Semi-Auto's and Qualification

  • Thread starter Thread starter PreserveFreedom
  • Start date Start date
P

PreserveFreedom

Guest
This is not meant to flame any profession!

A few threads in the past month got me thinking about something. (One of them was a thread about my irresponsible brother.

Now, I have never been in the military, but have spoken to my fair share of veterans. From what I understand, you have to be pretty darn good with the knowledge of your issued weapon(s). My question is this:

Why don't other agencies that issue firearms make those that get issued the firearms become proficient in the workings of them?

It seems to me that an agent, police officer, security guard, or any other person that carries in the name of their employer should know how to field their sidearm at the very least. I think it would be nice of when an agency did their regular qualifications, part of the exercise would be to field strip and reassemble their sidearm before and after shooting. We all know there is so much more to shooting than putting holes in paper. What do y'all think? In case I am mistaken (it happens now and then) are there any agencies (public or private) that require this or something similar?

Again, this is not meant to flame any profession! I am in private security myself so if this were to be made standard, it would affect me as well as all the others!
 
The degree of real proficiency varies with the administrators of any agency.

For instance: Some police departments require a shooting proficiency test only once a year. The total number of shots in the test was around 50 for the Austintatious PD, back some years ago. (I haven't kept track about "nowadays".)

An ex-LEO gunsmith friend of mine in Austin was to clean the carry-pistol of one the PD Captains. It took over a half an hour just to get the cylinder open, and about an hour to get the cylinder unloaded. That little S&W had not been out of its holster in over 15 years!

Back then, any who competed in PPC had to buy their own ammo and pay all expenses to competition matches...

I started the IPSC club in Austin in 1981. We had a standing offer made known to the SO and PD that there was no entry fee for any officer. There would be a revolver class. We never had any entrant who was an active-duty officer. Never.

SFAIK, from hearsay, many rural SOs don't do much firearms training...

FWIW, Art
 
It's my observation that the marksmanship of LEO's is either quite good or abysmal. There's no in-between, and the latter group VASTLY outnumbers the former.

I once was a member of a pistol club that used the range facilities of a major metropolitan police department. We had a league that fired the qualification course of the PD . . . but we had to
1)cut all the times in half;
2) include strong hand only or weak hand only limitations on some of the stages, just to make it interesting.

Most of us scored in the high 90's... and let me hasten to add we had no Rob Leathams in the club. Yet a great many officers failed to achieve the minimum "70" score without a lot of coaching and multiple runs.

Yes, an occasional officer showed up for qualification with a gun that was rusted shut.

Poor training isn't limited to civilian agencies. I've heard that some Navy personnel who are issued Beretta pistols fire less than a full magazine before they're carrying them on duty. I HOPE this isn't true . . .
 
Never carried a Beretta on-duty in the Navy (I had the shotgun), but I understand that the course of fire is about one magazine for qualification. It doesn't much matter anyway, because they're going to have a hard time getting off a shot unless they've changed the carry method in the past year. Those guys had their piece in one holster, empty with NO MAG IN THE GUN, and their two mags in mag pouches on their other hip. So, in order to get off a shot they would have to unholster the gun, get the mag out of the pouch, seat it, rack the slide, and shoot. Sounds like 2-3 seconds for ME to get done, and I'd bet on me ahead of ANY of the guys I've seen standing that watch.

Funny (but sad) story: I was working part-time at Circuit City right before I got out of the Navy, and one of my customers happened to be a young lady who worked for the Virginia State Police. Being a certified "gun nut", and knowing that they had just gotten new Sig's in .357 Sig for issue sidearms about 6 months earlier, I decided I'd ask her how she liked it.

Me: So, what new sidearm did you guys get?
Her: .357 Sig
Me: I know the caliber, but what is the make and model of the gun?
Her: I don't know.
Me: You don't?
Her: Nope.
Me: Maybe I can help. How do you take it apart to clean it?
Her: Clean it?
Me: Yeah. You know, after you shoot it, you clean it...
Her: Nah. Too much trouble.

I stopped asking questions.

And I agree with the comment about LEO's being either hellagood shots or almost incompetent. That's been my experience with friends and encounters on the range as well.
 
LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR (IT'S 2001, MAN)

REQUIRE?

Training costs money. Taxpayers are cheap. Cops are not gun enthusiasts. Time is limited. Lawyers are EVERYWHERE.

REQUIRE?

I have my own ideas (and I made very little on my 'cop' ammo), but -bottom line- training costs money.
 
