Point shooters like to use police-compiled statistics of officer-involved shooters to make their case. Because NYPD stats are often used, I went over that first. Here are some stats from Los Angeles Police Department.
LAPD
Quarterly Use of Force Report for the First Quarter of 2012
http://www.oiglapd.org/Reports/6-27-12_UOF-Rprt1stQ-2012.pdf
page 4
Officer-Involved Shootings
Officer-involved shooting incidents (not including animal shootings) made up approximately 55 percent of all Categorical Use of Force incidents in 2011, a markedly higher proportion than in previous years. As noted above, hit shootings grew at a much faster rate than did no-hit shootings, but this seems to be a ratio adjustment from 2010, which showed an unusually low hit proportion of 65 percent. In most years, about 75 percent of reported LAPD officer-involved shootings result in a person being hit, as they did in 2011. About 41 percent of all shootings in 2011 resulted in the death of the subject.
………..
http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/2010YearEndReport.pdf
LAPD 2010 Use of Force Annual Report
Page 16 (PDF 19)
LAPD hit/no hit ratio of Officer Involved Shootings is between 65-75%
Distances
Page 20 (PDF 23)
63% of all LAPD Officer Involved Shootings took place at 21 feet (7 yards) and further. If they had only trained in point shooting techniques and never past 21 feet, these officers would have been ineffective in almost two thirds of these incidents.
Within the ranges where point shooting is potentially most effective (inside 5 yards or so), 22% of LAPD Officer Involved Shootings in 2010 took place. In that same year, 30% of LAPD officers engaged at over 15 yards.
How does this compare to the NYPD?
NYPD Annual Firearms Discharge Report 2011
On Page 24 (PDF 42)
In 2011 47% of NYPD officer involved shootings took place at 6 yards and further, with 38% from 6-15 yards and 9% at 16 yards or more.
Firearm User Network 
Nov 12, 2012 @ 16:42:03
Took a closer look at the NYPD’s report, and below is another view on it’s data. Will take a closer look at the LAPD reports and come back here.
Based on the NYPD.s 2011 Annual Firearms Discharge Report, there were 36 incidents of intentional firearms discharge.
Sixty-two Officers intentionally fired their weapons during these incidents.
Of Officers discharging their firearms, 69 percent fired five or fewer times.
Three Officers fired 16 rounds each, emptying their firearms. (No Officer reloaded in any incident.)
41 subjects were involved in the 36 incidents.
Officers hit at least one subject per incident 28 times, for an objective completion rate of 78 percent.
Of the total subjects involved, 68 percent were hit.
When Officers were being fired upon, subjects were hit two thirds of the time (six out of nine incidents).
Three Officers were hit by subject fire for a subject to Officer hit ratio of 9/1.
Two other Officers were hit by friendly fire.
The majority of adversarial conflict discharges occur when the Officer is closer than fifteen feet to the subject.
Of the total of 62 Officers involved, 34 reported whether or not they had used their sights, and 15, or 44 percent of those 34, reported in the affirmative.
The following in regard to shooting technique is taken directly from the report.
WEAPONS CONTROL
NYPD firearms training also emphasizes weapons control. With regard to shooting technique, the mechanics of pistol shooting in a controlled environment include proper grip, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger control, and breath control. All of these require a degree of concentration and fine motor skills. Unfortunately, in a combat situation, concentration and fine motor skills are sometimes among the first casualties. Training can mitigate this, but officers must be taught to rely on mechanical actions that employ gross motor skills and have as few components as possible.
SHOOTING TECHNIQUE
Utilizing a two-handed grip, standing, and lining up a target using the firearm’s sights is the preferred method of discharging a firearm, but it is not always practical during an adversarial conflict. Of officers reporting their shooting techniques, 71 percent gripped the firearm with two hands. Sixty percent of officers who reported their stance state that they were standing, while 31 percent were moving or struggling. Finally, thirty-four officers reported whether or not they had used their sights, with 44 percent reporting in the affirmative.
Of 62 officers shooting, 58 responded as to whether or not they took cover. Of those 58, three quarters were not able to make use of any type of cover during the incident. Lack of cover can be a factor in the need for a firearms discharge, because a protected defensive position often allows officers to control the pace of an incident.
SHOOTING TECHNIQUE ANIMALS
Of officers who reported their shooting techniques, only 32 percent report gripping the firearm with two hands, which is radically divergent from the 71 percent of officers involved in adversarial conflict who used a two-handed grip.
