Paper target training alone wont get it done. You have to train under stress. You can shoot paper all you want and be a great shot but give me a guy who can operate under stress and you have a guy who will win a gunfight every time. All the plans go right out the window when the crap hits the blades. Its your training that takes over and the better the trainin the better the results. I get a kick out of the guys who go to the weekend warrior camps and think they are Rambo JR. It just does not work that way!
On Hit Rates in Police Shootings
- Thread starter Bellevance
- Start date
Having been in the biz for some twenty five years now...
I can at least make some observations. (And a Federal Judge once took judicial notice of the fact I am edumacated and can count to at least six. How many of you can say that?)
Most troops working for law enforcement agencies are not shooters, let alone good shots. The men and women on this forum - the lawmen, I mean - are probably very good shots, and head and shoulders and armpits above the average. Most agencies train to a minimum level of competence to be able to say "Our people are trained to the demanding standards set by [fill in the demanding authority here]". But any more training that that is hard on the budget. It takes both budget money and troops off the line. Bad juju to the bean counters and 'administrators'. (If any 'administrator bean counters' are reading this, I'm sorry to sound so critical, but you all know damn good and well I'm telling the truth.)
On the other hand, when it comes to shooting, consider this: Shooting at paper targets that don't move and don't shoot back is a limited skill; but if one cannot connect reliably with a stationary target, one is certainly not going to do better with a hostile, moving target. Unless one is far more lucky than I, or has the magic shooting fairy in one's pocket to bonk one on the head with the magic 'now you can shoot' wand. I for one, will not make book on that bet.
I still maintain a good portion of the problem is the weaponry issued. Far too many people (lawmen and laymen alike, not excluding lawwomen and laywomen) have the I've-got-fifteen-shots-I'm-bound-to-hit-something theory of shooting in mind. Some actually admit it.
If'n I was emperor, I'd issue them all cap and ball guns. When any of them could hit reliably, I'd move the ones so meriting up to cartridge guns.
I can at least make some observations. (And a Federal Judge once took judicial notice of the fact I am edumacated and can count to at least six. How many of you can say that?)
Most troops working for law enforcement agencies are not shooters, let alone good shots. The men and women on this forum - the lawmen, I mean - are probably very good shots, and head and shoulders and armpits above the average. Most agencies train to a minimum level of competence to be able to say "Our people are trained to the demanding standards set by [fill in the demanding authority here]". But any more training that that is hard on the budget. It takes both budget money and troops off the line. Bad juju to the bean counters and 'administrators'. (If any 'administrator bean counters' are reading this, I'm sorry to sound so critical, but you all know damn good and well I'm telling the truth.)
On the other hand, when it comes to shooting, consider this: Shooting at paper targets that don't move and don't shoot back is a limited skill; but if one cannot connect reliably with a stationary target, one is certainly not going to do better with a hostile, moving target. Unless one is far more lucky than I, or has the magic shooting fairy in one's pocket to bonk one on the head with the magic 'now you can shoot' wand. I for one, will not make book on that bet.
I still maintain a good portion of the problem is the weaponry issued. Far too many people (lawmen and laymen alike, not excluding lawwomen and laywomen) have the I've-got-fifteen-shots-I'm-bound-to-hit-something theory of shooting in mind. Some actually admit it.
If'n I was emperor, I'd issue them all cap and ball guns. When any of them could hit reliably, I'd move the ones so meriting up to cartridge guns.
Hit Rates in Police Shooting Incidents
Separate from all the other issues of being in a gunfight, such as sudden attack, low light, multiple assailants, shooting while moving, shooting at a moving target, etc. the amount of firearms & tactics training that police receive varies greatly from State to State and Department to Department.
Some agencies only shoot once a year. Some bianually or quarterly (which is what's common in my county) and others do training once a month. How the training is conducted, what the round count is, and how much tactical training is incorporated varies significantly.
For learning skills, distributed practice is better than mass practice, i.e. 150 rnds quarterly is probably better for skill development than shooting 600 rnds in one session once a year.
Some departments do role playing training with AirSoft or FX Simunitions. Others don't because they don't have funding to purchase the equipment, or their administration may not be interested or understand the benefits of such training.
Lots of departments don't have the budget to conduct comprehensive training themselves, and instead combine with other local agencies for in-service training. (That can work pretty well as long as each training session is properly planned in advance. "We'll make it up as we go along" can kind of work if you limit the training to just marksmanship exercises (provided that your instructors are competent and have a good file of courses to work from) but doing training involving building searches or high risk vehicle stops or response to the active shooter takes more coordination to locate an appropriate facility for the training and an adequate supply of properly briefed role-players.)
Training is one of the first things that gets cut when the budget gets tight or staffing levels drop.
In general, the more training the cops get, the better they should perform, provided that the training is of reasonable quality. HOWEVER not everybody absorbs the material and benefits from the training process. (As one guy I used to work with often said "They can order me to go, they can't order me to learn.") Some people just shouldn't be the police.
