Texas State Troopers and Marksmanship [Archive]

jmort

08-10-2013, 04:26 PM

They hit/miss rate for LEOs can be really, really low. But clearly there are exceptions. But generally, about the same rate as a spray and pray "civilian."

"There is a considerable amount of research examining the rates at which
police officers shoot and hit—and shoot and kill—suspects. Research has
consistently shown that although there is substantial variation across police
departments, hit rates typically dip well below 50% (Copay & Charles,
2001). “The numbers of wounded and slain criminal suspects in the United
States pale by comparison to the numbers shot at but missed by police”
(Geller & Scott, 1992, p. 100). Horvath and Donahue (1982) reported that
among 155 Michigan police departments, officers involved in deadly-force
encounters hit suspects in approximately 27% of the incidents (from 1976
to 1981). Research in New York City showed consistently low rates from
year to year for the New York Police Department (NYPD): 26% for 1987,
31% for 1988, and 23% for 1990 (Cerar, 1990; NYPD, 1988). Rates have
been less stable in Los Angeles where during the 1970s officers in the Los
Angeles Police Department (LAPD) hit their suspects in 56% of cases, but
from 1980 to 1988, the rate dropped to 28% (Meyer, 1980; M. Scott, personal communication, February 17, 1989). Alpert (1989) reported that from
January 1984 through June 1988, officers in the Metro-Dade, Florida,
Police Department fired at 100 suspects, hitting their target in 31 cases. Pate
and Hamilton (1991) reported similar hit rates for the six largest police
agencies in 1986. The Dallas Police Department (1992) completed a survey
of big-city police departments during 1991, and rates ranged from a low of
25% in Memphis to a high of 100% in San Antonio and San Francisco.3"
http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/hitting%20target%20article_0.pdf

"New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.

In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?pagewanted=all

Hit rates have gone down, I believe it is due to replacement of alpha males with .....

waksupi

08-10-2013, 05:16 PM

jonp

08-10-2013, 05:18 PM

I went to an indoor range in Raleigh that is frequented by the Raleigh PD. As it happens there was only a female officer and myself shooting. After a little bit her target had hits all over it but to be fair all were within the black silhouette. Mine happened to be in the 9 and 10 ring. She actually stopped shooting and watched me and I got embarrassed and just stopped myself.
This didn't really trouble me that much as I'm interested in whether she can hit a person at 7 - 10 yrds under stress not if she can punch bullseyes.

jonp

08-10-2013, 05:19 PM

Our local training officer throws a fit about the poor marksmanship of the guys on the force. They just will not spend the range time. When Ad Clark used to be Chief of Police here, every man on the department was an expert, or they didn't stay employed under him. Ad was a championship level shooter, and demanded the best.
If someone else was paying for my ammo you couldn't pry me off of the range. I don't get officers that won't practice shooting when their lives depend on it.

felix

08-10-2013, 05:33 PM

I agree. Most cops I know could care less about shooting guns. That's prolly a good thing, though. ... felix

725

08-10-2013, 05:46 PM

There were very few shooters on my department. Their sidearm meant no more than their baton, look-out book, call box key or the ham sandwich they brought for lunch that day.

bgreed

08-10-2013, 05:48 PM

Remember they are not shooters they ate revenue collectors

blackthorn

08-10-2013, 05:56 PM

My concern is where did all the "misses" go?? If an officer feels compelled to fire at a person and misses he/she should have to spend thier days off for the next two weeks at the range and then have to pass a compentsy test!! It aint just thier lives in the balance!

Char-Gar

08-10-2013, 05:58 PM

A about a month ago, I pulled up to the Border Patrol checkpoint on the way back from the range where I had been in a bowling pin match with my Smith 625 (45 ACP). As usual they wanted to know where I had been down that desolate road along the Rio Grande River and I told them. They asked what I was shooting and I said a 45. One guy said "a 1911" and I said no a revolver. "I have never knew they had such a thing", he said. Things were slow, so I pulled over and showed both agents my 625 and 25 (1955 Target Model). They seemed to enjoy the new experience. They found the moon clips quite interesting and enjoyed loading and unloading the pistols.

I made them both assure me, they were not going to go ape when I pulled loaded guns out of the truck. Sometimes these folks just react to the sight of a gun in civilian hands.

One agent, a black guy from somewhere up north, said the pistol on his side, was the only pistol he had ever fired, but he enjoyed it and thought he would buy a personal pistol. They were nice young men. We have Border Patrolmen stop by the range and shoot from time to time, and in all truth they are lousy shots as well.

I shot with Bill Jordan and other Patrolmen back in the late 50's and early 60's and those guys would have apoplexy at the way these guys can't shoot today. They shoot a H&K 40 caliber with about a 15 pound trigger pull. It is a wonder they can hit anything, but the Patrol is more worried about an accidental discharge than the ability to hit a bad guy. They point their pistols at people allot, but seldom shoot one.

Boerrancher

08-10-2013, 06:57 PM

Ammohouse

08-10-2013, 08:54 PM

I'm sure there are some fine shots on the force....but it seems that all I see are the bad ones.
When me and my son first started IDPA a couple of years ago there were a couple of cops that shot it...they sucked!
My son who was 14 at the time always beat them.
They couldn't hit center mass, one of them said that they are taught to aim at the 4 corners of a torso instead of center mass.
Either way, they still had a lot of misses...and that's with nobody shooting at them.

1Shirt

08-10-2013, 09:11 PM

The unfortunate reality is that to many LEO's their weapons are only tools of the profession. There are definitely exceptions, and I have shot with many fine LEO's who were excellent marksmen.

BUT: if I was to bet good yankee dollars on the proficiency of the majority of LEO's I would probably be broke. Had one tell me one time that the average distance of an LEO's range on a human target was less than 7 yards. Don't know where the stat came from, and he could not back the statement when I asked him for the basis of the statement.
1Shirt!

Scharfschuetze

08-10-2013, 09:25 PM

As a former department firearms training officer and shoot out veteran, I can only agree with all of the above. Arghhh.

1st Shirt,

Back in the 70s and 80s when I was active in LE, the FBI stats showed that the average police shooting took place at night, at less then 7 feet and that four rounds were fired by the officer. That was in the days of the revolver and I'm sure that the number of expended rounds are now much higher with the high-capacity semi-autos that everyone carries now. The stats at the time also showed a little over 20% hit rate which seems to sync with the above post by JMortimer.

