Great article from Jerry Jones over at MSW that echoes problems I’ve experienced on the military side. Another useful addition would be competition and it can be done locally on a budget. An instructor/coach lacking any sort of reasonable competition success is an undeveloped instructor/coach. Thankfully, at least with the USAR Marksmanship Program, this is easily rectified.
I AM THE POLICE FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR- (I never train anymore)
by Jerry Jones
From http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=1555
We all know “that guy” that goes to firearms instructor school, has all the answers upon graduation, and never trains again. He is the “INSTRUCTOR” (It says so on the back of his red polo shirt, and the red hat he bought from Gall’s). The scope of this article is not about him, or the folks you know like him (or her). This installment is about the reality that I and many other instructors have found that the police instructor doesn’t get to train as much as we’d like to after getting in the position. If at all.
In early 1997, I worked for a small agency. I had been out of the Marines for five short years, and frankly knew everything there was to know about firearms. You could just ask me and I’d tell you so. I got the opportunity to go to the FBI Firearms Instructor School in mid-1997. I just knew that within the first week, I’d be teaching the class. I also knew that being a firearms instructor, I’d have he keys to the ammo locker, and could train and shoot countless rounds of ammo like the bronze idol I thought myself to be at 28.
My performance was particularly weak during that two week course, and I realized how little I knew. Then the reality of being an instructor set in over the next year. A lot of agencies do consider you to be “trained” at that point, and very little instructor development time is given. With supervisors looking at man hours, schedules, overtime, and budgetary concerns, the stark reality for most instructors worth their salt is training comes at their own dime, on their own time. Time and agency training dollars become very precious commodities. Now, this isn’t a gig toward any agency. It is just the norm I hear from instructors from agencies large and small. And the more areas you instruct, the greater the battle for time becomes.
I am one of the lucky ones. I have always had good support from supervision, and got to train on company time, and on my own time. But, even so, it still isn’t the utopia of brass piled hip deep that I thought it would be in 1997. From speaking to instructors across this great nation, the trend of burnout comes with a few years because the lack of continuing education instructors get. Most guys feel like they have become heavily armed baby sitters with nothing but a goal in life of getting ten percent of the agency to shoot a seventy percent passing score. The frustration also seems to set in that they spend so much time with said ten percent of the agency, that the other ninety percent get ignored. Or they feel like they aren’t teaching people to be gunfighters, to have the tools necessary to win in deadly force encounters they may face on the job. Instead, they often feel like they are teaching officers to be test takers, to hit that magical seventy percent needed to pass for another quarter, bi-annual, or yearly qualification.
In many places, the training unit has taken such a serious hit on the budget that live ammo for training is becoming hard to come by. One agency I know of has been reduced to four live rounds per year in practice. One of the instructors told me it makes his head want to explode. I’m tracking with his frustration on that, as instructors we know that it is such a perishable skill.
There are no magic answers to these issues. But we have to do something. Time to get creative.
In bad budget years, it is easy to say “We don’t have the money for a lot of ammo, so we’re just not going to train”. I say train. It is a great opportunity to get a lot of dry fire repetitions in with the troops. The dry fire will also be hugely beneficial to the ten percent that we spend so much time with. You can then construct short combat courses on steel that take very few rounds to appease the emotional candy of making the gun go bang in training. Low round count can actually be some of the most beneficial training scenarios that we as instructors can present.
Take some time for yourself to get out and take a weekend course from one of the 1000 good schools that have popped up in the last five years. Clint Smith once said that all the new schools popping up, and it was a good thing. And he is RIGHT. Used to be there was about a dozen good places to go and you had to travel for hours to get there. Now, you can shop around and find something within a couple of hours of the house. Do your research, and spend your money wisely. It will not only pay a dividend with your skills you bring to the table as an instructor, but it’ll also help out your mental health the next time you step out on the range.
I am a police instructor. But I’m always a student first.
Firearm User Network 
Apr 21, 2015 @ 11:57:38
About all you can do is put your head down and keep moving forward as best you can….
