Carry vs. Qualification

DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior MemberPosts: 3,375 Senior Member
So, had to do my annual qualification for my LEOSA carry and since I moved to Missouri, there is a difference in the qualification. One thing I've noticed, is in every course I've attended in the last 5 years, I'm the only one who qualified with a subcompact. Everyone else qualifies with a full size duty style weapon. This has resulted in my weapon choice being commented on by the range officials every time I show up.

This course, different from the Illinois course, required weak hand, 12 rounds (6 and 6) at 5, 7 and 15 yards! Strong hand the same, and finally 2 hands at 20 yards for 12 rounds. Not a terribly difficult course, but I noticed many of the shooters having difficulty at 15 yards shooting one handed.

The range official for this shoot was impressed that my little Kahr CW-9 grouped very well. He commented that he'd very seldom had a LEOSA student show up with a sub-compact even though many departments require their officers to qualify with their off-duty firearm as well.

It's my favorite carry gun at the moment.
It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
«1

Replies

  • LMLarsenLMLarsen Senior Member Posts: 8,337 Senior Member
    I loved my Kahr K9, and should never have sold it. It felt like a little bitty SIG in my hand, and shot just as well.
    “A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

    NRA Endowment Member
  • 1965Jeff1965Jeff Senior Member Posts: 1,611 Senior Member
    Have you had any feeding problems with the cw9? Mine has stumbled a couple times with flat pointed 124 gr berry bullets.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,542 Senior Member
    My EDC is a Kahr PM9. Although I can't seem to hit a rattlesnake at 3 feet with 7 shots, I have, a couple times, walked a soda can uphill at 15 yards rapid fire.

    I guess I was concentrated too much on the snake and not enough on the gus.

    Mike

    Edit: Thanks, JerryBobCo...your pocketknife saved the day. I was out of bullets.
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,375 Senior Member
    Nope. Feeds hollow points easily.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,375 Senior Member
    I never shoot at rattle snakes. I scream like a girl and run away crying.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,542 Senior Member
    I never shoot at rattle snakes. I scream like a girl and run away crying.

    That's what I do too....now.

    Mike
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    I think the LEO state qualification courses are mostly no relevant to civilian carry needs. In my state, we no longer shoot weak-handed in LEO training, which is good since it's very impractical in law enforcement work and totally impractical for civilian carry. If you get harmed in the strong side, it's time to un-ass the area. The idea of running toward a target is equally unreal. Hide! Don't shorten the distance between you and a bad guy.

    I used to belong to GALEFFI, (Georgia Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, if I got the acronym right) and was astounded at some of the training. LEO training should put a lot more emphasis on close-in (IMO) and less importance on shooting at 25 yards under time. I'm sure I see how that helps one be a better shot at 25 yards, but very few encounters happen at that range, and almost zero for CC.

    I've got several small pistols, way too many, in fact. Before I had the PM 9 Kahr I have now, I had the model about 1/2" longer, which is no longer made. It was probably the most accurate small gun I've owned. I could routinely get center head shot with it at 25 yards, which I would do just for fun and because I could. Like a fool, I sold it. Wish I had it back.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • EliEli Senior Member Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    If you get harmed in the strong side, it's time to un-ass the area.

    :uhm:

    That's a dumb statement.

    If you are able to "un-ass" the area before guns are drawn, then that is absolutely what you should do. But being in the middle of a gunfight, getting shot, changing you mind and saying, "Ya know what, I've decided to do something else with my time today, I believe that I'll go elsewhere now..." Is the wrong approach on just about every level.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,687 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I think the LEO state qualification courses are mostly no relevant to civilian carry needs. In my state, we no longer shoot weak-handed in LEO training, which is good since it's very impractical in law enforcement work and totally impractical for civilian carry. If you get harmed in the strong side, it's time to un-ass the area. The idea of running toward a target is equally unreal. Hide! Don't shorten the distance between you and a bad guy.

    I used to belong to GALEFFI, (Georgia Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, if I got the acronym right) and was astounded at some of the training. LEO training should put a lot more emphasis on close-in (IMO) and less importance on shooting at 25 yards under time. I'm sure I see how that helps one be a better shot at 25 yards, but very few encounters happen at that range, and almost zero for CC.