Shiloh

08-10-2013, 09:44 PM

A lot of police don't shoot much more than it takes to qualify. Reloads in duty guns are not looked on favorably at all. Hence, they have to purchase factory ammo for duty guns out of there own pocket. Some do reload and have other guns. What a concept.
There were police as members at our range. The PD got there own range, so the LE may have gone there. Haven't seen them in a while.

SHiloh

peterthevet

08-10-2013, 09:59 PM

Police standards in Australia are about the same....most want to qualify and that is it!! Years ago (before I became a vet) I worked in a bank in a large rural town.......well I was only there a short while when I found out that there were several Webleys in the safe and that as a teller I could have one on the counter with me - now for a gun nut this was nirvana, the only catch being I would have to train with the police twice a year. My thought process....two days off from work, free ammo.....yep where do I sign up for that deal!!!!!!!!!

Anyway I get to the local pistol range and am the only non uniform there, introduce myself to the two SWAT guys (they were called something else back then) and start using up the ammo provided when I notice a guy next to me is having a lot of trouble qualifying in the instinctive part of qualifying (basically shooting from hip level instinctively at a target 7 or 8 yards away)....so I decided to give him a little help. I was not a member at this club but had shot here before so I knew where a long piece of dowel was so went to get it. I told the guy to unload and placed the dowel in barrel and had him raise and lower his revolver over and over again concentrating on the dowel and the direction it was pointing.After some time we removed dowel, reloaded and he qualified straight away.
The SWAT guy was watching and strolled over and told me to put away my *** Webley and gave me his revolver to use.We put up a new target and away I went. He called a halt and we went and checked the target....my palm covered the 6 holes at 25 yards and was off to the R from centre....his response, yep shoots R for me as well.He then wheelled over a huge drum of reloads and said knock yourself out....which I attempted to do!!
At the end of the day he pulled me aside with some advice .... " Son if you ever have to shoot someone at the bank make sure you put all the rounds into the guy".....he heard me thinking and then said.........." it may sound harsh, but then your version of the event will be the only one that counts. I remember his advice almost word perfect........as sound today as when it was given!!!

303Guy

08-11-2013, 01:12 AM

I like that dowel rod trick! I shot using sights but my buddy invited me over to shoot wax boolits indoors. I had read a lot so had developed an idea of how it worked. Look at the target (a spot on the world map on the wall), point the gun and in ones mind's eye, picture the boolits path to the target and fire. Very accurate! Better than with aiming. Not too different from shotgunning. I found that a CZ pointed better than a model B because of its stepped slide. I was shooting my DKL mostly - accurate little gun. That's not shooting from the hip but arm extended so the gun comes into view. Range about 5 yds.

But I digress, in my parts the police don't carry firearms! Police shootings are about zero unless the armed offenders squad get involved. We had a police officer killed by an air rifle once. A work mate who's son was a cop was present (police operation).

fcvan

08-11-2013, 01:14 AM

My agency taught very little about shooting at basic academy. Safety first, mechanics second, rudimentary marksmanship third. Beyond that, officers went to the range to re-qualify. If they couldn't pass they were given a period of time to seek training assistance from an outside instructor.

Qualifying is a condition of employment and failure to do so started the process for administrative termination. I can't think of anyone who was ever fired for failing to qualify.

I can recall a number of folks who had trouble on the state range, some of whom were just nervous because they were being scored. Myself and a few other guys would invite them to show up at a private range for some one-on-one instruction. Same deal, safety first, mechanics second, rudimentary marksmanship third but with reactionary targets instead of paper.

I remember this one sergeant who liked to use handballs. He'd dump a bucket of handballs at the 25 yard line and turn the shooter loose. Making the balls bounce was fun and soon the balls got further and further away. Once all of the balls were gone he'd grab a ball and walk to the target line. He'd hold the handball up the the 5X ring and tell them if they could hit the blue ball at 25 yards they could damn sure hit the 5X.

More often than not, the marginal shooter became an avid shooter, and then a reloader, and then a caster. Nowadays there seems to be more and more folks who never touched a gun before going to the academy and rarely touch one outside of mandatory re-qualification.

Many rookies cite the cost of the gun or the ammo. For those folks there was an open invitation. Us shooters generally owned our personal version of the department weapons and loaded rounds for them. If they contributed by helping cast/load/procure components they would soon become as addicted as the next guy.

I think the culture within the agency can either help or hinder the encouragement of officers to become proficient with their tools on their own time. I can remember when agencies encouraged extra curricular competition and even 'sponsored' teams. Sponsorship generally meant range time access and sometimes targets but rarely ammo. The point is, the agency encouraged shooters.

Now it seems like many agencies would prefer that officers weren't confident shooters so that they would hesitate before using deadly force. Hesitancy not because deadly force is or is not appropriate but the officer would not risk the liability of hitting other than the intended target. Some administrators see trigger confident as trigger happy. I personally think that most officers who spend the time on the range to become proficient with their tools also work on the mental preparation of contemplating 'shoot/no shoot' scenarios.

ku4hx

08-11-2013, 04:43 AM

Back several months ago, my wife and I went through a "gun" course with our local sheriff's department. The day consisted of a morning session that was essentially gun safety, shooting tactics and gun laws. The afternoon session was two coached range sessions. When I say coached, I mean every shooter had a personal LEO coach. And when I say those guys knew their stuff, I mean they really knew their stuff. My wife and I both went away impressed. We are indeed fortunate, as shooters, to live where we do.

I've shot bowling pins. I haven't in a few years but from about 1975 to 1990 I did so on a regular basis. The distance for those shoots was always 25'. I 'spose things have changed a mite.

Most law enforcement officers are not gun people just like most drivers are not car racers. We know several LEO here that are shooters, but that really is not the norm in our county. Our experiences tend to reinforce to us an officer's gun is pretty much like the pager I used to wear before I retired. I wore it because the job required it, but I'd just as soon have dropped it in the nearest dumpster.

Kermit2

08-11-2013, 08:09 AM

I'm a full time LEO. I enjoy shooting, casting boolits, and reloading. I'm not a great shot, but fair. Used to be better when younger, but as I've gotten older my ability has gone down some. Most of the "kids" on the department aren't really into firearms, and carry one as it's a tool used on the job.

