Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
DanChamberlain
Posts: 3,395 Senior Member
Carry vs. Qualification
DanChamberlain
Posts: 3,395 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.
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
Replies
NRA Endowment Member
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
N454casull
That's what I do too....now.
Mike
N454casull
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.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
This X a bunch! Most of the LEO's I've known weren't real gun enthusiasts and thought qualifying was a nuisance.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The way I figure, I train on what I suck at.