Separate from all the other issues of being in a gunfight, such as sudden attack, low light, multiple assailants, shooting while moving, shooting at a moving target, etc. the amount of firearms & tactics training that police receive varies greatly from State to State and Department to Department.
Some agencies only shoot once a year. Some bianually or quarterly (which is what's common in my county) and others do training once a month. How the training is conducted, what the round count is, and how much tactical training is incorporated varies significantly.
For learning skills, distributed practice is better than mass practice, i.e. 150 rnds quarterly is probably better for skill development than shooting 600 rnds in one session once a year.
Some departments do role playing training with AirSoft or FX Simunitions. Others don't because they don't have funding to purchase the equipment, or their administration may not be interested or understand the benefits of such training.
Lots of departments don't have the budget to conduct comprehensive training themselves, and instead combine with other local agencies for in-service training. (That can work pretty well as long as each training session is properly planned in advance. "We'll make it up as we go along" can kind of work if you limit the training to just marksmanship exercises (provided that your instructors are competent and have a good file of courses to work from) but doing training involving building searches or high risk vehicle stops or response to the active shooter takes more coordination to locate an appropriate facility for the training and an adequate supply of properly briefed role-players.)
Training is one of the first things that gets cut when the budget gets tight or staffing levels drop.
In general, the more training the cops get, the better they should perform, provided that the training is of reasonable quality. HOWEVER not everybody absorbs the material and benefits from the training process. (As one guy I used to work with often said "They can order me to go, they can't order me to learn.") Some people just shouldn't be the police.
MygunsJammed said:
First, it ain't gonna happen. Why? First, because as long as we use handguns and things get hairy for the cop's life, he's gonna miss occasionally. Secondarily, you aren't willing to pay for it. Yes.. you. And me and your neighbor. The amount of time spent training is paid time not on patrol. And to perform at a level where your miss rate in dire circumstances is below 10% requires a LOT of training. Governments don't have the budget for it and rarely the manpower.
Sadly, I think you'll find a lot of police officers are this way. They practice enough to know they'll pass qual and that's it. For most of 'em, firing the gun at the range also means that messy cleaning time when they'd rather be having a beer in front of those NFL cheerleaders.
Archie +1 well said.
I once proposed to our local PD training captain (at a nice BBQ) that he could save a pile of money, which got his attention. Rookies should be issued .38 Special M&P's as their duty weapon until they can shoot better than 75% on a rigorous course of fire. Then they graduate to .357 Magnum, like a 686, until they can fire 75% with duty ammo. Guys who can do that get to graduate to carrying their issue Sig .40. but have to maintain a minimum of 70% or they drop back to the .357. The advantage was that .38 ammo can be had cheap and .357 reloads emulating service ammo can be made up fairly cheap too. For officers wanting more practice, let them buy their own ammo at cost thru the dept. This way, you force the officers to "compete" to be allowed to carry a Sig pistol but they have to maintain ability to stay there. Into the bargain, the cops with six-shooters have to learn to hit their targets without spray & pray tactics. They learn to use their guns effectively instead of like a freakin' hose!
What was the response? "That'd make a shambles of our policy on ammo interchangeabilty! We can't have different calibers in the field!"
I asked him how many firefights he personally knew of where officers gave another officer extra ammo. I dunno about you guys, but if my partner just squandered 18 .357 rounds without effect and wants more, he can have the shotgun instead. This would be even worse if he'd gone through three 12-17 round magazines without scoring a hit. Why the hell should I give him one of my magazines when he can't hit squat?
But what stunned me was his ignorant retort to that idea - Well, revolvers are so unreliable, we can't use those for duty!
I found out later that this particular captain grew up with autoloaders for duty and had never fired a revolver. Why confuse him with facts? Oddly enough, during the time when police were transitioning to pistols from revolvers, it was the mark of a "seasoned veteran" to see a wheelgun in the holster.
New graduates were being given 9mm's while the senior guys could still carry their .357's. Some agencies completely transistioned to autos, but allowed the senior guys to carry 1911's if they qualified with them. But standing around a bunch of cops you could tell who the real shooters were -- no 9mm in the holster.police shooting incidents
"Shooting at paper targets that don't move and don't shoot back is a limited skill; but if one cannot connect reliably with a stationary target, one is certainly not going to do better with a hostile, moving target." (from Archie)
ABSOLUTELY!! If they can't perform to a high level on the square range in the training environment, they probably won't do very well in the midst of a gunfight at 2 in the morning. Conversely, just because you CAN perform well on regular marksmanship drills doesn't necessarily mean that you'll do well out on the street, it just means that you've begun the journey to mastering the necessary skills.
There are always budget limitations in most any training activity that the police or military services are involved in. Some agencies have lots of money and others can barely keep their squad cars running, and most are somewhere in between.