A major problem our department has is that the Chief just won't spend money on ammo. About 8 or 10 months ago the Chief told our Range Officer to make up a list of ammo, etc. needed to do more and better firearms training. Range Officer did as told and presented the Chief with his list. When the Chief looked at the cost involved in providing more ammo, targets, etc. he immediately changed course and we went back to the 50 rounds twice a year policy. If you end up using more than 50 rounds to qualify that is frowned on. Seems at our department the Chief has figured out that with ammo you pull the trigger, it goes bang, and the departments money is gone in a flash. Now if he spends money on neat gee whiz toys like GPS devices to track patrol cars, little flashing lights to sit on the pavement at DWI check points, white gloves with little red stop signs on the palms for working traffic and such then he has something he can point to and tell us what a great job he's doing for us. Our Range Officer is very frustrated. Sad situation, but until a new Chief comes along it's not likely to change. A new Chief is always a c#@p shoot too. ;-)

IROCZ

08-11-2013, 09:12 AM

Sad state of affairs these days... We qual with 100 rds. a year, and about another 40 for a warm up. 50 more if you qual on a rifle. The tone set is that it is just some thing you HAVE to do. You are not supposed to enjoy it. Recreational shooting is frowned upon. If you enjoy shooting and are proficient you are some how suspect, and when the higher ups find out about your NRA membership your instructor days are numbered. You have to say things like, "this is only necessary because of the job". So your shipped back to patrol. If you shoot recreationally, compete or hunt they call you names like gun nut, wacker or worse. If you order your own ammo through the mail, you get taken to breakfast for free, you know, just to talk about it, to see if your ok. But the same critics will follow you to the sound of shots, and wait until you get out of the car first. Most all are the super smart guys with degrees and liberal arts type education. They put NY triggers on the duty weapons with 5lb connectors, so they can't possibly have an ND. 20 years of this ****, working for a liberal department.

deltaenterprizes

08-11-2013, 09:49 AM

Firearms training is not a priority with the department here in Texas and was bare minimum in the academy.
The department back home in the New Orleans area has range training 3 times a year and provides ammo also. The first 4 months is the state mandated qualification course of fire. The rest of the year combat style courses of fire are set up.
That department has not had an officer lost in the line of duty in a long time but has sent numerous bad guys to the hospital or morgue!

Wayne Smith

08-11-2013, 01:31 PM

Blackthorn, I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree. Bad practice is as bad as no practice. They should be required to FIND every bullet they discharge, just as a crime scene investigator would do. Once or twice doing that and they will figure out hitting their aiming point.

Prospector Howard

08-11-2013, 02:32 PM

I firmly believe that the biggest problem with LEO's that can't shoot, is that they should not be shooting semi-autos. They should all have to go back to revolvers. Under high stress situations a revolver is much easier to control and you'd have a lot less innocent bystanders being hit when these improperly trained people just empty their magazines as fast as they can squeeze them off. Heck, like the Dorner case; they don't even identify the true target anymore. Just empty the magazine at anything that looks like a threat.

L Ross

08-11-2013, 02:52 PM

One of the last times I was at the local public range there was a couple of cops from one of the local towns there in their ninja uniforms with both side arms and ARs. I had my river red hawk and a box of old ammo that was mix and match just to shoot up for the brass. While I was wondering the trap range to scrounge a few birds I was watching these two jokers on the 75 yard range.

It was funny watching them take turns running a few yards with the rifle firing at the target rolling, getting up running a few more yards and repeating the scene until they were about 10 yes from the target then they would pull their glock and start shooting at the target as they walked up to it. I was dying laughing on the in side watching this circus repeat itself over and over.

I finally found a half dozen birds and walked back to the pistol range which was next to the range these clowns were on. I let them finish their round of run, drop, shoot, roll, recover and repeat then ask if I could go put up a target. I walked the walkway that separates the two ranges with a couple of clay birds in each hand. I walked past the pistol frames, then past the 75 yard frames all the way to the berm at 100 yards which is for both ranges and tossed the birds up on it.

When I got back to the fireing line I told them to resume as i would like to watch if they didn't mind. They were all to happy to have an audience. After a couple more rounds each from them they had the nerve to ask me what I thought. With that I told them that it looked cool but was not practical and would get them killed. When one of them ask how so I walked up to the fireing line, slowly drew my pistol and busted all 4 of the clay birds with 4 shots in about 8 seconds.

I couldn't believe they got mad, packed up their toys and left with out saying another word to me. I wasn't trying to be a smart butt I was wanting to show them what some one who was fair to midland with a gun could do and that they needed to rethink their tactics. Oh well. I tried.

Best wishes,

Joe
Joe,
Please forgive my temerity, but am I reading your post correctly? I believe you are saying that you picked up four standard unbroken clay pigeons that measure about 4.25" in diameter, that you threw them up on a berm and from 100yards drew and fired a Ruger Redhawk with mixed ammo and broke all four pigeons in approximately 8 seconds?

No wonder the officers left, they must have been frightened senseless. I have only been in law enforcement for 37 years and have been around guns and shooters since very early childhood. I have never seen anyone demonstrate such prowess with a sidearm. I'm not even sure I've seen many people capable of such a feat with a long gun. In offhand Schuetzen shooting it is a given that a shooter that can place all his/her shots into four minutes of an angle will win almost every match they enter. Of course every possible refinement of a single shot rifle fitted for offhand shooting is the norm, as are high power target scopes or finely adjustable tang mounted target sights.
Kudos to you for your pistolcraft! Fair to middlin' does not begin to describe your shooting.

Duke

quilbilly

08-11-2013, 03:04 PM

Sounds a little like the experience I had observing Coast Guard air and boat crews do their quals on their all-decked-out 308 and 223 rifles. It was positively embarrassing. Their senior petty officer was, however, very impressed with the accuracy of my Contender 32-20 at 100 yards. Being retired Navy, I was tempted to comment what great lifeguards they are.

popper

08-11-2013, 03:16 PM

Reminds me of a kid who shot a bird (blue bird) out of a tree ( ~25', no leaves) with a 22 rifle, from the hip. And yes I WAS THERE.

waksupi

08-11-2013, 03:45 PM

I can relate to Joe's experience. Did similar a couple weeks ago. I was up on the mountain cutting wood, and came across a couple guys shooting at clay pigeons with rifles a little over 100 yards away. They weren't doing all that well. I asked them if I could take a couple shots. Took out my M29 S&W, broke the two pigeons left with two shots. Holstered the pistol, and tried to look like I do such things every day.