    So you're actually saying that practicing at longer distances does nothing to help someone shoot better at shorter distances? It's sad that you think that way.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    So you're actually saying that practicing at longer distances does nothing to help someone shoot better at shorter distances? It's sad that you think that way.

    Yep, that's pretty much it. Additionally, shooting weak-handed does nothing to improve your shooting either. Neither of these can hurt your shooting, I guess, but shooting close up adds up-close accuracy and speed, which I think are paramount especially in practical situations. If you have an unlimited supply of time and ammo, practice however you want. However, I feel you should train for what is most likely to happen rather than what MIGHT happen.

    Sorry I made you sad...here's a happy face. :)
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,375 Senior Member
    I know of one officer who was forced to use his left hand to draw his backup from an ankle holster and make return fire. He won.

    I've found that people who can make accurate shots at 20 yards, can do so even faster at 5 - and they never miss at that range.

    There is another school of thought, that what one does in practice, one will do in real life. If one trains to ignore the weak hand, one will ignore the weak hand.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    As a cop, maybe. The instances of one LEO shooting weak handed I don't think justifies 12 rounds weak hand training. In a lot of programs, that represents 24% of rounds fired in a 50 round program. That's a lot of training for something that's very unlikely to happen, especially for a non-LEO. But it's a part of training protocols, just not in my state.

    I haven't seen shooting at 20 yards, requiring a sight picture and sight alignment helps at five yards, which is just shoot with no sight picture. What I've found that improves shooting at five yards is shooting at five yards. Very quickly. Shooting up close requires an entirely different set of skills as opposed to shooting at 25. It's a different game entirely.

    But that's just me. Most cop involved shooting happens at close range, and virtually all non-cop shootings (legal ones, not gangbangers) happen at room distance. I used to like to shoot and delighted in hitting at 25 yards, especially when I was shooting the Office's ammo. Can't say it hurt my close-in accuracy, but I can say it didn't help.

    We have a stage in qualification that requires you to drop down from a standing position at 15 yards to a sitting position while shooting around cover. Timed with a reload. IIRC, it's ten rounds. This is fine for a cop, not so fine as a civilian. If I had cover, I'd hide.

    All police training is oriented toward not surprising, cops shooting. Zero I have seen concentrates on civilian shooting situations, since that's a whole different ball game. Yet, since that's all we know, it's how we train.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,375 Senior Member
    All of which is why, after years of LEO qualification, and civilian competition, I can say the "average" civilian shooter is better than the "average" cop in hand gunnery.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,687 Senior Member
    All of which is why, after years of LEO qualification, and civilian competition, I can say the "average" civilian shooter is better than the "average" cop in hand gunnery.


    This X a bunch! Most of the LEO's I've known weren't real gun enthusiasts and thought qualifying was a nuisance.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    All of which is why, after years of LEO qualification, and civilian competition, I can say the "average" civilian shooter is better than the "average" cop in hand gunnery.

    Better at what? Playing shoot and scoot games? I don't have an opinion, really. Statistics don't exist that I know of. Ride-bys? The Las Vegas shooting? We agree that cops aren't great at shooting, but what about civilians in shoot situations. Shooting has been for a long time a series of gaming. Those civilians who play the games are better at playing the games and cops who train for the qualifying course are pretty good at qualification, but those aren't real shooting situations.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,687 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Better at what? Playing shoot and scoot games? I don't have an opinion, really. Statistics don't exist that I know of. Ride-bys? The Las Vegas shooting? We agree that cops aren't great at shooting, but what about civilians in shoot situations. Shooting has been for a long time a series of gaming. Those civilians who play the games are better at playing the games and cops who train for the qualifying course are pretty good at qualification, but those aren't real shooting situations.

    When I worked in Fort Worth, the Tri-County Drug Task Force used to attend the IPSC matches at the Brazos River Gun Club specifically to train and improve their reaction times. It might be gaming to a small town "Barney Fife" but a group of LEO's that had to be exceptionally proficient with their firearms considered it a valuable training tool.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    Any shooting requiring accuracy is valuable training. I used to compete in both PPC and ISPC, and while it was fun, it was shooting in highly unlikely situations. It was a game. Even more so for civilians, where the shooting courses were EXTREMELY unlikely and impractical.