And there are usually staffing issues as well -- anybody in training is NOT on duty answering calls. If your agency is running at a staffing level significantly below what is required, you won't be going to any specialized training and regular inservice training may be condensed or eliminated.
"Shooting at paper targets that don't move and don't shoot back is a limited skill; but if one cannot connect reliably with a stationary target, one is certainly not going to do better with a hostile, moving target." (from Archie)
ABSOLUTELY!! If they can't perform to a high level on the square range in the training environment, they probably won't do very well in the midst of a gunfight at 2 in the morning. Conversely, just because you CAN perform well on regular marksmanship drills doesn't necessarily mean that you'll do well out on the street, it just means that you've begun the journey to mastering the necessary skills.
There are always budget limitations in most any training activity that the police or military services are involved in. Some agencies have lots of money and others can barely keep their squad cars running, and most are somewhere in between.
And there are usually staffing issues as well -- anybody in training is NOT on duty answering calls. If your agency is running at a staffing level significantly below what is required, you won't be going to any specialized training and regular inservice training may be condensed or eliminated.
Marty Hayes
New member
Regarding WA State
First, the 90% figure is an estimate only based on no research, but simply recalling a few of the recent shootings that I remember. It may be too high, but since no one tracks them here in this state, my estimate is as good as any.
As far as what WA state does differently, first off we have an 80 hour academy training course, taught by professionals who actually are current in tactics and techinques. The academy staff rotates through from different departments, and the individuals who do the basic training are first rate, or they wouldn't be there. We have no institutionalized doctrine or stodgy range instructors protecting their fifedoms.
Secondly, we have an active instructor association, which is one of the best in the country, and who put on instructor training several times a year. Each year, hundreds of trainers get undated training material to take back to their agencies. People who have taught at these association gatherings include, John Farnam, Bank Miller, Phil Singleton, Massad Ayoob, to name just a few off the top of my head.
Additionally, the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (of which I am a charter member) came up with a recommended training regime for departments, consisting of at least 16 hours of in-service training annually, with the following subject matters being addressed in this training.
Accuracy
Moving Targets
Low light
Shooting while moving
Multiple adversaries
This is just a few of the subject areas I remember off the top of my head, and I am not saying all departments do a good job of training, because I know they don't, but the majority do make a good faith effort to train well.
We don't have a lot of shootings in WA state. I attribute this to good training and tactics first. But, what shootings do occur, are invariably handled with just a few shots fired, and those shots striking the target. I cannot recall the last time an officer was shot in an actual exchange of gunfire.
I am not saying we have better officers here, nor do we necessarily have better training than other states, but we do a pretty good job here.
First, the 90% figure is an estimate only based on no research, but simply recalling a few of the recent shootings that I remember. It may be too high, but since no one tracks them here in this state, my estimate is as good as any.
As far as what WA state does differently, first off we have an 80 hour academy training course, taught by professionals who actually are current in tactics and techinques. The academy staff rotates through from different departments, and the individuals who do the basic training are first rate, or they wouldn't be there. We have no institutionalized doctrine or stodgy range instructors protecting their fifedoms.
Secondly, we have an active instructor association, which is one of the best in the country, and who put on instructor training several times a year. Each year, hundreds of trainers get undated training material to take back to their agencies. People who have taught at these association gatherings include, John Farnam, Bank Miller, Phil Singleton, Massad Ayoob, to name just a few off the top of my head.
Additionally, the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (of which I am a charter member) came up with a recommended training regime for departments, consisting of at least 16 hours of in-service training annually, with the following subject matters being addressed in this training.
Accuracy
Moving Targets
Low light
Shooting while moving
Multiple adversaries
This is just a few of the subject areas I remember off the top of my head, and I am not saying all departments do a good job of training, because I know they don't, but the majority do make a good faith effort to train well.
We don't have a lot of shootings in WA state. I attribute this to good training and tactics first. But, what shootings do occur, are invariably handled with just a few shots fired, and those shots striking the target. I cannot recall the last time an officer was shot in an actual exchange of gunfire.
I am not saying we have better officers here, nor do we necessarily have better training than other states, but we do a pretty good job here.
Perldog007
New member
+1+1+1 and an AMEN! I was thinking more along the lines of Taurus 82s....
True that - [size=+3]BUT[/size] we already have payed. first they dumped the revolvers and got nines. Now they are getting "more stopping power". Our staties just went from Sigs to other Sigs in the same caliber with some gizmo added or subtracted. FOR G-D'S SAKE JUST MAKE THEM SHOOT MORE!!!!
A man with a revolver is not "outgunned" by a thug with a high cap unless he can't shoot. Way back in the day law dogs with single action colts acquitted themselves against crooks with all manner of fancy gadgetry.
IMHO Don Johnson on Miami Vice had more to do with cops getting semi-automatics than anything else. I now use pistols regularly. AFTER becoming competent with a wheelgun.