Epd230

08-11-2013, 07:22 PM

blackthorn

08-11-2013, 07:32 PM

wills

08-11-2013, 07:46 PM

I understand Parks and Wildlife officers are, for the most part excellent shots.

prs

08-11-2013, 07:55 PM

Geeze, you guys just burst my bubble! I thought it was just like Magnum Force.

I can't hit clays at 100 yards with a hand gun, reckon I need more practice.

prs

mpmarty

08-11-2013, 08:35 PM

Since 1981 or thereabouts to 2009 I was a Glock range officer at our local Glock matches. Glock had to set up separate classes for LEOs and Civilian shooters and the worst shots and most unsafe gun handlers were in nearly all cases LEOs. The bottom third of the civilian class outscored the top third of LEOs consistently.

CLAYPOOL

08-11-2013, 11:37 PM

As for those USED Model 22 Glocks that are starting to be sold on the civilian market we have taken a few apart and discovered that they have the "New York Trigger assembles" install without the spring that's supposed to be there. Cant comment besides that fact. We of course are installing different triggers and springs , etc.

Jammersix

08-12-2013, 02:21 AM

Marksmanship is not on the first page of skills I want cops to have. Or in the first chapter.

Char-Gar

08-12-2013, 07:14 AM

Marksmanship is not on the first page of skills I want cops to have. Or in the first chapter.

I would agree, but I am not talking about priority of skills. LEOs strap on that handgun every morning for a reason and purpose. That handgun is to protect themselves and us from violent criminals. The officer needs sufficient skills to accomplish that propose and without those skills the are a threat to all of us. I didn't think the two Texas State Troopers that were the subject of the OP had those sufficient skills. Obviously the Texas Department of Public Safety did and I find that troubling.

badge176

08-12-2013, 07:37 AM

popper

08-12-2013, 10:19 AM

I watched the old video of the LA police range. They knew what they were doing. I talked to a retired LA LEO not long ago, he said things have really changed, it's about tactics, not shooting now. I live close to the tri-city LEO range. From the sounds of it, they just want the LEO's to not shoot themselves. SIL's dad is retired LEO, isn't a very good shot and admits he never was. He did teach his son to shoot 22 rifle. SIL is a pretty good shot, but my daughter is better and I never did teach her to shoot. Natural ability I guess. I did take her fishing and she isn't allowed in the fishing boat anymore because she out-catches all the guys.

mold maker

08-12-2013, 10:37 AM

Sadly I've witnessed the same lack of proficiency in the local officers. There is a crack shot trainer, but the dept doesn't place enough value in keeping their officers alive. The upper officers just want their dept seen riding around in smartly painted cars, and wearing snappy uniforms. Their duty equipment has to be cleaned and polished.
While at the range they reallystruggle to qualify.
The elite team, with all the bells and whistles, would make a clown laugh, watching their antics.
While I understand the expense and lack of availability, of practice ammo, is a concern, the efficient use of all their equipment should be paramount.
They can't possibly protect and serve us, when they don't have the ability to protect themselves.
The pressure of qualifying, is dwarfed by the stress of a real "dangerous situation".

AggieEE

08-12-2013, 11:30 AM

A few years back LaRue had a shooters apprection day. Part of the deal was the DPS (Texas) helicopter was there with 2 or 3 shooters. After watching them shoot at some standard targets I wanted a refund on my tax dollars. Now I know shooting from a moving helicopter, or any moving vehicle, is hard to do, however, if shooting from a helicopter is part of your approved tactics one would think that some degree of proficenty would be required. I've never shot from a helicopter or anything else but I think I would have been hard pressed to do worse. Like the other posters I too am concerned about where the misses go. IIRC just last year the helicopter born shooters killed some illegal aliens in the back of a pickup, they were covered by a tarp or something, while the rear tire was the target.

Piedmont

08-12-2013, 11:59 AM

This brings to mind that police shooting in New York City within the last year or so wherein two cops apprehended the man who had shot his ex-boss and walked away. The cops approached him in a crowd. The guy with the gun never fired a shot (and probably didn't attempt it, his beef was with his ex-boss) but the cops sure did. Not only did they take down the murderer, they sprayed the crowd and wounded multiple people.

Then they closed ranks and the police chief and mayor held a press conference in support of what the cops had done.

BTW I am not anti-cop.

Texas DPS uses the .357 Sig. The cartridge is sooo good (lightning bolt effect and will shoot through car doors and still expand in the bad guy) that maybe you don't even have to hit your target for it to work. Technology trumps skill again.

Jammersix

08-12-2013, 12:01 PM

I would agree, but I am not talking about priority of skills.

When the subject of how much time a trooper spends training, how well he's trained, how much ammo he uses training, or how high his skills are as a result of that training, that's exactly what we're talking about.

jonp

08-12-2013, 12:26 PM

merlin101

08-12-2013, 12:48 PM

Glad you said it first. That is some kind of shooting although as wakisupi said we all do stuff like that on occasion and then act like its no big deal when we couldnt repeat it in 50yrs.

I have done that many time with a Super Blackhawk in .44mag. used to get a lot of looks when the guy that taught me to shoot and I set up a bunch a birds 100yds out and then not only shot them but also the pieces! Call bs if ya want, I'd be more then willing to show you or anyone els here. Let me know and we'll set up a day/time at my club.

As a side note on hits vs miss, I took my grandson to the range yesterday out of 50 rds fired he had 11 hits on a 10" circle many more hit the out edge of the paper. That was at 25 yards and only the 2nd time he's been out. Thats about a 20% hit thats better than some LEO's :)

Baja_Traveler

08-12-2013, 01:38 PM

I used to shoot with a guy who could hit clay targets at 100 yards all day long. He was an old bullseye shooter, and would routinely outscore me in a rifle silhouette match using his old S&W 29...