    They should be enjoyed for the sake of competition and fun.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,687 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    They should be enjoyed for the sake of competition and fun.

    To a gun enthusiast, practicing/training is fun.
    And I think the main reason those guys came to our IPSC matches was to improve their speed in identifying and reacting to a scenario which IPSC is based on, regardless of weather the scenario is realistic.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,375 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Better at what? Playing shoot and scoot games? I don't have an opinion, really. Statistics don't exist that I know of. Ride-bys? The Las Vegas shooting? We agree that cops aren't great at shooting, but what about civilians in shoot situations. Shooting has been for a long time a series of gaming. Those civilians who play the games are better at playing the games and cops who train for the qualifying course are pretty good at qualification, but those aren't real shooting situations.

    Gene, don't "sneer" at non-cops and shooting situations. Statistically, they seem to do very well. And, since an infinitesimal number of police officers ever fire their weapons, one could suggest that their training is no less a game than for the person training to carry concealed. Your elitism is showing.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    I'm not sneering at civilian related justifiable shooting, I just don't have any hard data on them. The ones I worked on as a LEO were illegal and never reached out at maybe more than 10 yards. And not sure where to look for such data on justified shootings, whereas cop shooting data are every where. I have never not praised CC shooting classes, not having gone to one I have no idea. But games, such as ISPC, are games and unrelated to the real world so far as predictable shooting situations go.

    In my last position, we conducted handgun shooting for women civilians and they brought everything from Colt Woodsman to .25 Titans. It was mostly a familiarization course for women who probably had never shot a gun before in their lives. These classes were free and well-received and gave the women the ability and confidence to handle and shoot a handgun safely.

    I have no elitism at all. I used to be OK with a handgun, but not any more. I don't even like to shoot handguns, see them as a pain to carry and unlikely to be used. But there are no substitutes for one when one is needed.

    My idea of civilian defensive shooting classes would involve no more than 10 yards and emphasize non-front sight techniques. Practice quickly and shoot more than twice, aim for center of mass. How is that elitism?
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,375 Senior Member
    A gentleman I used to work with back when I was going to college, had a daughter who had a nefarious boyfriend. She broke up with him and it didn't sit well with him. He came visiting one day, and the father ordered him off the premises. He retrieved his deer rifle and began walking around the house, firing indiscriminately into it. Dad ordered everyone into the 2nd floor bath tub, retrieved his .357 and waited until the guy came around the corner of the house. The dad shot the guy with one shot at about 30 yards from a 2nd floor window. The boyfriend ran, but bled out after reaching his car. The Sheriff didn't even investigate, beyond a few photographs.

    I don't suppose the "average" civilian, or for that matter, the average cop needs to practice beyond 10 yards. But don't know if you recall the Air Force Security Policeman who made a 70 yard shot with his M-9 on a guy who'd walked into a base hospital and shot a few people.

    No, I don't suggest qualifying at 70 yards, but I do recall that in the days of the revolver, we had to shoot a segment at 50 yards. I suppose it was aimed more at showing what one could do with the gun, rather than suggesting one might have to do it.

    I just don't buy the "Citizens play shooting games, while cops train for blood." Training is training, and ain't none of it wasted.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,967 Senior Member
    Back in the day, at the basic school, we had to shoot a course of varying distances starting at 50 yds and moving closer with each couple of shots.

    We were using the pistol of the time, a 1911 .45 acp. Many missed at the longer range and it was upsetting because they were selected for infantry and
    did not like an airdale selectee out shooting them.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    Well, we trained civilian shooting self-defensive courses. Or "training" isn't the operative word here as in its organic meaning for us, it was SD. The difference between LEO shooting and CC SD shooting is a matter of "duty bound." When you're a cop, you must stop the threat because you're sworn to do so, but no such duty exists as a civilian. As a civilian training, I'd much rather shoot 50 rounds at 10 yards or less than shoot 12 at 15 yards weak-hand or six weak-hand. As for qualifying, LEO courses are geared toward, reasonably, sworn training. I think this isn't realistic for SD. While it's entirely geared toward LEO, it's not especially suited for the average citizen.