Yes, a 17 or 18% hit ratio is terible. Yes, many cops only fire their weapons when required. Yes, more training would be a darn good idea.
So what is the solution? More training takes time. So do we have officers spend less time on the street, or skip court appearances, or throw some of the paperwork in the trash, or give up more of their family time?
So what is the solution? More training takes time. So do we have officers spend less time on the street, or skip court appearances, or throw some of the paperwork in the trash, or give up more of their family time?
Perldog007
New member
Well when I was an SPO I had less money than a cop, no departmental facilities, and much more hassle getting my weapon to a range. But I managed.
I firmly believe that my not having to shoot at anybody was directly related to my confidence with my weapon. Might be wrong, but that's what I believe.
The Secret service builds training time, including physical fitness into their schedule. Not all departments have it like that is my guess.
You are right, nobody wants to pay for it. We need to find a way. Or simply set higher standards for armed officers and let them earn it. Enough people want to wear the tin and the iron that they will do what they have to do.
Right now what they have to do leaves them coming up short.
It's even worse with armed security officers/guards. That rank and file generally makes cops look like training fiends. Again, raise the standards.
Making the min qual 280 or higher would stop a bunch of nonsense if accompanied with a strong written exam.
Right now I can out shoot most Security and LEOs. If I were working I would want my skill much higher.
I ain't working and I still constantly try to improve my skills. I owe it to the people around me for my right to have a gun. I am seeking more instruction and practice daily, try to get live fire once a week.
Why should somebody who does less get a gun and a badge?
I know the hard realities are hard to get by, just talking idealism here.
I firmly believe that my not having to shoot at anybody was directly related to my confidence with my weapon. Might be wrong, but that's what I believe.
The Secret service builds training time, including physical fitness into their schedule. Not all departments have it like that is my guess.
You are right, nobody wants to pay for it. We need to find a way. Or simply set higher standards for armed officers and let them earn it. Enough people want to wear the tin and the iron that they will do what they have to do.
Right now what they have to do leaves them coming up short.
It's even worse with armed security officers/guards. That rank and file generally makes cops look like training fiends. Again, raise the standards.
Making the min qual 280 or higher would stop a bunch of nonsense if accompanied with a strong written exam.
Right now I can out shoot most Security and LEOs. If I were working I would want my skill much higher.
I ain't working and I still constantly try to improve my skills. I owe it to the people around me for my right to have a gun. I am seeking more instruction and practice daily, try to get live fire once a week.
Why should somebody who does less get a gun and a badge?
I know the hard realities are hard to get by, just talking idealism here.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Because being a cop isn't all about shooting. That is why. My pop did 21 years with Dallas PD and never fired his revolver in the line of duty. Many cops never do. For most cops, counseling skills are more critical to their daily activities than shooting. Hand to hand personnel control is more critical. Driving skills are more critical. Lots of skills are either more critical in that they are used on a daily basis or that they are used far more frequently in officer defense than firearms. It is hard to find a cop that is good at everything the job requires and the job requires being good at a lot of things.
Deaf Smith
New member
Keep in mind these things:
1. Cops tend to have to react to being attacked and are not the ones starting the festivies.
2. Yes, bad lighting and other factors make it hard to shoot strait (like the attacker just won't stand still!)
3. 15 shot autos tend to allow the shooter to fire more rounds faster, even if they hit the attacker the attacker may take time to drop, and thus the cop keeps shooting to make sure the threat is down.
4. All organizations, cops or civilian, teach at least to fire twice (and there are those that teach to shoot them to the ground.
If the NYPD actually get past 30 percent hit rate with the little training they receive in shooting I say that ain't bad at all considering.
1. Cops tend to have to react to being attacked and are not the ones starting the festivies.
2. Yes, bad lighting and other factors make it hard to shoot strait (like the attacker just won't stand still!)
3. 15 shot autos tend to allow the shooter to fire more rounds faster, even if they hit the attacker the attacker may take time to drop, and thus the cop keeps shooting to make sure the threat is down.
4. All organizations, cops or civilian, teach at least to fire twice (and there are those that teach to shoot them to the ground.
If the NYPD actually get past 30 percent hit rate with the little training they receive in shooting I say that ain't bad at all considering.
Double Naught,
Well said!
When you look at what cops need to be able to do, shooting is a very small (probably about the smallest) part of their job. Not all cops are alike. Some are very "people oriented" and their skills at defusing a situation are excellent. Others know the law and the procedures but couldn't calm down an angry little old lady. Still others can shoot the gonads off a fly, but they write lousy reports. And on it goes.
One thing common to most cops is an ego. They do consider themselves "better" than civilians (for the most part) and they can be competitive.
That's why I think starting rookies out with a wheelgun will teach them ammo management during training and force them to avoid letting situations escalate because they don't have a bunch of ammo to rely on.
I'm glad your father never had to fire his gun in the line of duty. I'm sure he was able to use his "people skills" along with some other skills to avoid it.
Well said!