This thread makes me want to load up some ammo and get the 1911 out to play with before this weekends silhouette match. I could use the practice...

hickfu

08-12-2013, 01:42 PM

The last time I went to Idaho with my BIL we were out shooting birds with the shotgun, we ran out of shells so I started setting them up on the side of a hill that was pretty close to 80 to 90 yards away. I pulled out my 1911 and only missed 2 of the 8 shots, I then pulled out the XD and hit everything I aimed at... That XD is a shooter for sure!! I have been shooting all my life and until this thread I thought it was normal but reading how bad the LEO's shoot I am horrified to think of these guys pulling their sidearms and firing at anything that moves.... thats scary!! I hope I am never around during a shootout with LEO's

Doc

waksupi

08-12-2013, 01:48 PM

It's strange how a little practice can help. I guess shooting several hundred rounds a week IS beneficial.

Thumbcocker

08-12-2013, 02:11 PM

You should have seen the look on a yong LEO's face when I toook his Sig 1911 and my boolit loads and proceeded to perforate a 44 oz soda cup at 100 yards from a knees up backrest position. Im not quite there offhand yet but I can scare a soda can with my favorite single action Rugers.

Nickle

08-12-2013, 02:34 PM

Funny thing that most cops can't shoot for beans, while almost all military folks can.

I'm definitely not anti-LEO, by any means, but I do "call them as I see them".

In my Guard unit (before I retired a couple of years ago), we gave the M249 SAW (5.56mm machine gun/automatic rifle) to the idiots that couldn't shoot for beans. The things aren't very good anyways, so it made good sense. And, it also gave the troop carrying the SAW the incentive to learn to shoot better. An M4 (regular battle rifle, 14.5" AR) is lighter than the SAW, and more accurate. Plus, carrying a SAW is similar to having to carry a sign saying you couldn't hit anything. Very embarrassing for them. And, yes, I have seen M4's outshoot M249's, at 800 meters at that.

Now the M240B (7.62mm machine gun) was a whole different story. The infantry guys issued those to the better shooters, so they could rely on them. Those things do shoot fairly well. They don't beat an M21, M24 or M110 SASS rifle though. Those are 7.62mm sniper rifles, and most of those guys can shoot. There are some exceptions though.

popper

08-12-2013, 02:47 PM

Nicle - how long does a sniper that can't shoot last in combat? We'll see how having LEO in the schools works when they pray and spray.

IROCZ

08-12-2013, 04:55 PM

"Are we co-workers? You just described my work place.

Our SWAT guys run the department with their egos and know it all perspectives."

I've been calling them 'the Tactical Sorority'! Ocassionally get calls from them asking 'how do I unload/ make safe this XXX pistol?'

Maybe... Do they show up at critical incidents and try to bum ammo from the on duty personnel because they didn't bring any? Do they run out of a scene screaming "They had a .223 rifle!" while holding a rusty Mosin Nagant over their head? Do they qualify separately for obvious reasons? Do they think the NRA is a terrorist organization? Oh, I could go on... Someday I will retire, and move back to America.

onceabull

08-12-2013, 05:17 PM

Out there where real people shoot back, the guy with the SAW will be a prime target..I thought I heard that there is always a #2 handy to pick it up----Perhaps somewhat different in a guard unit ?? Onceabull

John Boy

08-12-2013, 05:23 PM

Funny thing that most cops can't shoot for beans, while almost all military folks can.
Nickle, you might want to read this GAO report about military marksmanship ...
GAO: U.S. Has Fired 250,000 Rounds For Every Insurgent Killed (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/)

And as for US law enforcement departments markmanship, what do you expect ... there was a statistic - 52% of US law enforcement officers spend their time doing traffic control

MT Gianni

08-12-2013, 07:06 PM

I would prefer that officers are at least compotent shots. Secondary damage is expensive not to mention if you should happen to harm a non target real person.
Unfortunately, many want to qualify with the bare minimum score so if they are ever on the stand they have an out. Too many jury's believe that if you qualified 99% every time you really didn't need to kill someone who was shooting you just shoot the gun out of his hand.

hickfu

08-12-2013, 09:38 PM

Nickle

08-12-2013, 10:13 PM

Nicle - how long does a sniper that can't shoot last in combat? We'll see how having LEO in the schools works when they pray and spray.

Well, I could tell you a story related by a friend of mine. Now, in the Army, snipers are usually 11B Infantrymen. They don't tend to make 91B (used to be 63B) Wheeled Vehicle Mechanics snipers. Not even E-5s and E-6s that can shoot well. So, over in Afghanistan in 2010, my battalion was there, and this company was in the eastern area, the region of Gardez. Yes, I'm intentionally vague as to where. Suffice it to say, the borders are a little vague there, and sometimes the guys weren't sure if they were in Pakistan or Afghanistan. So, the infantry guys broke a vehicle, and they had to call a wrecker crew. They show up, and my friend is the company Motor Sergeant, and also happens to be a real good wrecker operator, especially this particular size, which is rather large (HEMTT). They came under fire from a ways away (about 800 yards or so). The sniper that was with them just couldn't get a hit. My friend gets peeved, because the bad guy is about to get out of sight. So he pops off 2 quick shots from his M4 (with an ACOG, mind you). They bad guy drops, they find 2 fresh 5.56mm holes in him. Needless to say, I do believe that sniper was going back to being a regular grunt in short order. I didn't hear he had, but then, I didn't inquire either. And, seeing I was in that battalion, they would've told me, had I asked.

Out there where real people shoot back, the guy with the SAW will be a prime target..I thought I heard that there is always a #2 handy to pick it up----Perhaps somewhat different in a guard unit ?? Onceabull

First off, there's little distinction between the Regular Army and the Guard these days, and the better Regular Army folks will tell you that. Did you know that the only true Mountain Infantry unit in the Army is in the Guard? 10th Mountain is a ceremonial description only, like the 101st is Airborne. Key wording is they were at one time, but not now. 86th Infantry Brigade (42nd Infantry Div) is the unit that is the real deal. The unit was under 101, and they liked them. Times have changed, the Guard has changed, and attitudes have also changed.

As to the SAW being a target, that's just more incentive for the moron stuck with to learn to shoot better. Besides, I was in a support unit (Forward Support Company or FSC). They don't tend to get out and do stuff, unless the truck breaks.

