting, and information on the technique for shooting while moving.
I am not aware that such a bold qualification standard as the AARRLEA’s serves as a basis for any non governmental handgun shooting classes.
That information would be of great benefit to the general gun owning population who have a handgun for self defense. (Airsoft guns or any toy gun can be used for skill development.)
……….
As to the LAPD stats or Tom Givens’ stats and what they mean, I have never seen them presented with the study details in support of them, and which one then can use to arrive at reasonable conclusions as to what would be best to use or do in close quarters situations.
……….
IMHO, the NYPD’s SOP 9 study of over 6,000 (six thousand), police combat cases, though old, is a good place to start when considering what would be best to use or do in a real time close quarters situation.
As many readers here know, I am an advocate of what I call Aimed Point Shooting or P&S, which is very effective at close quarters distances, and in particular when there is no time to use the sights or meet marksmanship requirements, or when conditions negate their use.
LikeLike
Jan 04, 2012 @ 20:41:24
Hi John,
Been looking for the TCLEOSE firearms shooting requirement that is supposed to be exceeded via the ACCOG qual. Found one that seems to be an old school “a pistol is just another kind of rifle” requirement, and one that seems more modern. ???
LikeLike
Jan 05, 2012 @ 13:30:59
TCLEOSE website is here:
http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/
LikeLike
Jan 05, 2012 @ 23:18:41
These newfangled electronic communication devices leave me a bit cold, John.
I was a radio op in the Army and we used dits and dahs, and a voice communication alphabet that is now dust.
We also had radio teletypes for comm between Division and Corps on our duece and 1/2s with ring mounted fifties. etc…
Got to shoot it now and then, which was fun for me.
Guess I’m obsolete.
Can you provide a link to the page that details the qual COF and stages, or at least directions as to where it is.
Thanks.
……….
PS Once had the opportunity to do a ground to air com – for a plane that pulled a sleave that was shot at by ground AA guns down in Kansas.
The AA (not ACK ACK ACK but CRACK CRACK CRACK) guns are really loud close up as I remember.
The planes call sign was flypaper 17 which I thought was cool as our call signss were like: kklqp this is z799q, how do you read? (which were dull and more so when sent as dits and dahs).
That was then this is now.
LikeLike
Jan 06, 2012 @ 08:38:24
Sorry your Google is broken. I emailed the courses directly to you.
LikeLike
Jan 06, 2012 @ 17:15:47
John was nice enough to send me the AACOG and TCLOSE quals.
Here’s most of a e-mail I sent him about that, and his response:
“Thanks very much for the quals you sent via e-mail.
I had found some info on the TCLEOSE qual on the web, which was similar to the TCLEOSE pdf you sent. The one you sent shows 26 of 50 shots fired at 45 and 75 feet.
To my thinking that is extremely unrealistic given what is known about CQB shootings.
So I guess my question should have been a 2 part question.
1. Does TCLEOSE accept the AACOG qual as equivalent?
2. Is TCLEOSE going to revise their qual to bring it in line with the AACOG qual?
……….
> 1. Does TCLEOSE accept the AACOG qual as equivalent?
Yes. Actually, the AACOG course we use exceeds the TCLEOSE requirements.
TCLEOSE requirements only dictate the number of shots fired, distances used, and time limits for certain strings of fire, such as those having mandatory reloads. Their course is a sample only. Texas PDs are free to create their own as they see fit provided they stick to requirements. AACOG’s COF does.
>> 2. Is TCLEOSE going to revise their qual to bring it in line with the AACOG qual?
No idea, however, every Texas PD is free to create their own course so the sample TCLEOSE is not mandated for any department.
LikeLike
Jan 06, 2012 @ 21:36:09
IMHO, institutionalized quals have been and can be almost insurmountable barriers to data and science based shooting advancement, and improved Officer and civilian self defense shooting.
When manualized (cast in stone), they directly affect shooting training by dictating what one needs to learn to do, to qualify.
Here are the FBI 1988-1997 stats on LEOs Feloniously Killed detail
and the distance between victim Officers and Offenders.*
Feet. …..###…… % of
……………633
0 — 5……337………53
6 — 10….132………21
11 – 20…..73………12
21 – 50…..53………..8
over 50…..38……….6
86% were killed within 21 feet.
I think that training and quals should reflect that reality. Further, shooting beyond the 21 foot kill zone, requires learned behaviors which conflict with those needed to shoot effectively in the kill zone. And if ingrained, they may/will cause confusion and conflict as to what to do in a real life or death situation, and that may/will result in the death of both Officer and Civilian victims.
* (I got the stats from an FBI doc.)
LikeLike
Jan 06, 2012 @ 22:42:13
Another data table:
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed with Firearms
Distance Between Victim Officer and Offender, 1994-2003
Total Killed – 568 — %
0 – 5 feet —- 286 — 50
6 – 10 ——– 122 — 22
11 – 20 ——– 60 — 11
21 – 50 ——– 47
Over 50 ——- 43
Distance not reported 10
83% were killed within 21 feet.
LikeLike
Jan 07, 2012 @ 10:05:06
The following data is from the old but still good NYPD SOP 9 study of over 6000 Police combat cases.
From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 Officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.
Contact to 3 feet … 34%
3 feet to 6 feet …… 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ….. 9%
The shooting distances where Officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.
Contact to 10 feet … 51%
10 feet to 20 feet …. 24%
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
As the distance between the Officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.
The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.
Also, Officers with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand. The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and qualification is subject to question.
LikeLike
Jan 08, 2012 @ 10:05:10
Good article on this topic by Dave Spaulding on PoliceOne.com http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/4925417-Point-shooting-versus-sighted-fire-Why-the-debate/
LikeLike
Jan 09, 2012 @ 00:34:46
Here are lionks two new one’s just posted to my site that are based on the realistic AACOG standard, and the outlandish and bizarre comments made by 2 noted instuctors on PoliceOne who should know better, and whose words if taken as truth, could result in the shooting and or death of Officer and civilian victims alike.
Talking about shooting and quals and shooting distances is very very serious business.
http://ww.pointshooting.com/1aquals.htm
and
http://www.pointshooting.com/1adetro.htm
I have formated the articles to match the format used here, and am sending them to John under separate cover.
Hopefully, they will then appear here and be open to question and comment on the vital issue of life or death in real gunfights, and the distances in which there is the greaterst chance of your being shot and or killed.
LikeLike
Oct 23, 2012 @ 13:57:59
Oct 23, 2012 @ 13:58:51
Oct 23, 2012 @ 13:59:05
Oct 24, 2012 @ 10:38:03
Oct 24, 2012 @ 10:38:35
Jan 14, 2013 @ 08:17:43
Shooting with non dominant hand, etc. - Page 3 - Shooters Forum
May 31, 2015 @ 13:55:00
Apr 04, 2016 @ 07:22:58