When you look at what cops need to be able to do, shooting is a very small (probably about the smallest) part of their job. Not all cops are alike. Some are very "people oriented" and their skills at defusing a situation are excellent. Others know the law and the procedures but couldn't calm down an angry little old lady. Still others can shoot the gonads off a fly, but they write lousy reports. And on it goes.
One thing common to most cops is an ego. They do consider themselves "better" than civilians (for the most part) and they can be competitive.
That's why I think starting rookies out with a wheelgun will teach them ammo management during training and force them to avoid letting situations escalate because they don't have a bunch of ammo to rely on.
I'm glad your father never had to fire his gun in the line of duty. I'm sure he was able to use his "people skills" along with some other skills to avoid it.
Any of you previous posters:
What was your hit ratio the last time you were in a shootout? Not your paper target score, your hits on another person in a shootout, using a handgun? Were your hits on another person shooting back at you as well centered as from the three-yard line during your last practice session?
The only gunfight I was ever in I was off-duty and unarmed, until I dragged the wounded officer (shot three times with a .357mag) from the kill zone, THEN I went and armed myself.
Stress makes you do unusual things, sometimes STUPID things. When my buddy in this incident was shot (disarmed by a mental patient and shot with his own gun, in our small city jail) I was the training officer at the PD at the time...my first response was to run TO, not away from, but TO the gun fire and give aid to the officer, not to arm myself. Actually, I was talking to the chief of police about some training films I had showed the night before. When the first three shots went off, I asked the chief for his sidearm...but he never carried one on him! So,unarmed, I ran into the jail's booking area where the shot officer collapsed.
Had I been armed, I don't know what my respopnse would have been, but I would have been better off and better able to deal with the shooter. If I had shot, I very well could have missed him, I was REALLY jacked up at the time. (Talk about adrenenlin rush and tunnel vision!) I know that now, but it never crossed my mind while the wounded officer needed help, and I was trying to get him to safety. In actuality, the shooter was handcuffed to a cell door, but none of us knew that at the time. After I got the officer to safety and armed myself, we found the shooter cowering in his cell. He was cuffed and taken to the local hospital for observation. Not one unkind hand was laid on him, BTW.
I've been a cop for > 30 years and never had to use my weapon. I am an above average shooter in my department, a APOST certified firearms instructor since 1983, and a "gun guy", and shoot probably more than anyone in my department of 30, save one or two. My ageing eysight and diabetes is taking its toll also. I go looking for trouble way less now than I used to. But I don't run from it either.
I reload my practice ammo because I can't afford enough factory ammo to shoot as much as I do.
The dynamics of a gunfight are far and away from the conditions at the range. Til you've been in a gunfight where the very real possibility exists you may be shot and killed, please don't cast dispersions on those who have shot back, and didn't land 100% of all their rounds center-mass.
This post sounds harsh, but I've actually toned it down a little.
Mods, please remove it if you'd like, no problem with that.
NOW: Lessons learned the hard way:
For several months, some of the officers had been to the chief about setting forth a policy that each officer remove and secure his sidearm(s) prior to going into the jail. The chief, being of the old school, refused, because he believed you might need it while you in the lock-up area.
He was an "old-timer" and more importantly, he was the chief, so what he said went.
Some of us had good-naturedly "ragged" him about not wearing a sidearm(hopeing he'd catch the hint, and start "packing")...his response was that he was big enough that he didnt need one on his person, and always had one "close-by".
After the shooting, we got the gun-lock boxes, and the chief (now retired) was never unarmed again.
The officer that was shot has recovered fully, the gunshots were thru and thru flesh wounds. He serves as the current chief of that department.
I'm real careful about where I go and what I do when I'm unarmed, which is not often
I expect to catch some flack about this post, but time for some of the "pitiful-shooting" guys in blue to post back.
If combat shooting was easy, anybody could do it.
What was your hit ratio the last time you were in a shootout? Not your paper target score, your hits on another person in a shootout, using a handgun? Were your hits on another person shooting back at you as well centered as from the three-yard line during your last practice session?
The only gunfight I was ever in I was off-duty and unarmed, until I dragged the wounded officer (shot three times with a .357mag) from the kill zone, THEN I went and armed myself.
Stress makes you do unusual things, sometimes STUPID things. When my buddy in this incident was shot (disarmed by a mental patient and shot with his own gun, in our small city jail) I was the training officer at the PD at the time...my first response was to run TO, not away from, but TO the gun fire and give aid to the officer, not to arm myself. Actually, I was talking to the chief of police about some training films I had showed the night before. When the first three shots went off, I asked the chief for his sidearm...but he never carried one on him! So,unarmed, I ran into the jail's booking area where the shot officer collapsed.