I agree with WESHOOT2: training DOES cost.

Can we agree that training LESS will ultimately cost MORE, at least in terms of human cost? (And that's a LOT higher than dollars in my book.)
 
What HankB said is pretty much what I have seen. Some of the worst gun handling I've ever seen, has, unfortunately been by LEO's. The only ND I've ever witnessed was an LEO (no one hurt). In the cases I witnessed, I think arrogance and complacence had a lot to do with it.

In my short and unrewarding LE stint, I have to say the training and qual course we had was excellent, and yes, we did have to field strip and clean the pistols as a part of the course. It was the most challenging course I've ever shot and that includes the NRA Security/LE instructor course I shot when I took the class at Quantico a few years earlier.

I don't like cleaning guns, but I appreciate the value of the hard-earned dollars I spent to acquire the few firearms I have and I will work to protect it by maintaining my hardware. Most importantly, when we maintain our guns in good clean working order, we protect our lives and those of the people we might need to protect, whether we are police, security, or just JQ public protecting his loved ones.

I am currently working part time for a security agency that allows (requires) us to provide all our own hardware, and I see (for the most part) some very well-maintained, state of the art firearms being carried in good, professional duty gear - all better than that issued by most security outfits. This is a relatively high-risk job in an area where a lot of violence is occurring, and I feel a lot safer because of the professional interest most of us take in our gear. Some of my co-workers on this job are OD cops, and some of us are just security hacks. There doesn't seem to be much correlation between the profession of our officers and their interest in maintiaining their weapons. In fact, some of the best on this gig are the cops.


-10CFR
 
My friend and comrade-at-arms, Mr. Sam, has commented in similar threads that a sidearm is an LEO's tool -- not his only one, but a very important one. He is right (as usual).

How many professionals are allowed to be incompetent with the primary tools of their trade? How many fail to maintain them? How many are hazardous in their operation (remember the New York City and Philadelphia incidents, with approximately 90 percent of the rounds off-target)? Obviously, the answer is very few.

I accept the cost and time required for training and inspection. What I cannot understand is how an LEO -- who knows that someday that handgun may be vital to his returning home safely -- can be so negligent. I would think LEOs, their departments, their partners and colleagues, and their families would insist on high standards in this arena. Evidently, I am wrong.
 
A buddy of mine is a firearm instruction with a large SD in Virginia. I have always wondered how in the world he has the job, because he can't shoot a lick himself. The one (and only) time we went to the range together, he popped off 15 shots from his G19 into a milk bottle target, and there were 15 holes all over the place. His thought process: poke a lot of holes and make them bleed out. I took about the same amount of time to rattle off 10 shots from my G21, and I had 5 shots right around the "Q" in the middle of the target and 5 shots closely grouped in the center of the neck at the top. I told him I'd take mine. He didn't want to shoot anymore.

I agree wholeheartedly with what RWK said, and would like to add that not only might an officer's incompetence with a firearm make him or her unable to go home some night, but he or she might kill an innocent bystander in the process. THAT is what I meant by the human cost involved.

Peace officers don't need to be "proficient" with their firearms. They need to be as close to "expert" as they can possibly be. It's not only their lives that depend on it.
 
Poor training isn't limited to civilian agencies. I've heard that some Navy personnel who are issued Beretta pistols fire less than a full magazine before they're carrying them on duty. I HOPE this isn't true . . .
Click to expand...

This past summer, I spent 28 days of fun in the sun at Lackland AFB going through Air Force Field Training (I'm an ROTC cadet). Our M9 training was about two hours of lecture and a quick firing session.

The lecture was in a large classroom with about 200 cadets and about 20 instructors. There were about 10 cadets per row, and 20 rows or so, with pistols and two magazines laying in front of each cadet on the table. They talked to us for a while, then told us to pick up the weapons and hold them in a shooting stance - pointing right at the head of the cadet in front of us! I aimed between cadets at the wall, but the instructors told me to aim straight ahead - at the cadet in front of me. Cadets all around me had never fired a weapon before, and naturally, all of them had their fingers on the triggers, yet no instructors told them to get their fingers off. I remember just sitting and praying that I wouldn't be shot on the range.

At the range proper, we were each given 36 bullets to qualify - no practice, just load up 15 rounds in one mag and 3 in the other, and shoot. I did pretty well, and I think I would have qualified expert (not that that would have meant much), but everyone around us were such horrible shots that some people had a lot less than 36 holes in their targets, while I personally had 37, and I know one poor soul had over 40 holes. :( When these future officers are missing the COM at 5 yards, I pray that their job will take them no closer to combat than a coffee machine somewhere in the midwest.