This likely stems from the fact that animal attacks are often abrupt, close-quartered affairs, in which the animal rushes towards the officer and the officer seeks to ward off the animal even as he or she draws and fires. In all but one incident, the animal was within five yards of the officer.
Only three officers (7 percent of those reporting) used their sights when discharging their firearm during these confrontations, which is dramatically different from the 44 percent of reporting officers who used sights during adversarial conflict.
(Of the total of 62 Officers involved, 34 reported whether or not they had used their sights, and 15, or 44 percent of those 34, reported in the affirmative.)
This, too, likely derives from the immediacy and proximity of most animal attacks. Eighty-four percent of reporting officers indicated that they were unable to utilize cover, versus 75 percent of reporting officers in adversarial-conflict incidents.
Fully 88 percent of reporting officers stated that they were standing when they discharged, versus 60 percent of reporting officers in adversarial-conflict incidents.
In the 41 years, 1971 – 2011, there were13,059 incidents, and 37,373 shots were fired from NYPD Officers guns. A total of 3,448 subjects were shot (2,399 injured, and 1,049 killed). The hit rate was 9 percent, and conversley the miss rate was 91 percent.
Whether or not Sight Shooting training or the ad hoc use of untrained Point Shooting is to blame for the dismal hit rate, it calls out for the development of a practical and effective pistol shooting method for use in shooting situations.
I opt for some form of Point Shooting training as the first priority, with Sight Shooting taught as a supplemental skill, because per the NYPD’s SOP 9 study, it is at very close quarters where there is the greatest chance of an Officer being shot and/or killed. That is also likely to be the case for civilian encounters.
For example, 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%
LikeLike
Nov 15, 2012 @ 16:42:55
More stats:
In 2011, per the executive summary of the NYPD’s Annual Firearms Discharge Report, there were 92 firearms discharge incidents involving members of the New York City Police Department. Only 36 of the incidents were shootings involving adversarial conflict with a subject.
That stat points up the rarity of gunfights given that NY is a city of 8.2 million people, and that there are nearly 35,000 uniformed members who interacted with citizens in approximately 23 million instances in 2011. It’s also an impressive record of firearms control.
Also about 1/2 or more of the shooting in NY and LA occur from about 6 pm to 6 am when seeing the sights if there would be time to use them and you would be able to focus on them, would be problematic.
62 officers were involved in the 36 incidents of intentional firearms discharge during adversarial conflict. 19 subjects were injured and 9 were killed for a hit percentage of 78 percent using the LAPD method of scoring shooting results. 3 Officers were injured for a ratio of 28/3 or 9 to 1.
……….
Per the LAPD 2010 Use of Force Annual Report which contains data on Officers discharging their firearms at a supect/s:
In 2007 there were 51 shootings in which there were 33 hits and 18 no hits for a hit percentage of 65 percent.
In 2008 there were 42 shootings in which there were 31 hits and 11 no hits for a hit percentage of 74 percent.
In 2009 there were 36 shootings in which there were 27 hits and 9 no hits for a hit percentage of 75 percent.
In 2010 there were 40 shootings involving 75 Officers discharging their firearms at a suspect/s. There were 26 hits and 14 no hits for a hit percentage of 65 percent
In 2011 there were 63 shootings in which there were 47 hits and 15 no hits for a hit percentage of 75 percent.
……….
I think that the LAPD scoring method, if I understand it correctly, way over-simplifies the results and puts a positive spin on the results that may help one in getting a merit pay increase or a performance award, but neglects the obligation and responsibility to provide Officers with the best practical tools (including shooting methods), to use in their self defense and in defense of civilians.
The 78 percent hit rate by NYPD members does not call out loudly for investigation into and the development of more practical and effective shooting methods. However, the historical miss rate of over 90 percent certainly does, both from the standpoint of Officer safety and self defense, and the danger that errant rounds pose for civilians at or near the place of shootings.
For example, on Friday morning, 08/25/2012, in Manhattan, NY City, a gunman shot and killed a former coworker, and then he was shot and killed by the Police.
Two Officers shot 16 rounds at the man who was wielding a .45 caliber pistol after he engaged them in a gun battle. The gunman was hit 7 times for a hit rate of 44% OF SHOTS FIRED. That rate is poor, but still way better than the historical hit rate of less than 10%.
According to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, nine passersby were wounded by the police in the gun battle. Three sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments. All injuries were caused by police, Kelly said.
……….
As to the NYPD stats, they do not routinely breakout situations in which lots of rounds were fired, where multiple officers were firing, or where there were multiple hits.