Had I been armed, I don't know what my respopnse would have been, but I would have been better off and better able to deal with the shooter. If I had shot, I very well could have missed him, I was REALLY jacked up at the time. (Talk about adrenenlin rush and tunnel vision!) I know that now, but it never crossed my mind while the wounded officer needed help, and I was trying to get him to safety. In actuality, the shooter was handcuffed to a cell door, but none of us knew that at the time. After I got the officer to safety and armed myself, we found the shooter cowering in his cell. He was cuffed and taken to the local hospital for observation. Not one unkind hand was laid on him, BTW.
I've been a cop for > 30 years and never had to use my weapon. I am an above average shooter in my department, a APOST certified firearms instructor since 1983, and a "gun guy", and shoot probably more than anyone in my department of 30, save one or two. My ageing eysight and diabetes is taking its toll also. I go looking for trouble way less now than I used to. But I don't run from it either.
I reload my practice ammo because I can't afford enough factory ammo to shoot as much as I do.
The dynamics of a gunfight are far and away from the conditions at the range. Til you've been in a gunfight where the very real possibility exists you may be shot and killed, please don't cast dispersions on those who have shot back, and didn't land 100% of all their rounds center-mass.
This post sounds harsh, but I've actually toned it down a little.
Mods, please remove it if you'd like, no problem with that.
NOW: Lessons learned the hard way:
For several months, some of the officers had been to the chief about setting forth a policy that each officer remove and secure his sidearm(s) prior to going into the jail. The chief, being of the old school, refused, because he believed you might need it while you in the lock-up area.
He was an "old-timer" and more importantly, he was the chief, so what he said went.
Some of us had good-naturedly "ragged" him about not wearing a sidearm(hopeing he'd catch the hint, and start "packing")...his response was that he was big enough that he didnt need one on his person, and always had one "close-by".
After the shooting, we got the gun-lock boxes, and the chief (now retired) was never unarmed again.
The officer that was shot has recovered fully, the gunshots were thru and thru flesh wounds. He serves as the current chief of that department.
I'm real careful about where I go and what I do when I'm unarmed, which is not often
I expect to catch some flack about this post, but time for some of the "pitiful-shooting" guys in blue to post back.
If combat shooting was easy, anybody could do it.
Last edited:
MyGunsJammed
New member
FM12, no flames from me sir, God bless you.....
you have my respect...
you have my respect...
Perldog007
New member
The point that a cop has more to do than shoot is a salient one.
Cars are more deadly than guns in my view, in total body count annually anyhow, so yes driving is important.
The ability to articulate in writing and verbally on the witness stand is huge.
Observation skills, safe driving, people skills, verbal judo, the other judo or some method of controlling violent subjects without blowing the municipal budget defending lawsuits, note taking, stamina and endurance. All of these come into play more than marksmanship.
As an armed security guard and special police officer I was mortified at the attitude of most of my co-workers and many cops regarding gun handling skills. It seemed that many thought the high capacity magazine and a through knowledge of action movies would carry the day.
When such topics come up in downtime chat sessions, it is amazing how often you hear "Hey I've got (X number of) rounds....." .
Or in D.C. where Specials carried .38s "Man, I only got six rounds and those drug boys.....". Better to stay home with that mindset. Either of the above actually.
I still say if you have a gun, and plan on using it -at home, as a citizen with a permit, as a security guard, as a cop, on the public range to cut paper on weekends - you owe a duty to exercise a reasonable level of care and hone your skill and safety habits to the highest level you are capable of.
To do less is IMHO negligent. What I perceive to be the current trend of upgrading weapons instead of raising standards disturbs me.
When crack took off, cops were complaining about being out gunned by gang members with high capacity automatic and semiautomatic weapons. So instead of making them better shots we gave them more ammunition.
My perception could be off. I could be wrong. Maybe giving out better weapons that hold more ammo is better than stressing marksmanship.
Yes many cops go a career without drawing, much less shooting their weapon. Yes it is a small part of the job.
In our current society, when it all goes terribly wrong the thin blue line are the designated shooters. How can you take that responsibility and not try to do your best?
I did not start my adult life as a "gun person". I used to hate shooting until I realized that by wearing a weapon to work I was making a contract with the client and the jurisdiction that licensed me. That contract is a serious one, deadly serious.
So just like taking notes, writing reports, learning to deal with people, knowing first aid and cpr, restraining subjects without injuring them, - gun handling became a critical skill.
I have no dispersions to cast on anybody who has had to fire their weapon for the results. My quarrel is with training and minimum standards.
If you tell an officer "you will qualify every six months with a minimum score of 80% to be able to work the street" you can't very well be upset with the results.
For sure pulling your weapon in a tense situation is way different than taking aim at a paper target, so actually using it must also be different.
No I was never in a shootout. Have been plenty scared though. Have had to pull my weapon and deal with a situation when I would have rather had a good cry and wet my pants. It is way different than the range no question.
Still say that if you can't get it done on stationary paper targets maybe carrying a gun and looking for trouble should not be your bag.
Massad Ayoob also formed a sound theory backed by data that officers who compete in marksmanship matches are more likely to survive a gunfight than those who don't.