LikeLike
Apr 21, 2015 @ 12:10:48
Indeed. This is another reason to support a competitive program as it motivates personnel to actually train (as opposed to merely qualify) and to do so on their own. Budgeting to support a few matches will yield at least an order of magnitude increase in training time as people prepare for events.
LikeLike
Apr 22, 2015 @ 20:50:52
According to the RAND Corp study of the NYPD’s training program, trainers train Officers to pass quals, not how to survive in gunfights, which are rare bird situations.
Other studies have established that CQB situations last just a few seconds, and most always happen at less than 21 feet, where per FBI stats, there is the greatest chance of being shot and or killed.
And traditional Sight Shooting which is taught to Officers, is most often not used in CQB situations.
Point Shooting which is defaulted to in most all CQB situations, and which can be learned and maintained with little training and practice, is not taught to Officers.
And how come not much is said about cheap and non lethal airsoft that can be used for CQB scenario training?
The upshot is that the current “training” program and qualification standards are upside down in terms of training Officers in survival shooting.
The downside is that teaching shooting methods that are not or can not be used in CQB situations except by “seal level” trained Officers, leaves the other 99 percent, or whatever that number is, to suffer the atrocious casualty rates which have not changed for over 20 years.
I do not expect that logic and rationality will prevail in the world of the gun and gun instructors, and usher in changes that will change things.
At the recent 2010 ILEETA conference (International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers), a use-of force panel discussed Point Shooting vs. Aimed Fire.
An article by David Griffith about the discussion, is in POLICE Magazine. This is a link to it.
“The panel, which consisted of firearms trainers, law enforcement officers, a physician, an attorney, a physician, and a psychologist, discussed the issue in terms of training and officer-involved shootings. And it concluded that point shooting may be what happens in a gunfight but to point shoot well under stress officers need to aim when they train.”
“Point shooting well under stress is all about muscle memory,” said New Braintree, Mass., chief of police Bert DuVernay. “And the way you achieve that muscle memory is by learning to align your sights.” (Bert used to be the editor of the S&W newsletter and SS proponent.)
DuVernay said that training officers to point shoot without training them to aim was a “shortcut.” “There is no instinctive ability to shoot. So we need to teach our people to use the sights under realistic conditions. That’s the answer, not point shooting.”
“Firearms trainer Vicki Farnham* said point shooting allows shooters to put a lot of shots downrange very quickly but the results are less than spectacular. … You better be able to use both of your sights and to hit what you want to hit.”
Sgt. Brian Stover of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said “I was trained the old-fashioned way. And I’ve only been in one shooting. I fired three rounds and hit him once. I can tell you that an accurate shot ends the problem.”
John Farnham* said “We trainers have to persuade our students to do what works best in most circumstances and that is use their sights.”
Physician and gun trainer James Williams argued that trainers should keep an open mind on the issue. “What we need to do is find out what the agencies that really are doing a good job hitting the bad guys are teaching their officers and copy them,” he said.
And Dr. Alexis Artwohl said that “This is a life-and-death question. So we need to ask ourselves, ‘What does the research show?’ That’s a huge problem in law enforcement: A lot of the training is based on myths, assumption, and personal opinion. We need to know what works.”
……….
When I read that article, I was almost knocked out of my chair, as the information presented was the long standing traditional clap trap that has resulted in countless Police casualties over the years.
No one doubts that when the sights are used, you can hit a target.
But, the studies and stats on CQB situations have established that Sight Shooting is not, and can not be used in most all of them. And it is in those situations where there is the greatest likely hood of an Officer being shot and/or killed.
As a result, Officers are being trained to use, a shooting method that is neither practical nor effective for use in most all CQB situations. And without such a means of self defense, only luck separates them from injury and/or death.
To send Officers into harms way, when this is now commonly known, is to me a tragedy.
And particularly so, as there are simple, and easy to learn, and easy to retain Point Shooting methods that are practical and effective for use in CQB situations.