Nickle, you might want to read this GAO report about military marksmanship ...
GAO: U.S. Has Fired 250,000 Rounds For Every Insurgent Killed (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/)

And as for US law enforcement departments markmanship, what do you expect ... there was a statistic - 52% of US law enforcement officers spend their time doing traffic control

That good? I've heard worse than that. Just remember, there's still plenty of morons in upper echelons that believe in "spray and pray". In some units good marksmanship is admired, bad marksmanship is frowned upon (and embarrassing). Makes you an outcast.

As to cops, I didn't expect a whole lot, as I do know some just can't be bothered to go shoot something they could care less about. That said, I do know some that are pretty decent shots. They practice, and they don't wait for the department to provide the ammo or gun.

Most cops never have to run up against a real "hard case" that will shoot it out rather than surrender. The cops that have to deal with them are frequently way out of their league. As I used to say, I had to train to fight an enemy that was out to kill me, had a rifle, and knew how to use it. Cops don't have to deal with that. In candor, the military needs to shoot better. They are getting back to real marksmanship, but they aren't really advertising that.

Ammohouse

08-13-2013, 12:42 AM

Scharfschuetze

08-13-2013, 01:15 AM

I don't really count the 250k as a big number...suppressing fire uses ALOT of ammo!
When that happens it's all about putting rounds downrange to keep "their" heads down!!!!
Like I said before, I'm sure there are great shots on the Force and I applaud them for their job, don't think I would have the patience for it....just the ones I've seen HAVE NOT impressed me!

The April 1978 issue of the American Rifleman had an article addressing the increase of rounds fired per enemy casualty in combat over the years. As I recall the figures went something like this:

WW I: 7,000 rounds
WWII: 25,00 rounds
Korea: 40,00 rounds
VN: 80,00 rounds

I often used these figures in advanced marksmanship training for snipers and marksmen in my units to emphasize their mission of precision fire on their tangos.

I believe that much of this increase in ammo expenditure, while not addressed in the article, is due to the increase in automatic support weapons and changing infantry tactics where suppressive fire or weight of fire is used to suppress enemy fire or inhibit his maneuver. Fire and maneuver uses up a lot of ammo and is the basis of the infantry assault and breaking an ambush requires gaining immediate fire superiority. Final defensive fire also uses up ammo at a rate that would make a weekend shooter faint. It is often only aimed to provide a wall of lead that an enemy assault cannot get through.

It must work. If you compare casualty figures from WW I and WW II to the most recent or ongoing wars in the GWOT, you'll see that friendly casualties (per capita) trend from very high in WW I and decrease during each war until now. Of course advances in CASVAC, field hospitals and personal body armor have a correlation in this; but much of it is due to the increased expenditure of small arms fire at the enemy.

Police do not have the luxury of massed firepower (the NY City example above is hopefully an aberration) as each round they fire must be explained in a review board and may be the cause of costly civil litigation and possibly criminal charges against the officer.

All that said, it is a wonder that the average officer is not a better shot given the gravity of firing his weapon in the line of duty.

fcvan

08-13-2013, 01:56 AM

I would definitely agree that most of the line officers in my agency barely met the minimum qualifications as far as weapons quals. Our version of SWAT were definitely folks who put forth the effort to be marksmen because they had to. Part of it was the higher standard for proficiency, and that failing to meet that mark meant suspension and possible removal as an operator.

I can remember being on the line when the rangemaster would pop off CS gas and flash bangs while we were qualifying. You had to gear up, suck it up, and get your rounds downrange within time regardless of how screwed up the CS affected you. Our Commander pushed for a high level or proficiency for one reason - to save lives.

Line officers don't have to transition to 'support side, unsupported' or deal with weapons manipulation while wearing full armor and gas masks. All they have to do is get the minimum score within the allotted time frame. There is not much encouragement for line officers to put forth any effort beyond that.

One of our operators had been a team member for a number of years when he decided to joining the National Guard in 1995. He was 34 at the time. He told me he wanted the extra training he could receive with the Guard to bring back to the team.

After 9/11 he was deployed more than he was home. Each time to the sandbox he brought back more real world experience that you don't receive in training. He transitioned from 'grunt' and was put onto a sniper squad. Each time he came back from deployment he transitioned back to the team. His example was truly one that inspired us all, one of leadership.

On the subject of marksmanship, he effectively preached careful aim to preserve ammo because 'a miss doesn't end the fight and you never know when you will be resupplied.' When our team got called to assist a neighboring county SWAT unit, they had been on scene for 2 operational periods and running short on personnel and materiel. (the perp had high ground, long guns, ample ammo, and body armor)

We deployed with twice what we normally would because we were 4 hours from our load out. That and our buddy influenced our decision on squad strength and available munitions. We assisted the neighboring county in resolving the situation during the next operational period. Their guys had been on-scene for over 24 hours before we got there.

Many of our guys got activated at 11 PM, myself included, after completing a double shift. All of those drills of completing a run or the obstacle course in full load out gear, then transitioning straight to the course of fire without recovery, helped inspire folks to keep their conditioning up as well as their marksmanship.

Sadly, our county, and the next county over, were rarely afforded the opportunity to train as often or as hard as our team. With budget cuts and shifting priorities they were at quite a disadvantage. At least our team's budget for training and equipment was more chiseled in stone than theirs.

steve4102

08-13-2013, 10:56 AM

45 2.1

08-13-2013, 11:26 AM

The sniper that was with them just couldn't get a hit. My friend gets peeved, because the bad guy is about to get out of sight. So he pops off 2 quick shots from his M4 (with an ACOG, mind you). They bad guy drops, they find 2 fresh 5.56mm holes in him.

Most of the ACOGs go between 600 to 800 yards on the last stadia mark on the vertical scale. All depends on which one they have plus the fact it is regulated to the gun and ammo he is issued. If you haven't used one, they are very easy to hit with compared to most anything else not like it.

It's strange how a little practice can help. I guess shooting several hundred rounds a week IS beneficial.

Now that is an understatement! If you go twice or more times that amount, you will do better yet.

cainttype

08-13-2013, 01:02 PM

It was a good many years back when a couple of Sheriff Deputies showed up while my buddy and I were warming up for the start of squirrel season with our Hi-Standard target .22s. They placed a coke can on the ground about 25 yards off and proceeded to throw dirt half-way there for quite a while with their service revolvers.
They politely rejected several offers from us to help adjust their sights, because their "chief already did that."...We continued for hours keeping our tiny home-made spinner targets in an almost constant state of rotation at 40 yards while they plowed a substantial amount of dirt.