However, when there are large amounts of data gathered over time, those factors will not greatly influence the miss rate, which is a key indicator of shooting effectiveness. Even making significant adjustments in the data, won’t change it that much.
In regard to shooting effectiveness, it is worth noting that all “NYPD service pistols are “double action only” (DAO), meaning they have a two-stage trigger pull for each round fired (unlike single-action weapons, which can be “cocked,” resulting in a one-stage trigger pull, which is smoother and easier).”
“Additionally, all NYPD weapons are also modified to have a heavier-than-stock 12-lb trigger pull; this diminishes the likelihood of unintentional discharges but also affects aiming. Nevertheless, it balances the fact that NYPD pistols do not have safeties, and are carried “hot,” with a round in the chamber. The NYPD uses a 124 grain, hollow-point bullet that is designed to prevent over-penetration and ricochets.”
It also makes the use of a standard marksmanship or competition grip in the middle of a CQB situation, just wishful thinking.
That’s because with a standard marksmanship or top competitor competition grip, the thumb is not supposed to push against the gun, and the index finger is supposed to be held aloof from the gun and squeeze the trigger smoothly back to the rear until the shot breaks TO INSURE THE ACCURACY OF EACH SHOT taken. And per the literature, you’ll have a crush grip on the gun, so your chance of torquing it down and around to the left with your shots falling low and left, will be great. The historical NYPD miss rate of 90+ percent attests to that.
Here’s a link to an article in Handguns Magazine shich shows pics of the grip of Brian Enos and Dave Sevigny. In the picture of Brian Enos’s grip, his thumbs do not touch the gun.
The description under the pictures reads: “Brian Enos believes one of the keys to a successful grip is having no contact by the thumbs along the side of the gun. The grip should happen strictly in the palms and fingers. Photo by Nidaa A. (Right) Dave Sevigny does touch the side of the gun with his thumbs and also considers that an important part of his technique.”
http://www.handgunsmag.com/2007/05/08/the-combat-grip/
About 1/2 or more of the shooting in NY and LA occur from about 6 pm to 6 am when seeing the sights if there would be time to use them would be problematic. There also would also be the possibility that you would not be able to focus on them anyway, due to the activation of our instinctive FOF response that occurs in real life threat situations, and which results in the loss of our ability to focus on near objects like the sights.
As to competition shooting, I doubt that making one hit per COF makes for a score of 100 percent as is the case for scoring LAPD shootings. I also doubt that double action guns with a 12 pound trigger pull are “standard issue” for competitions.
Developing muscle memory / learning habits that won’t carry over to real life CQB situations, IMHO, could be dangerous to your health if you have a gun for self defense.
Lastly, self defense shootings are CQ situations. So, unless you are a cop or a soldier, claiming self defense beyond 7 yards could land you in jail.
Here’s a link to an article by Larry Seecamp on why his guns come without sights: http://pointshooting.com/1acamp.htm
LikeLike
Nov 16, 2012 @ 09:21:38
>> I think that the LAPD scoring method, if I understand it correctly, way over-simplifies the results and puts a positive spin on the results … As to competition shooting, I doubt that making one hit per COF makes for a score of 100 percent as is the case for scoring LAPD shootings.
What you’re saying is that police officers should be held to a higher accuracy standard in training in order to improve accuracy during fights. One can’t expect to improve hit rates (accuracy) unless this is addressed and improved.
Of course, this is one of the reasons point shooting techniques fell out of favor in the first place…
>> I also doubt that double action guns with a 12 pound trigger pull are “standard issue” for competitions.
For some equipment divisions in practical shooting, equipment similar to this is what IS required. Production and Stock Service divisions in USPSA and IDPA forbid single action only (1911) handguns. Striker fired (XD, Glock, S&W M&P, etc.) or DA or DAO type handguns are required.
See, this is the problem with people unfamiliar with actual competition shooting formats complaining about alleged “problems” in competition shooting.
LikeLike
Nov 16, 2012 @ 12:51:34
>>”Developing muscle memory / learning habits that won’t carry over to real life CQB situations, IMHO, could be dangerous to your health if you have a gun for self defense.”
Explain please. The only reason it may not carry over is that it has not been trained in enough in the first place to actually become muscle memory or learned habit. What you are saying appears to be that the human animal is not capable of learning anything that will stick in a fight. If that were true, no person would ever have performed their training in a gunfight, or in times past, a swordfight; no martial artist would have ever performed their training in a fistfight; no soldier would have ever performed as trained under fire; no fighter pilot would ever have kept on top of their flying and manuevering in a dogfight. I find all that impossible to believe, and have never read a word of history to make me think this was the case – for properly trained people. For insufficiently trained people on the other hand, it would seem to be the case more often than not. So the question becomes one of “how much training do you need to make it stick in an adrenalin bath”.
