Some notes on point shooting training.
From John Veit
This is not on topic, but I checked out the NRA target mentioned and noticed that the target circle is centered on the target with extra space at the top and bottom.
IMHO it would be helpful to have the circle lower down so the distances from the bottom and the sides would be the same. The extra space at the top would allow for clipping the target in target holding clips, while also helping to keep errant rounds away from the clips.
This thought also applies to many of the targets on the NRA targets page.
These targets are to be mounted to a stiff backing material (often cardboard) because centers will be stapled up for each ten round string. The stiff board allows the use of a plug gauge if needed.
The backing mounting material can be any length needed to work in the carrier.
This part is concerning: The extra space at the top would allow for clipping the target in target holding clips, while also helping to keep errant rounds away from the clips.
If there are errant shots going that wild, there are bigger problems to worry about than saving target holding clips… The outer most ring (five ring) on standard distance competition pistol targets is 18 inches in diameter, the same width as a humanoid silhouette.
Review the full AIMED Point & Shoot training course.
I was advised to contact Lou Chiodo, who allegedly has trained members of the California Highway Patrol.
Here’s his assessment of his own results:
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2012/11/30/point-shooting-success-rates-california-highway-patrol/
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.
This was corroborated by Ted Sames of SISS
The stats: Few, very few agencies publish stats…it’s a taboo
Remember, 19% hit ratio (anywhere on the body) within 0 to 12 feet away on the Bad Guy is the US Police stat.
Mr. Sames says very few agencies publish stats yet later claims there is an accepted “US Police stat” (whatever that is…) Not even various NYPD reports agree each other, never mind any sort of universally-accepted statistic. Police training and qualification standards varies among departments within the same state despite held to a state-decreed POST standard. Forget any sort of nationwide uniformity.
Even within a single department there are differences. NYPD’s poor hit rate is routinely reported (and often misinterpreted as some universal result for all policemen) yet NYPD SOU member Bill Allard managed a 100% hit rate in his nearly two dozen fights.
Colorado Pete
Aug 10, 2014 @ 20:45:02
I think it boils down to people looking for a short cut of some type to some desired or imagined level of proficiency. But there is no substitute for persistent, perfect practice using techniques that have the highest potential to produce the best results.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 10, 2014 @ 20:51:51
Not like we see that with fitness, weight loss, finances or other things that are best solved with consistent, positive, on-going effort.
LikeLike
Tyrus Moulder
Aug 11, 2014 @ 06:49:08
I take issue with the argument that statistics where hit rates are concerned are next to useless. It’s great to have an officer like Allard who hits everything he intends to shoot every time. This does nothing for the other guys who missed their human targets, hit the wrong target, or made a bad shooting decision. My agency qualifies four times per year. Keeping in mind that qualification is not training but a demonstration of an individual officer’s basic proficiency with a firearm (as established by his/her agency), I collect performance data on every officer and our agency as a whole. Statistics that analyze remediation and performance (failure rates) are not complex, and they can provide valuable performance information that we can use to focus our training efforts.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 11, 2014 @ 09:13:47
>> I take issue with the argument that statistics where hit rates are concerned are next to useless
Hit rate statistics can be useful. I question if there really is a universal hit rate that applies everywhere, given there are so many different agencies each having greater or lesser emphasis on this skill area.
>> Statistics that analyze remediation and performance (failure rates) are not complex, and they can provide valuable performance information that we can use to focus our training efforts.
Absolutely. That’s why empirical measure is vital. It’s why everybody actually interested in performance establishes the means to measure with numbers.
Of course, it is important to use a sufficiently-stringent means of measure or the results will be misinterpreted:
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2011/09/18/the-connection-between-combat-and-range-results/
>> It’s great to have an officer like Allard who hits everything he intends to shoot every time. This does nothing for the other guys who missed…
It would be helpful to ask a fellow like Allard what he did differently than the officers with lesser results. The problem is, few people like his answer.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams
Aug 12, 2014 @ 09:36:11
I know Bill and I’ll back up his record any day. Apart from any PPC he may have done in his day in the NYPD I can attest to his marksmanship in a Bullseye 2700. He and Joe Cirillo made a helluva Stake-Out Squad till the NYC Bleeding Hearts shut them down.
LikeLike
John Veit
Aug 12, 2014 @ 11:04:10
IMHO it would be helpful to have the circle lower down so the distances from the bottom and the sides would be the same. The extra space at the top would allow for clipping the target in target holding clips, while also helping to keep errant rounds away from the clips.
“This part is concerning: The extra space at the top would allow for clipping the target in target holding clips, while also helping to keep errant rounds away from the clips.”
“If there are errant shots going that wild, there are bigger problems to worry about than saving target holding clips… The outer most ring (five ring) on standard distance competition pistol targets is 18 inches in diameter, the same width as a humanoid silhouette.”
Just trying to deal with reality.
For variety, some people may want to shoot at other than the target COM.
The heads on many silhouette targets are very close to the top. (google: silhouette shooting targets – images) That poses no problem for targets stapled to a target-backing on an “outside” range. However, “inside” ranges use clips that attach to the top of the target.
If the space at the bottom of a target was added to the top, or 4 or 5 inches of open space was added to the top, that would prolong the life of “inside” range target holding devices.
For stappling to a target-backing at an “outside” range, the one putting up the target could just fold the top portion as or if needed to suit their preference.
LikeLike
Tyrus Moulder
Mar 19, 2016 @ 22:14:27
Bottom line John, a measurable standard is a must-have component of a training and re-cert. program. i re-read Mr. Chiodo’s comments and they set me off the same way they did the last time when I read this post almost two years ago. What kills me about his proprietary program is that he won’t even discuss his methodology for testing competency. That’s fluff at its finest.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Mar 20, 2016 @ 20:23:29
And he doesn’t bother to provide any stats demonstrating any indication his Program That Shall Remain Nameless is any better than whatever the CHP was using before. Of course, as with many service qualification standards, it likely would take very little to see some improvement.
LikeLike