Here is what moderator Massad Ayoob, had to say in a Jan, 2001 American Handgunner article titled: Aimed Vs. Point Shooting.
In the article, Mr. Ayoob said that he set up a “scientific test” to see which method was better accuracy and speed wise. Targets were set up at 4, 5, 7, 12, and 15 yards. And roughly 100 shooters participated in the event.
The conventional wisdom said everyone should be faster but less accurate when they weren’t using sights.
In fact, while this was the single most common result, a very significant number of the shooters did better with the unsighted pistol.
The test clearly shows that within five yards, if the gun is at eye level and can crudely be seen to be superimposed on the target, it can hit as well if not better than a pistol aligned with a conventional “sight picture.”
……….
Back to the ILETTA use-of force panel:
Given that the panel was loaded with gun professionals who by their own quoted words, favor the use of the sights, it was not a big shocker to read that the panel “concluded that point shooting may be what happens in a gunfight but to point shoot well under stress officers need to aim when they train.”
And, as to the questions: What does the research show? And what works?
Apparently the SS advocates were not asked about any research or evidence in support of their claim that Officers “to point shoot well under stress, need to aim when they train,” as there is no mention of any scientific evidence in support of that in the article, nor in shooting literature in general.
What the scientific studies and stats have shown, is that Sight Shooting fails to be used in most all close quarters life threat situations, either due to poor lighting, the dynamics of the situations, or the automatic activation of our Fight or Flight response and its effects, one of which can be the loss of the ability to focus on near objects like the sights.
……….
I recently sent an article to a variety of magazines and online sources with the title: How 2 Shoot 2 Kill More Effectively, as I felt that would gain attention and because it deals with the truth of the matter.
Well, I received negative feedback about the title from the Editor of a Police Publication, and also from a noted Police trainer. So, I changed the title to improve its reception to: How To Shoot More Effectively In CQB.
As others also may have a concern about the wording of the original title, here is the Editor’s comment and my thoughts on the matter which continues the discussion of CQB shooting training.
……….
John,
I regretfully decline to use this article in the IALEFI magazine. The title, “How 2 Shoot 2 Kill More Effectively” is not consistent with the message we as professional law enforcement trainers try to convey to our students. Police officers shoot to incapacitate an immediate hostile threat to themselves, another officer or civilian. We do not train officers to kill. Conveying such a concept to our officers would be disastrous from both a community relations as well as civil liability aspect. Thank you for taking the time to submit the article.
Assistant Chief ____ _______, IALEFI Editorial Board
……….
Now, I was puzzled by that response.
To me, guns are lethal weapons. And a lethal weapon by definition is made to cause death. That is, guns are made for killing. Sad but true.
I also believe that there should be rules of engagement such as force continuums used by Police, which govern the application of force levels. But that is not the issue here.
The issue at hand is: WHEN A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE TO USE DEADLY FORCE, THEN WHICH METHOD OF ITS APPLICATION IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND SAFEST FOR THE OFFICER AND ANY BYSTANDERS.
Also, the variables of CQB situations and our human responses to them, do not allow for choosing or controlling with precision, its application or outcome. That is reality according to the scientific study of CQB situations.
So, along with the application of lethal force, goes the very real possibility that it may result in the death of a receiver. That is a fact which can not be ignored, dismissed, or wished away.
What can be done to help the good overcome the bad, is to know which is/are the most effective means of applying deadly force, and in turn, to teach that.
To not do that, is to unnecessarily if not recklessly, endanger Officers and members of the public alike.
So, we are not talking about teaching Officers to kill, but how to defend themselves in CQB situations ( to stay alive – to shoot to live ).
Sadly, training programs have not been doing that job, and with the result over the years, of injury and/or death to thousands of Police and law abiding folks.
Most Police are trained in traditional Sight Reliant Shooting, and the resultant miss rate in close quarters gunfight is more than 80%. That means that less than one out of five bullets fired, hits the target. That’s reality.