This story was related by two friends returning from a trip with a 20 year+ local police force captain...
Seems they decided to stop at an indoor range in Pasadena, TX. After they shot a little, the LEO apparently failed putting holes on target but eventually managed to knock the trolley off-track. A move to a different lane finally ended the exact same way... I guess you could give him a few points for consistency.
The range owners asked them to leave and told the captain not to return "until you get that gun fixed".

On a tragic note, again probably 20 yrs back, a 19 yr old reserve officer was shot in the abdomen and killed... in the dressing room of the police station. It seems his friend/mentor, an officer with over ten yrs on the force, was showing the youngster how to quick-draw with his 9MM Baretta. He had apparently forgotten to remove the chambered round, not to point a gun, and keep your finger off the trigger...The boy's family persuaded the local DA that charges weren't necessary. It was, in their opinion, a tragic accident.
That officer is still in uniform, unless he has retired recently.

These are obvious abberations, and I support my local LE whenever possible. It is apparent to me, however, that officers seeking a decent level of training will not always find it in their departments. The scary part is that too many of them don't even realize it.

MtGun44

08-13-2013, 01:40 PM

Most police officers are just as "into" their gun as they are the radio or mace or siren.
It's just a tool.

I have several friends who are LEOs that ARE really good shots and one of them is
a retired training officer for a local PD. He despaired of his students all the time, but
worked hard to teach them.

Bill

Nickle

08-13-2013, 01:48 PM

Most of the ACOGs go between 600 to 800 yards on the last stadia mark on the vertical scale. All depends on which one they have plus the fact it is regulated to the gun and ammo he is issued. If you haven't used one, they are very easy to hit with compared to most anything else not like it.

Read my posts. I think I would know them well. Seeing that I had one on my issue M4 back then and all. I also have one on my personal AR.

The ACOGs used by the Army are usually the 800 meter variety. And, you'll notice that Taliban bad guy was about the range. Guess you can figure out how my friend knew the range. I wasn't there myself. But, I have known the guy for a bunch of years, and I do know he can shoot well, seen that for fact.

waksupi

08-13-2013, 03:22 PM

popper

08-13-2013, 04:12 PM

I was watching Green Beret/Afgan late nite TV, sort of ticked me off. I doubt most of it is real- live film. Anyway, a squad in humvees was to take a hill. Came under increasing fire - yea, did the suppressive fire thing. After 1/2 hr air support came in, eliminated some bad guys. Then they tell the squad they are surrounded by what looks like a battalion of bad guys. What? No OPs flyover? Just an 'go take that hill and call if there is a problem' order? Custer running the show again? Never been in combat but we were at GQ whenever a Bear (Rusky) popped on the long range, ammo in the hoist & birds at the rail. Big E would do a live scramble.

fredj338

08-13-2013, 08:07 PM

fredj338

08-13-2013, 08:16 PM

I read all the posts and "Min Qualification" has popped up a time or two. I may have missed it, If so I apologize for asking, but What is the Firearm Qualification Requirements for the "line officers"?

Thanks

IT varies from dept to dept. Some dept, I could teach a brand new shooter to qualify in an 8hr day. SOme, you will need some serious motivation & training, to qualify. You can google it but there are some sites that have various LEA qualifications you can download & try for yourself.

Cadillo

08-13-2013, 08:43 PM

Marksmanship is not on the first page of skills I want cops to have. Or in the first chapter.

It doesn't matter what you want. It's the fact that his first priority is to survive the day, and after focusing on safe driving(most violent LEO deaths Occur in traffic accidents) his ability to quickly draw and efficiently deploy his handgun is his best method to prepare to achieve that goal.

Far too many assumptions here to make this thread anything more than tragically funny. I was an LEO for over twenty years. Prior to that endeavor, I had been loading for and shooting handguns regularly for over sixteen years including Pin Shooting, some IPSC and other. For over ten years I worked patrol duties with a famous gentleman who won the national PPC Title on two occasions. Anybody who thinks that he can outshoot that chap, or criticize his skills needs to put down the pipe, while he still has a few brain cells.

There are some seriously deadly pistoleers still toting a badge, though their numbers are proportionally lower than in the past, but the same can be legitimately said for the general U.S. population as well. Most LEO's are issued no ammunition for practice, though they are usually given enough cartridges to complete the qualification course on the occasions that (s)he has to do so. If an officer displays enough talent to try out for a department or agency pistol team, (s)he will, depending on department or agency policy and budget, be issued extra ammo for practice, generally the amount of this ammo will be based upon the number of matches for which (s)he has to prepare, but the average guy or gal gets little to no ammo issued.

The fact is that more and more Americans now reach adulthood without having ever fired a firearm. A late friend said it best: "The average American soccer mom would rather her son be a gay, that to ever touch a gun." And so, more and more new hires reach the academy with no firearms knowledge or interest beyond what is minimally required for employment, but there are quite a few of the "Other Kind", who are quite skilled before arriving, or develop an interest and then of their own volition pursue and hone their skills. They are out there, but you won't see them at the range with the unskilled. As someone once said: "You rise or fall, to the level of the people you spend your time with." or "Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect."

As I was a FED, I was issued one fifty round box each month for maintenance of "Proficiency". Because I have always loaded my own practice and recreational ammo, I never shot the Govt. issue fodder, except to qualify. Due to our being involved in a two front war, that proficiency ammo dried up some three years prior to my retirement. The ammo companies just could not live up to the contracts to DHS due to wartime demands on production.

I was a single guy with enough money to buy all the components needed to pursue my only vice, but the average married officer, who also has children, and is issued no ammo, simply can't afford to practice, and that is the fault of his or her department or agency. If (s)he doesn't bring the needed skill set with him/her, it will never be obtained.

steve4102

08-13-2013, 09:02 PM

IT varies from dept to dept. Some dept, I could teach a brand new shooter to qualify in an 8hr day. SOme, you will need some serious motivation & training, to qualify. You can google it but there are some sites that have various LEA qualifications you can download & try for yourself.