    Maybe I'm being practical. Now, as a non-sworn civilian, I'm not interested in taking out a threat at long range, I'm dedicated to up close and personal.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,687 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Well, we trained civilian shooting self-defensive courses. Or "training" isn't the operative word here as in its organic meaning for us, it was SD. The difference between LEO shooting and CC SD shooting is a matter of "duty bound." As for qualifying, LEO courses are geared toward, reasonably, sworn training. I think this isn't realistic for SD. While it's entirely geared toward LEO, it's not especially suited for the average citizen.
    Maybe I'm being practical. Now, as a non-sworn civilian, I'm not interested in taking out a threat at long range, I'm dedicated to up close and personal.
    And being elitist! You put yourself so high above "civilians" and you don't even realize that you do it. The world is quite a bit different than when you were a cop and we regularly read about events occuring that were unimaginable back then. When I worked aircraft, pilots trained to respond to every possible scenario that may occur in flight even though most of the situations would probably never occur in their careers. If it ever happened, they would know what to do. Firearms training is no different. We hope the need to defend ourselves or loved ones never occurs but if it does, we want to be prepared and I don't gage my practice and training on what you think is practicle and I doubt that anyone else does either.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,055 Senior Member
    There is a huge difference between "qualifying" (meeting an arbitrary minimum standard) and training (learning or improving a particular skill set)
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,651 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    ...But that's just me. Most cop involved shooting happens at close range, and virtually all non-cop shootings (legal ones, not gangbangers) happen at room distance. I used to like to shoot and delighted in hitting at 25 yards, especially when I was shooting the Office's ammo. Can't say it hurt my close-in accuracy, but I can say it didn't help...

    Gene, your LEO experience legitimizes your opinions to a certain extent, but I don't know how you can say that your longer range accuracy shooting didn't help you for typical police shooting scenarios. How can you know that?

    That would be like me saying that my deer rifle only needs to be sighted to 4 MOA because I never shoot over 100 yards. Sure, that might actually work, much of the time. But, considering that good shooting opportunities at a nice buck are hard to come by, I want to know that my bullet will go exactly where I aim, and doing that gives me confidence and calms me when I actually need to make the shot. I believe that the same thing would apply to SD shooting.

    Granted that a LEO may have much more likelihood of getting into a shoot-out, and that a point and shoot capability is very important, but how can you rule out the possibility that you might need to make a head shot at 15 yards or more? So, statistically it is unlikely, but why not practice and have the confidence that you could do it, since lives will always be at stake in a police shoot-out. I believe that the more accuracy training you do, the faster you will hit the target, under stress. There's no reason you can't practice point and shoot at longer ranges, where the first round is point and shoot and the following rounds are aimed.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    Practice as you will. If you're a cop, you'll practice to cover more situations.

    When I started off in LEO, we shot at 50 yards in the prone position. For close up shooting, we drew with the strong hand and put the weak hand in the middle of the chest. Why, I don't know but I suppose at some time in the past an FBI agent had his hand thus and it saved his life.

    Times change. And training changes...a LOT, in the case of firearms training. We now shoot 4 rounds from 25, and do head shots at 12 (?) but it's difficult enough under the pressure of time.

    I'm not dissing any civilian shooting courses. I just wish they'd do more close in stuff and not train on LEO courses.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,967 Senior Member
    Gene:
    You put your weak hand on your chest for the same reason the old time bull's-eye shooters put their weak hand in their
    off side front pocket. To keep it out of the way and steady.

    Your method just let your weak hand be used faster if needed.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    When I was shooting Bullseye with the 1911, we turned the strong side to the target and put the weak hand in our pocket. That was a LONG time ago Back when I was in the Army. I'm not sure with the revolver method, which was when I shot the course I referenced to back in 1972 or so. Either it was an additional protection for the chest or the centering of Chi before it became mainstream.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,612 Senior Member
    I love when other people tell me what I should train on. Having never seen me shoot.

    The way I figure, I train on what I suck at.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.