And if fault is to be found for the dismal failure to shoot effectively in close quarters life threat situation, look to the politicians, mayors, chiefs, sheriffs, the FBI, military and civilian trainers, and gun makers. Don’t look to the trainees. They are not in charge
……….
My posting of this comment, and only after a few days deliberation, was not meant to high jack this interesting article, but rather to add to the discussion and thinking about it and the subject of training PO’s as well as the shooting public.
John, if you consider this to be a separate article, please add a title that you think is appropriate and add that to the blog as time and space allows. Thanks.
LikeLike
Apr 22, 2015 @ 21:38:50
>> According to the RAND Corp study of the NYPD’s training program, trainers train Officers to pass quals….
Which gets novice-level shooters at minimal, novice skill levels and never elevates from there. Switching to a method that is slower and less precise won’t fix that problem as we would just be substituting one novice approach for another.
Practical competitive shooting taught us back in the early 1960s that a competent pistol shooter can routinely complete a drill such as El Presidente with a Hit Factor of 6 (12 center hits/60 points in 10 seconds). Tactards will quip such an exercise isn’t tactical but they, once again, miss the point. Such a drill is merely a demonstration of developed fundamental skills and failing to consistently meet such a simple level of performance shows those fundamental skills were never developed.
I’d wager a good sum of money there isn’t a single law enforcement or military department/unit that can legitimately demonstrate at least 80-90% of their personnel capable of achieving such a mark. They can not do so because, despite all the police and military firearms “training”, skills never developed to this base level.
This failure to implement the means to actually train (and not merely instruct) fundamental skills is the real problem. Until this is addressed changing how personnel are instructed to hold their firearm or how/when to use or not use the sights is a wasted effort.
LikeLike
Apr 23, 2015 @ 11:45:30
>>”But, the studies and stats on CQB situations have established that Sight Shooting is not, and can not be used in most all of them.”
“is not” is one thing, “can not” is quite another. You can use your sights in any situation where you can get the gun into your line of sight. Whether you actually do so in those situations is a matter of your training level, which is entirely under your own control in the long periods of your daily life prior to a real “situation” rearing its ugly head. If you don’t train to moderately high level, you won’t have it as a trained, unthinking reflex action, which is what it must be.
LikeLike
Apr 23, 2015 @ 14:41:39
>> “is not” is one thing, “can not” is quite another.
Indeed. Most first grade children are not using algebra. That doesn’t mean they can not be eventually taught to do so, but they need to first get a handle on simple arithmetic. This applies to firearms as well.
>> You can use your sights in any situation…
Training with sights is just another feedback point by providing a visual confirmation of where the barrel points. Most people aren’t missing due to an inability to obtain sufficient alignment or failure to use sights (especially on human-sized adversaries in defensive situations), they’re missing due to a gross misdirection of the barrel while shooting. That is, flinching or pre-ignition push. Point shooting does nothing to cure this and may exacerbate it because the shooter never (or rarely) bothers to use visual alignment to see this type of error and try to fix it.
Skilled sights shooters can point shoot quite effectively because they’ve developed the ability to discharge the firearm while maintaining sufficient alignment on target.
LikeLike
Apr 25, 2015 @ 19:45:22
Why learn Sight Shooting if hip shooting works so good? It is in fact quicker, and easier to use than Sight Shooting since the gun does not have to be brought up to line of sight or into a two fisted grip, and it is obviously fast or better than fast enough for most CQ encounters.
SS may be more precise when achieved, but if one is able to put rounds onto a target, chances are the target may have difficulty in responding effectively with either SS or Point Shooting of some sort..
Did note that Mr. Bartlet’s gun did not jump much when shooting, so it could be tricked out, be single action, or have a less than 12 lb trigger, and the rounds could be less than standard ammo.
Don’t know and doesn’t really matter much more than recognizing the obvious which can be seen, as the shooting was excellent +++, and an in your face resonse to Sight Shooter true beliver zealot/purists which I found to be very entertaining. :) :)
Here’s some info from the just released Force Science Newsletter # 280 that discusses a new study.
