As a result of the ever-escalating amount of point shooting vs. sight shooting material here, and how sight shooting methods are claimed to be a “failure”, it was suggested I contact an instructor advocating a point shooting approach and teaching it to a large agency.
Louis M. Chiodo is one such instructor and has instructed for the California Highway Patrol. His website gives a vague sense of the curriculum, which leads to a Task-Oriented Qualification Course but gives no standard of performance or results in the field.
I asked him about these things directly. Here’s his response:
Louis Chiodo
Mr. Chiodo,
I was directed to you by a reader because of your training of the California Highway Patrol.
Since implementing your methods, what success rates have the CHP enjoyed in the field?
What is the course of fire for your Task-Oriented Qualification Course (TOQC) and Task-Oriented Combat Qualification System (TOCQC)?
From Mr. Chiodo
First, success rate is something that can have many meanings. Especially when you refer to gunfights. Statistical data is generally not a valid way of determining “success” since there are so many factors involved in the data that is used for evaluation. I have a graduate school level education that dealt with using statistics to determine various results of one thing or another and the one thing I learned is that there are so many ways that figures can be gathered, reported and ultimately used to determine if something works or not to understand that it is difficult to use much of the data in a valid way.
When trying to using hit rates etc., to determine validity of a program, there are SO MANY variables that other than generalities, it is difficult to determine results from the data. As an example, what type of training has the person received? What level of intensity is that training (how real is it)? What is the frequency of training? How much training time is allocated for the officer/person’s training? Has the person been stress inoculated by using scenario based training and/or force-on-force training? If “X” amount of rounds were fire versus the amount of hits, how many rounds hit an intermediate barrier and didn’t penetrate to get to the suspect? Were any of the rounds used to suppress the suspect while moving to a better position to open up an angle on the suspect? The point being is that unless all of these are included in the way we analyze the shooting, the data obtained wouldn’t support “success” or lack of it.
So it leaves us to some pretty basic things that we can get out of trying to analyze “results”. We can first look at, are we losing any officers in gunfights? In general terms, are we hitting more using different (new) training methods and combat shooting methods as opposed to when we were using the old method of training?
In general terms, what I can tell you is that when the training was redirected and more appropriate and realistic combat shooting methods were put into the training curriculum, we stopped getting officers shot to death and we were hitting far more than missing and the hits were getting to the places that shut people down faster.
Regarding the Task-Oriented Qualification Course (TOQC), I designed it and implemented it into the training program as a standard department qualification course. I don’t pass the course of fire because the course of fire is a verification that the officer has developed the skills that were required via the training program that they went through to pass the TOQC. In other words, the course of fire is a verification that they can do the base-line skills that were developed in their training.
The course requires 100% hits in the allotted times and it covers the types of skills that are common to what officers face in gunfights. It ranges form contact distances to 15 yards. There are several different variants of the basic TOQC that I use in various training programs and the beauty of this system of qualification is that each task is graded separately so there is no aggregate scoring. In short, the officer has to actually perform each task to standard without one task being able to make up for a task that they are having a problem with. Also, the TOQC can be developed to meet the needs of a specific unit such as a tactical team.
bill price
Dec 01, 2012 @ 09:22:54
intelligent concise question drew an intelligent and meaningful response.
-bp
Tyrus Moulder
Dec 03, 2012 @ 08:13:12
Several years ago, I purchased Mr. Chiodo’s book “Training for Success.” One of the biggest problems I found is that he refuses to formally publish the COF he uses in any of his training courses. Even the description he provides in his response to your query is somewhat vague. Still, his response is thoughtful when he points out that success in a gun fight is influenced by many variables. Ultimately the most important variable is (I think) hits versus misses. Point shooting at 15 yards seems extreme. Police officers are accountable for the rounds they fire ( hits and misses). I would not tell my students to ignore their sights in favor of unsighted techniques that may very well work on a range where the cardboard is completely stationary and not shooting back.
Lance
Dec 03, 2012 @ 11:28:07
Where would we find the course of fire of the TOQC?
John M. Buol Jr.
Dec 03, 2012 @ 17:34:15
>> Where would we find the course of fire of the TOQC?