I think this is where any Marines here start mercilessly mocking the Air Force :)
 
RWK....thank you Sir. I get lucky sometimes.

A look from the fiscal side.

Training costs money that comes out of the Department's funds. These funds are fought over by the various factions within the department. Concensus being that there is a shortage of funds.

Meanwhile, if a couple of cruisers blow a felony stop and the end result is the deaths of multiple citizens who were not otherwise involved.......The city or town is the target of multi million dollar lawsuits. Sometimes the awards exceed the insurance cap and the town or city is then in dire straits.

Save a buck to lose thousands.???

Sam
 
when we train to save lives with weapons our only concern should be wearing out weapons not buying ammo. when lives are at stake cost does not matter. in real units we wear out weapons. tax payers are happy to buy replacements:)
 
Military handgun training STINKS for the most part. I should know, I recieved NONE before having to take my M9 to the range to qualify before going to Bosnia. :eek:

I shot expert. Then I framed the scorecard. So much for rigorous military pistol tables... :rolleyes:
 
My $.02

Cops as a group are poor shots and only fair at safe gun handling.
Goblins are worse than cops.

Part of the reason many people are for gun control is they never see a someone that knows and uses the basics of gun handling.

When LEO meet one or two people that have a strong mindset or average [by TFL standards] shooting skill they usually take a lot of casualties. Consider Charles Whitman, Miami-Dade shootout, LA bank robbery.
 
A beretta 92 or glock $600 (guesstamate ) a brick of ammo $220
time spent on range $12 an hour , a innnocent bystanders life Priceless . any officer in MY opinoin who does not practice is neglegent ,as is the city that doesn't require them to . When I was a cadet we where required to practice ,and clean our weapon , this is something I still do to this day , And I am not an LEO ,
 
Bob,


Things have changed, sad it took something bad to change them. If you see a Navy shotgun it will be cruiser ready. The M-9's will have a round chambered and a full mag. M-16s at the gates I believe are fully loaded on safe. Navy kicked out a message recently about preventing AD's/ND's, seems they went up a bit since the guns came out. In my specialty they won't send me to rangemaster school, but I help out where I can volunteeering to line coach and such.

Range space is at a premium with reserve mobilization and such, my own private indoor range has always hosted Specwar so they could shoot whenever they needed to, now most every weeknight you will find one bay devoted to some command getting their proficiency quals.

The fun part is since we have aircrew we shoot M-11's for pistols, aka Sig226. I weasel in when I can to burn free ammo. Have been roundly unsuccessful in going on an M-60 aerial shoot though
:confused: I'll keep trying.
 
Leadership Dictates this one

When I was a special agent in the military, we were issued old model 10 38 specials. Our senior leadership was much into handguns so we qualified only once per year and never practiced in a formal setting. SAid that we couldn't afford ammo!

When I joined a metro PD, the Chief was progressive...educated...young....former federal agent .....and he was a bit of a gun nut....carried a model 19 S&W that he could shoot the eyes out of an ant with!

We had a two-lane indoor range that was available just for the asking and if we were practicing for our twice annual qualifying, the department provided a box of ammo....while those 50 rounds weren't much, they were "duty" type 357 SWC's and given our abysmal salaries, a grand "gift" from the dept.

Additionally, our department allowed us to carry our own weapons (in those days, limited to revolvers) so long as we could qualify with them. What I discovered was that those of us who carried our own personal weapons were pretty much shooting "aces" while those who toted the department-issued weapons couldn't hit their fannies with both hands and light from a lighthouse for direction.
 
Per CastleBravo's post, few Army units spend much time on handgun training. The armored cavalry squadron I was in spent more time on it than any infantry unit I was ever in (because some tankers are issued sidearms only), and even then all the Scouts and most of the officers still shot qualification with the M16.

Unless the Ranger course has changed, you spend exactly zero time with a handgun. The only units I've even seen do much combat-style shooting with handguns are SF, and presumably Delta - I saw presumably because they don't officially exist.

When you can carry a 5.5 lb M4 with a round with over 1,000 ft lbs of muzzle velocity and the same magazines and ammo that all the other good guys have, a pistol isn't a very attractive choice. The only concealed carry I ever did was because the mess hall wouldn't let you bring a [visible] weapon in, and the Border Officers and reaction force had to have their weapons ready all the time. Carrying a .45 inside the belt cured me of any desire to carry one.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top