Shooting under the stress of competition carries over from what can be derived in his quarter century of research in the realm of Officer Survival. It may exist but we haven't heard of any agency mandated competitions.
I would be willing to take a bump on my property tax to fund a league, buy more ammo etc. Heck they bump us for stupid stuff, why not for a sound idea?
Cars are more deadly than guns in my view, in total body count annually anyhow, so yes driving is important.
The ability to articulate in writing and verbally on the witness stand is huge.
Observation skills, safe driving, people skills, verbal judo, the other judo or some method of controlling violent subjects without blowing the municipal budget defending lawsuits, note taking, stamina and endurance. All of these come into play more than marksmanship.
As an armed security guard and special police officer I was mortified at the attitude of most of my co-workers and many cops regarding gun handling skills. It seemed that many thought the high capacity magazine and a through knowledge of action movies would carry the day.
When such topics come up in downtime chat sessions, it is amazing how often you hear "Hey I've got (X number of) rounds....." .
Or in D.C. where Specials carried .38s "Man, I only got six rounds and those drug boys.....". Better to stay home with that mindset. Either of the above actually.
I still say if you have a gun, and plan on using it -at home, as a citizen with a permit, as a security guard, as a cop, on the public range to cut paper on weekends - you owe a duty to exercise a reasonable level of care and hone your skill and safety habits to the highest level you are capable of.
To do less is IMHO negligent. What I perceive to be the current trend of upgrading weapons instead of raising standards disturbs me.
When crack took off, cops were complaining about being out gunned by gang members with high capacity automatic and semiautomatic weapons. So instead of making them better shots we gave them more ammunition.
My perception could be off. I could be wrong. Maybe giving out better weapons that hold more ammo is better than stressing marksmanship.
Yes many cops go a career without drawing, much less shooting their weapon. Yes it is a small part of the job.
In our current society, when it all goes terribly wrong the thin blue line are the designated shooters. How can you take that responsibility and not try to do your best?
I did not start my adult life as a "gun person". I used to hate shooting until I realized that by wearing a weapon to work I was making a contract with the client and the jurisdiction that licensed me. That contract is a serious one, deadly serious.
So just like taking notes, writing reports, learning to deal with people, knowing first aid and cpr, restraining subjects without injuring them, - gun handling became a critical skill.
I have no dispersions to cast on anybody who has had to fire their weapon for the results. My quarrel is with training and minimum standards.
If you tell an officer "you will qualify every six months with a minimum score of 80% to be able to work the street" you can't very well be upset with the results.
For sure pulling your weapon in a tense situation is way different than taking aim at a paper target, so actually using it must also be different.
No I was never in a shootout. Have been plenty scared though. Have had to pull my weapon and deal with a situation when I would have rather had a good cry and wet my pants. It is way different than the range no question.
Still say that if you can't get it done on stationary paper targets maybe carrying a gun and looking for trouble should not be your bag.
Massad Ayoob also formed a sound theory backed by data that officers who compete in marksmanship matches are more likely to survive a gunfight than those who don't.
Shooting under the stress of competition carries over from what can be derived in his quarter century of research in the realm of Officer Survival. It may exist but we haven't heard of any agency mandated competitions.
I would be willing to take a bump on my property tax to fund a league, buy more ammo etc. Heck they bump us for stupid stuff, why not for a sound idea?
Under stress, your fine motor skills go out the window, and if the assailant is armed, you tend to focus on the weapon, not neccesarily your backstop or surroundings. Add to this that most shootings occur during the night, and police are reacting to a threat, so usually the perp has the upper hand, and you have a tough situation to be in.
I doubt many on this forum, when put into a similar situation, would fair much better than the stated 18-20%.
When you look at the details 18-20% isn't that bad.
I doubt many on this forum, when put into a similar situation, would fair much better than the stated 18-20%.
When you look at the details 18-20% isn't that bad.
You guys need to give the cops a break here. Those stats. are taken from instances occurring under the worst circumstances in one of the most anti-gun areas. If you really want to see lousy hit rates look at the stats. for almost any military encounter the US has been in since Vietnam.
Their job isn’t to shoot people. The reason they carry a pistol is the same as you… to protect themselves in an emergency.
That being said, I was amazed when I got my Pistol Instructor certification. We had an informal match after the class was over. Without any exceptions, the shooters’ scores were grouped perfectly by their backgrounds. At the bottom were all the cops, then the security guards, and at the top were the "gun nuts". I’m a gun nut
but I wasn’t the best gun nut.
The cops got their panties in a twist, and made excuses about the .22s we were shooting, how they were used to their own weapons, etc. So… we left the indoor range and drove over to the outdoor range. Everyone used their defense pistol and the results were basically the same(a couple of cops did better than one security guard).