>>”Lastly, self defense shootings are CQ situations. So, unless you are a cop or a soldier, claiming self defense beyond 7 yards could land you in jail.”
Not if the perp has a long gun pointed at you or someone else from further away, or maybe is a gangbanger banging away at you from across the street. Criminally-applied deadly force does not have a 7-yard range limit. If you have some legal precedent that says so, please provide a citation.
LikeLike
Nov 16, 2012 @ 13:02:04
As to accuracy, a miss rate of over 90% means to me that the shooting method taught and used is a very bad joke. And because those who are trained to use it are sent into life or death combat, it presents a clear case of reckless endangerment on the part of the Brass and trainers who approve of and train employees to use it.
I also am aware that there are “stock” competitions and have visited competitions where “stock” guns were used.
I also doubt that most of the top competitors who are mentioned as models of how to shoot, use DOA guns with 12 pound trigger pulls.
And then ther’s the question of the loads used, ported barrels, fancy sights, etc.. For example, not being critical, but in the video of the shooter shooting the rack of plates, there is very little muzzle jump seen in the part of the video where the gun can be seen. That could be a result of repetitive training.
I think that Police and the millions of civilians who have a firearm, are deserving of more than a shooting method that has a proven miss rate of more than 90 percent of the time when used in life and death close quarters situations where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed.
If “we” can put a man on the Moon, you would think that “we” could come up with a shooting method that has an effectiveness rate of more than 10%.
How about jumping out of a plane with a parachute that has such an effectiveness rate?
No thanks,
LikeLike
Nov 16, 2012 @ 19:00:48
John V.,
>>”As to accuracy, a miss rate of over 90% means to me that the shooting method taught and used is a very bad joke. And because those who are trained to use it are sent into life or death combat, it presents a clear case of reckless endangerment on the part of the Brass and trainers who approve of and train employees to use it.”
Your stubbornness in not grasping my point is impressive.
Again:
It is training time, not method, that matters most up front. The training has to be done well enough to stick when the flag flies. That goes for your precious point-shooting method too. Cops inadequately trained in your method would do just as badly.
The method won’t matter if it’s not ingrained. A miss rate of over 90% tells ME that the shooters are INADEQUATELY TRAINED in a method that has already been proven to work, regardless of your not having seen video of it.
Get it? INADEQUATE TRAINING.
Get it at all?
No, you don’t, and probably never will. Oh well. Maybe I’ll go practice more point shooting.
LikeLike
Nov 28, 2012 @ 08:00:56
Mar 04, 2013 @ 12:48:19
Jun 17, 2013 @ 13:41:10
Really enjoy the great debate and broad spectrum of views. I strongly believe that point shooting should be the primary pistol method followed by a continuum from rough sighted fire (flash sight picture) through full marksmanship fundamentals. Here is why.
-Most gunfights will occur at close range 15′, 10% historical deaths) Yes, I should have used the historical gunfight range stats for distance, but 2011 made the math easy and I am running out of time.
Even with your best case statistics of around 27-53% average 40%, which I have already proven as not accurate over a greater sample size, if you multiply by a risk factor of 9, a professional risk assessment would clearly indicate most of your training (6 x actually if you run the #s) should be done at those ranges, the ranges in which point shooting is most used.
My stats may be off, but the point is still the same. I am not a math guy, but I generally get statistics way better than most.
LikeLike
Jun 17, 2013 @ 16:05:13
>> Most gunfights will occur at close range 15′
Except when they don’t. The LAPD results are an example.
>> a professional risk assessment would clearly indicate most of your training should be done at those ranges
Fine, but run the time limits quick enough to take that into account and make it challenging.
The problem with most training that run with these numbers is they use oversized targets (like a full silhouette and accept hits sprayed anywhere on it) and don’t push time limits (if there are any) fast enough. So we have slow shooters with lousy fundamental marksmanship and sloppy gun handling. This “progressive” approach just leaves shooters less skilled.
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2013 @ 06:08:44
I already addressed the stats: (my whole post did not come through) using one year is bad statistics and a poor example; short range shootings are more deadly; adjust training to reflect this. This obviously does not mean ignore more traditional marksmanship needs, just keep them in the perspective of their use. As per my first paragraph.
Agree with your last statement on the need for speed and difficult targets, but I don’t agree that anyone who is “progressive” would allow too much time. Usually that is the typical (not expert) sighted shooting only small shot group crowd.