“[T]his study’s results indicate an alarming need for improved firearms training for officers,” writes lead researcher Dr. Bill Lewinski, FSI’s executive director. After finishing academy instruction and practice, new officers “were a mere 13%” more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur.
“What these statistics appear to imply,” Lewinski states, “is that officer firearms training is not extensive enough and occurs too sparsely for officers to gain, and maintain, the expert level of accuracy with their service weapons that is expected of them.” This training deficiency “may result in injury, death, or other severe consequences.”
Also revealed in the study: At close quarters, untrained shooters often aim for the head, the most vulnerable and critical part of an officer’s body in a gun attack. And they hit accurately with disturbing frequency.
Could be that Officers should learn Point Shooting first and SS second. Then they should be at least be on par with and/or better than novices.
Force Science link: http://www.forcescience.org/
LikeLike
Apr 26, 2015 @ 08:33:52
>> Here’s some info from the just released Force Science Newsletter # 280 that discusses a new study.
“[T]his study’s results indicate an alarming need for improved firearms training for officers,” writes lead researcher Dr. Bill Lewinski, FSI’s executive director. After finishing academy instruction and practice, new officers “were a mere 13%” more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur.
“What these statistics appear to imply,” Lewinski states, “is that officer firearms training is not extensive enough and occurs too sparsely for officers to gain, and maintain, the expert level of accuracy with their service weapons that is expected of them.” This training deficiency “may result in injury, death, or other severe consequences.”
Thanks for mentioning a study that concludes exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Academy, recruit, and basic training for police and military personnel is at a novice level, measured in this study as a mere 13% improvement over people having never fired a gun before. This is the real problem.
Contrast to this study:
http://www.forcescience.org/performingunderpressure.html
Experienced officers, those measured to perform in a manner similar to skill competitive shooters, performed notably better than lesser-trained officers. That study didn’t mention how the officers held or looked at their guns because that doesn’t matter. What matters is amount of measurable skill and performance.
>> Then they should be at least be on par with and/or better than novices.
The problem is getting better than novice-level performance, realizing more than a mere 13% “improvement” above people that have never touched a firearm before. This will never be solved by changing how under-trained novices hold the gun or look at (or don’t look at) the sights. It can only be changed by measuring skill and programming incremental improvement over time.
LikeLike
Apr 26, 2015 @ 09:39:32
>> Why learn Sight Shooting if hip shooting works so good?
Because it isn’t as good. Taran Butler is a very high level competitive shooter and hip shoots because he can (mostly to show off :), not because it is better. Rest assured, this is NOT how he shoots during a serious competition when the score really matters. He’s even faster with two hand, eye-level sight shooting approach:
>> Did note that Mr. Butler’s gun did not jump much when shooting, so it could be tricked out, be single action, or have a less than 12 lb trigger, and the rounds could be less than standard ammo.
Or it could be due to his superior overall skill yielding better control. I know this is difficult for novices to comprehend.
LikeLike
Apr 28, 2015 @ 07:40:56
Re your note about Taran Butler not using Point Shooting in competition:
“this is NOT how he shoots during a serious competition when the score really matters. He’s even faster with two hand, eye-level sight shooting approach.”
That may well be true given that COFs set out for the competitiors most likely will not represent real CQ shooting situations, which studies that have established will last only a few seconds, occur in poor light conditions, within a range of less than 21 feet, employ strong hand only shooting, require no reloads, and involve only one or a few targets.
As to which is fastest, one hand Point Shooting at less than eye-level, which Mr. Butler’s video shows he is excellent at, is in accordance to the laws of physics, faster than two handed shooting because less distance is needed to be traveled by the gun, and less mechanical activity is needed, prior to shooting.
If multiple shots at multiple targets are introduced in a comptition, two handed shooting may well be give a faster COF time, as it provides better gun and recoil control for follow up shots, though Mr. Butler’s one handed plate shooting was super fast.
……….