I don’t know. I asked for this directly from Lou Chiodo and he didn’t explain any details. As Tyrus Moulder points out above, Mr. Chiodo didn’t but it in his book either. I have no idea why he would mention the name of a course of fire and then never make it public, including to folks buying his book.
Tyrus
Dec 04, 2012 @ 10:14:15
The short answer to the question about the missing course of fire in Mr. Chiodo’s book is that he considers it his intellectual property. He designed his course of fire, and he uses it in his training program. The only way to find out would be to sign up for a course. My problem with this is that his website contains no user feedback. He has nothing available that gives any hint as to what his program is all about. Guys like Paul Howe, Jim Smith, and Kyle Lamb–all who have well-established backgrounds put a lot of information out there for anyone to review. Clearly, the three aforementioned trainers are comfortable with letting folks know what they bring to the training table. It seems that Mr. Chiodo’s primary interest is money and not making police officers and other worthy recipients better gunfighters. This is evident in his book which talks about the training, but does not actually present any details. Just my thoughts.
Tyrus
Dec 04, 2012 @ 10:22:10
I will add that the concept of the TOQC has merit. A program that evaluates skills in a stage-based format can be more efficient in terms of training time and logistics (ammunition expenditure, range time, etc.). However, the skills taught / tested in this or any other format must be directly transferrable to the real world. If the TOQC is nothing more than a test of basic marksmanship, than it misses the mark as a test of combat skills.
John M. Buol Jr.
Dec 04, 2012 @ 16:00:09
>> The short answer to the question about the missing course of fire in Mr. Chiodo’s book is that he considers it his intellectual property.
Making information public, even free of charge, doesn’t relinquish your intellectual property. You retain copyright when publishing anything, for pay or free.
>> My problem with this is that his website contains no user feedback. He has nothing available that gives any hint as to what his program is all about. [Other trainers] put a lot of information out there for anyone to review.
Letting others review what you have is a prerequisite for any competent trainer. If you believe your training results in high skill levels and devise a test to measure that skill, having others attempt that test is a good way to validate. Remaining behind closed doors under the guise of protecting intellectual property is not.
Tyrus
Dec 04, 2012 @ 20:25:07
John, I agree with you. Until such time that Mr. Chiodo decides to reveal examples of his teaching methods for other to review (including student feedback) his TOQC and associated training program is going to be viewed with skepticism.
Lance
Dec 06, 2012 @ 10:28:48
Thanks guys.
I found references to the TOQC on CHP’s academy website, and figured that since this is being taught at a public (as in tax payer funded) facility, it would be public information. At the most, I could see it being restricted to LE only.
Jokingly, do the CHP academy students have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
John M. Buol Jr.
Dec 08, 2012 @ 11:13:18
>> >> Mr. Chiodo considers it [TOQC ] his intellectual property.
>> I found references to the TOQC on CHP’s academy website, and figured that since this is being taught at a public (as in tax payer funded) facility, it would be public information.
Good point. IANAL, but my understanding of US Copyright Law is that works produced by federal employees, military or civilian, are automatically considered public domain. State level government and/or contractors may be exempt and retain normal copyright as any other author.
However, anyone can quote a copyrighted work.
>> Jokingly, do the CHP academy students have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
Keeping a course of fire a secret, especially one used for recruits at the academy level, is the real joke here.
Tyrus Moulder
Dec 08, 2012 @ 18:14:45
As a trainer I am always looking for ways to improve the training I provide. This often means updating the format, modifying traing techniques taught based on advancements in the industry, or improving upon the existing program based on in-house needs and lessons learned. Mr. Chiodo makes several valid points in his initial response. The general overview he provides sounds positive. However, his claim that fewer police officers are being killed as a result of his training program is made without providing any falsifiable evidence. We are expected to simply take his word that he has discovered and implemented the answer to the prayers of a large community of would-be gunfighters. LEOKA statistics provide a much different image of where police officers are at in terms of successfully integrating real GUNFIGHTING skills into their routine. The truth is that most police officers train to a minimum standard of performance. This is what really needs to change.
John M. Buol Jr.
Dec 08, 2012 @ 18:24:08
>> The truth is that most police officers train to a minimum standard of performance. This is what really needs to change.
This goes double for most military personnel. Civilian gun owners as well, if they even train at all.
Point Shoot Training | Firearm User Network
Aug 10, 2014 @ 07:37:06