LikeLike
Jun 22, 2013 @ 20:21:38
>> using one year is bad statistics and a poor example
I pulled up what was the most recent report available when I wrote this. Having gone over NYPD stats (which covered a four decade period) I thought it might be interesting to see what info LAPD had compiled and reported it here.
>> … I don’t agree that anyone who is “progressive” would allow too much time.
They aren’t progressive, hence the use of quote marks indicating irony. Most public sector and tactically-minded courses have low or no shooting standard. Low skilled people are passed and/or considered trained. But they think they’re progressive.
Police and military handgun qualifications in the past featured shooting at distances further than normally encountered, out to 25-50 yards, and on smaller-than-human targets (bullseyes) because it’s a more difficult challenge. Even with generous or unlimited time, a person with poor skills can’t even hit the target. Such targets don’t lie like a silhouette target sometimes does.
Trainers realized that such a challenge rarely existed in a fight and sought to change qualifications to closer distances with human-sized silhouettes more likely encountered. That’s good and realistic, progressive even.
The problem is, too often these closer range training/qualification courses don’t push the time limit fast enough. The need for closer range training is realized but the need for a tight time limit at close quarters often isn’t enforced. To top it off, accuracy-encouraging tests of fundamental marksmanship have largely been abandoned.
We’re left with a lame qual/training course requiring less skill using overly large targets at close distances with generous or non-existant time limits. But the training and trainers are considered “progressive” because we shoot closer, bigger targets “just like in the real world.”
I posted about a course we use at AACOG’s LEO academy.
Sadly, the point shooters that believed this represented progress never asked what time limits were used or enforced. Spraying pus all over a barn door at spitting distance in a slow manner isn’t progress.
LikeLike
Jun 23, 2013 @ 11:11:53
John, I complain about arbitrary shooting standards all of the time. I like to use “reality based standards.” Look at what happens in real life and adjust your standards so they give you an edge in real life situations. The time crunch becomes evident very quickly, as does the need to shoot moving targets and targets behind cover. For example, I did this for bail out assaults, where a driver basically stops fast and attacks the following cruiser, and I found some pretty consistent elements and created a standard from it.
I believe functional standards would be more appropriate. If you want some type of score, build it informally into the standards, but someone who has to use a gun for a living, I would like to see them able to perform a,b,c, etc. on demand to standard with 100% success. Let them retest two events (20%) twice at most on the same day, otherwise they are a failure and need retraining. I have had to do a few times with a group I work with, and it definitely and quickly weeds out those who can’t perform the skills required for the job on demand. If you look for patterns in police shootings, and study a lot of video, these standards can be reduced to a small and meaningful number.
I personally do a lot of point shooting but I also shoot out to a hundred yards with my pistol and even push a little further when I have the range available. The big thing for me is that you have to have the ability to do it on demand in a wide variety of situations in less than perfect conditions.
Love this website. Great info and only slightly heated discussion.
Stay safe.
LikeLike
Jun 23, 2013 @ 22:37:37
>> I like to use “reality based standards.” Look at what happens in real life and adjust your standards so they give you an edge in real life situations.
That’s outstanding. Please detail these reality based standards you like to use.
>> I would like to see them able to perform a,b,c, etc. on demand to standard with 100% success. Let them retest two events (20%) twice at most on the same day, otherwise they are a failure and need retraining. I have had to do a few times with a group I work with, and it definitely and quickly weeds out those who can’t perform the skills required for the job on demand.
I think this is the perfect way to approach this.
The problem is when this fails in practice. Most public sector agencies/units/departments/etc. have some sort of standard but it is usually low. The goal is for everyone to always qualify and, given the low level skill of most personnel, the standards are adjusted so everyone can. Remedial training, if offered at all, is often handled by less than expert marksmen. Every course of fire change made by the US Army in the past decade has reduced the needed skill to pass. The Marine Corps has lowered their marksmanship standards as well. State POST standards are deliberately vague and allow individual departments to adjust specifics.
In the tactical community, many instructors don’t bother to establish any standard at all. An example:
As long as you pay the required fee to the favored cult of personality, you get a certificate of attendance from Operator Fantasy Camp.
All these folks begrudge, ignore or remain ignorant of competitive shooting. Of course, any organized body that bothers to actually measure shooting – time and accuracy – and holds its participant accountable for every shot fired for record (and keeps records!) is going to be unpopular with folks that need the perception of skill without actually having it.
LikeLike
Apr 04, 2016 @ 07:23:01