Applegate, and Fairbairn and Sykes before him, trained Police Officers in Point Shooting shooting that was effective and which could be learned in less time than teaching Sight Shooting, which given the set of circumstances associated with CQB situations, and as verified by CQB studies since then, would not or could not be used in the vast majority of such situations.
So, which would be a better use of training time and funds, to train students to use a simple and effective method of shooting for close quarters engagements, or to train them in a more complex method of shooting which CQB studies have established is not used in most CQB situations?
Also, unless someone is living under a rock, they already know how to Sight Shoot.
When my grandkids were using airsoft in our garage, they needed no training in how to use the sights. That’s what they did without any coaching.
And they also resisted my instructions in how to Point Shoot. It was obvious to an old fuddy-duddy that they thought that Point Shooting was a foreign and unneeded concept.
They had seen Sight Shooting used countless times on TV, and they also already had used it countless times in arcade or Xbox type shooting games.
To not train Officers in basic CQ Point Shooting during their firearms training, is to leave them to self teach it on an ad hoc basis, and in and during real CQ arned encounters where the chance of them being shot and or killed is the greatest, because that is what the studies have established, happens.
LikeLike
Apr 28, 2015 @ 08:32:41
>> If multiple shots at multiple targets are introduced in a competition, two handed shooting may well be give a faster COF time, as it provides better gun and recoil control for follow up shots, though Mr. Butler’s one handed plate shooting was super fast.
A person with highly-trained fundamental skills will consistently be better at any task where those fundamental skills will be useful. Take away a visual aid, use of one hand, or any other change and those fundamental skills remain. Added challenge and stress will have a negative impact but the more skillful person will consistently have better results.
The real issue isn’t use of sights or the number of hands on the gun. It is developing fundamental skills to a higher level.
Mr. Butler cleared those six targets on the plate rack in two seconds from the holster. Do that, or try to get close. If you can consistently it doesn’t matter how you hold the gun or what you look at.
>> Applegate, and Fairbairn and Sykes before him, trained Police Officers in Point Shooting shooting that was effective and which could be learned in less time than teaching Sight Shooting, which given the set of circumstances associated with CQB situations, and as verified by CQB studies since then, would not or could not be used in the vast majority of such situations.
And their approach yielded results worse than the much-maligned NYPD.
There are no studies with measurable results demonstrating a point shooting approach would yield improved results. NONE. There is plenty of conjecture, but no apples-to-apples measurement. This sort of study would need measured results from the previous training approach to compare the now-differently trained force.
You suggested I contact people like Lou Chiodo for this and he balked when asked to produce actual numbers. The LAPD dropped their point shooting approach in the 1980s and hit rates improved, though this has more to do with an emphasis on training fundamentals. Their improvement wasn’t in going away from point shooting, it was in better enforcing skill development.
>> So, which would be a better use of training time and funds
Training and enforcing ever-improving fundamentals. Measure skill and provide the means to help people improve. Reward and/or acknowledge those demonstrating the most skill and improvement, and provide remediation for those under performing.
I don’t care if you use point shooting, just show me your skill standards and the people in your program achieving them. Better yet, show me the plan to help those that can’t.
>> CQB studies have established is not used in most CQB situations?
When fundamental skills are low, novices forced into stressful situations will have poor results.
>> Also, unless someone is living under a rock, they already know how to Sight Shoot. When my grandkids were using airsoft in our garage, they needed no training in how to use the sights. That’s what they did without any coaching. They had seen Sight Shooting used countless times on TV, and they also already had used it countless times in arcade or Xbox type shooting games.
By your logic, point shooting – which is natural and works with instinctive human response – requires formal training because people won’t use it unless taught. Sight shooting – which is unnatural, works against human response, and can’t be used real world – is what novices will do instinctively without instruction.
LikeLike
May 02, 2015 @ 22:26:37
Thanks John for putting up with me.
Your thoujghtful replies arealways well received.
Hopefullly these discussions will lead to better shooting results.and reduced Police casualties.
LikeLike
May 02, 2015 @ 23:17:48
No problem! Thanks for contributing.
LikeLike