Keep in mind this was an unscientific sample and the cops shot really well by objective standards. My take on the match is that the gun nuts were there out of a love of the shooting sports and a desire to teach others about their passion(and probably had shot more). The cops were there because it was part of their job.
In the match, the only guys under any pressure were the cops and that, because of their pride. The results might have well been different if all were under pressure … much less (God forbid) … life and death pressure.
It was really fun "rubbin it in" though.
Their job isn’t to shoot people. The reason they carry a pistol is the same as you… to protect themselves in an emergency.
That being said, I was amazed when I got my Pistol Instructor certification. We had an informal match after the class was over. Without any exceptions, the shooters’ scores were grouped perfectly by their backgrounds. At the bottom were all the cops, then the security guards, and at the top were the "gun nuts". I’m a gun nut
but I wasn’t the best gun nut.The cops got their panties in a twist, and made excuses about the .22s we were shooting, how they were used to their own weapons, etc. So… we left the indoor range and drove over to the outdoor range. Everyone used their defense pistol and the results were basically the same(a couple of cops did better than one security guard).
Keep in mind this was an unscientific sample and the cops shot really well by objective standards. My take on the match is that the gun nuts were there out of a love of the shooting sports and a desire to teach others about their passion(and probably had shot more). The cops were there because it was part of their job.
In the match, the only guys under any pressure were the cops and that, because of their pride. The results might have well been different if all were under pressure … much less (God forbid) … life and death pressure.
It was really fun "rubbin it in" though.
Perldog007
New member
The topic is hit rate in police shootouts. I say given that few departments require greater than 80% accuracy on a paper target the hit rate is where it should be. My position is that this can be improved upon.
Higher standards are not used for a reason. One I don't understand. To my feeble mind it is simple. Practice more, train more, get better results in dire situations.
Do elite military units train harder for the sheer unadulterated thrill of it? Or because the old adage "more sweat on the parade ground means less blood on the battle ground" is a sound one?
When you have four guys in a crowded city shooting 42 times and hitting 19 at distance measured in feet, something ain't quite right.
Is it the fault of the individual officer? When I had to ask that question of myself I said yes. Companies and agencies have some culpability in the state of affairs, but it is the individual who straps on the gun and goes to work.
For seven years my guns were cased. When reality shattered my tranquil world view training resumed. I don't carry at work or ccw. My decision to keep a loaded gun at home dictates that I strive to be the safest best operator possible
Before I get another permit to carry there will be more training. Practice and training will continue as long as a gun is kept ready to use.
Should a cop do less? Given their responsibility IMO they should do all they can. YMMV.
Will doing so improve their hit ratio in defensive shootings? It can't hurt.
Cut cops some slack? Nope. I care too much about them to make excuses. If you carry a gun, be the best gun handler you can be or leave it locked up and unloaded.
In regular outings to various ranges an army of angry bikers and Al Queda members hell bent on keeping cops from practicing or competing has never been encountered. No slack.
Police get my full trust and cooperation any time they say so. In return competence is expected.
P.S. in any case, this has been a most interesting discussion. My thanks to the LEOs for their input and their service.
Higher standards are not used for a reason. One I don't understand. To my feeble mind it is simple. Practice more, train more, get better results in dire situations.
Do elite military units train harder for the sheer unadulterated thrill of it? Or because the old adage "more sweat on the parade ground means less blood on the battle ground" is a sound one?
When you have four guys in a crowded city shooting 42 times and hitting 19 at distance measured in feet, something ain't quite right.
Is it the fault of the individual officer? When I had to ask that question of myself I said yes. Companies and agencies have some culpability in the state of affairs, but it is the individual who straps on the gun and goes to work.
For seven years my guns were cased. When reality shattered my tranquil world view training resumed. I don't carry at work or ccw. My decision to keep a loaded gun at home dictates that I strive to be the safest best operator possible
Before I get another permit to carry there will be more training. Practice and training will continue as long as a gun is kept ready to use.
Should a cop do less? Given their responsibility IMO they should do all they can. YMMV.
Will doing so improve their hit ratio in defensive shootings? It can't hurt.
Cut cops some slack? Nope. I care too much about them to make excuses. If you carry a gun, be the best gun handler you can be or leave it locked up and unloaded.
In regular outings to various ranges an army of angry bikers and Al Queda members hell bent on keeping cops from practicing or competing has never been encountered. No slack.
Police get my full trust and cooperation any time they say so. In return competence is expected.
P.S. in any case, this has been a most interesting discussion. My thanks to the LEOs for their input and their service.
Last edited:
Bellevance
New member
Well said, Perldog007, thanks. It has been an interesting discussion, I agree.
My gratitude and appreciation to all the LEOs for their dedication to everything they do--way beyond handgun training.
My gratitude and appreciation to all the LEOs for their dedication to everything they do--way beyond handgun training.
Last edited:
MyGunsJammed
New member
I think for the LEO's who cant hit their targets, their pistols should be taken away, and they should only be issued nightsticks and flashlights instead...