Thanks Fred, that's exactly what I wanted to do.

fcvan

08-13-2013, 10:34 PM

Handgun Qualification: 36 rounds
3 Yards, 30 Seconds, Hip Level 12 rounds
7 Yards, 30 Seconds, Instinctive Shooting Position. 12 rounds
15 Yards, 45 Seconds, using pistol sights, 12 rounds

Total rounds, 36. The *********T. course of fire requires the single B-27 range target. A passing score is 26 “hits” (72 percent) within the seven - ring portion of the target.

Ruger Mini - 14 .223 Caliber Rifle

50 Yards, 30 Seconds, Point Shoulder, 5 rounds
50 yards, 45 Seconds, Kneeling, 5 rounds
100 Yards, 45 Seconds, Point Shoulder, 5 rounds
100 yards, 60 Seconds, Barricade, 5 rounds
100 yards, 60 Seconds, Kneeling, 5 rounds
Total, 25 rounds. A 70 percent score is required for requalification. Target is similar to a B21

Stephen Cohen

08-13-2013, 10:44 PM

Some years back the bank in my home town was robbed, right across form police station. The old cop come running out blasting away and one bullet went through the windshield of a car parked some 30mtrs to right of robber. This would likely have went unreported except the two elderly ladies sitting in car were not impressed. I have known many cops who never fired their service revolvers after basics.

303Guy

08-14-2013, 12:05 AM

Why so long? 60 seconds to aim and fire five rounds? Is that bringing the gun down between shots?

While I'm asking, what's an ACOG?

Jammersix

08-14-2013, 12:07 AM

It's the fact that his first priority is to survive the day, and after focusing on safe driving(most violent LEO deaths Occur in traffic accidents) his ability to quickly draw and efficiently deploy his handgun is his best method to prepare to achieve that goal.

I wouldn't want to live there.

While I'm asking, what's an ACOG?
It's a sight. "Advanced Combat something-something".

Lead Fred

08-14-2013, 12:16 AM

My Bud is a member of a range out side of Seattle where various SWAT folk shoot 308 bolt guns all the way out to 200 yards.
They have drag bags, whirley-gigs, and all kinds of tacti-cool stuff.

First time I went out while they were there. Some of them were shocked that my home made 30-06 does 3/8 inch groups at 200 yards, with NO cool equipment. Just Me, the rifle, and bullets.

One time I heard a cop say, "Thats the kind of guy we have to worry about".

I have declined to go back with my buddy after hearing that.

GLL

08-14-2013, 12:31 AM

This target cost the City of Los Angeles 4.2 Million $$$$$ ! That would buy a lot of practice ammo !

Nobody was firing back either ! You cannot see all of the holes in the bank building behind the truck ! Several rounds hit nearby cars and a house as well !:)

http://www.fototime.com/74BBA7E9A69D590/orig.jpg

"Know your target" ! At least make sure the make, color, and license plate of the truck are correct !

Jerry

Nickle

08-14-2013, 09:55 AM

ACOG - Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight

They work pretty well, if you ask me, and I've got one on my AR. Only real down side is the cost.

Now, I'm nobody special, but I do own several 36X Leupolds, 25X Weavers, 6X Weavers and Leupolds. I'd say that I could afford any scope I really want, yet I opted for the ACOG on my AR. $1500 worth of scope, I got away with that one for $1100.

popper

08-14-2013, 05:36 PM

GLL - at least the $130K/yr bullet hole counter has something to do. When did that happen?

fredj338

08-14-2013, 08:07 PM

It doesn't matter what you want. It's the fact that his first priority is to survive the day, and after focusing on safe driving(most violent LEO deaths Occur in traffic accidents) his ability to quickly draw and efficiently deploy his handgun is his best method to prepare to achieve that goal.

Far too many assumptions here to make this thread anything more than tragically funny. I was an LEO for over twenty years. Prior to that endeavor, I had been loading for and shooting handguns regularly for over sixteen years including Pin Shooting, some IPSC and other. For over ten years I worked patrol duties with a famous gentleman who won the national PPC Title on two occasions. Anybody who thinks that he can outshoot that chap, or criticize his skills needs to put down the pipe, while he still has a few brain cells.

There are some seriously deadly pistoleers still toting a badge, though their numbers are proportionally lower than in the past, but the same can be legitimately said for the general U.S. population as well. Most LEO's are issued no ammunition for practice, though they are usually given enough cartridges to complete the qualification course on the occasions that (s)he has to do so. If an officer displays enough talent to try out for a department or agency pistol team, (s)he will, depending on department or agency policy and budget, be issued extra ammo for practice, generally the amount of this ammo will be based upon the number of matches for which (s)he has to prepare, but the average guy or gal gets little to no ammo issued.

The fact is that more and more Americans now reach adulthood without having ever fired a firearm. A late friend said it best: "The average American soccer mom would rather her son be a gay, that to ever touch a gun." And so, more and more new hires reach the academy with no firearms knowledge or interest beyond what is minimally required for employment, but there are quite a few of the "Other Kind", who are quite skilled before arriving, or develop an interest and then of their own volition pursue and hone their skills. They are out there, but you won't see them at the range with the unskilled. As someone once said: "You rise or fall, to the level of the people you spend your time with." or "Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect."

As I was a FED, I was issued one fifty round box each month for maintenance of "Proficiency". Because I have always loaded my own practice and recreational ammo, I never shot the Govt. issue fodder, except to qualify. Due to our being involved in a two front war, that proficiency ammo dried up some three years prior to my retirement. The ammo companies just could not live up to the contracts to DHS due to wartime demands on production.

I was a single guy with enough money to buy all the components needed to pursue my only vice, but the average married officer, who also has children, and is issued no ammo, simply can't afford to practice, and that is the fault of his or her department or agency. If (s)he doesn't bring the needed skill set with him/her, it will never be obtained.

Comparing armed civ w/ LEO is ridiculous. It is the LEOs job to carry a gun & be proficient. If the dept won't raise his skill level, then he damn well better if not for his sake for the sake of the public. Most LEA give pathetic few rounds to get a raw recruit up to minimal quals. Then they only qual anywhere from 1 a monthto once a year. No one will stay proficient shooting once a month, no one. Then again most LEA quals are pathetically simple as not qualifying means LEO can't be on the street.
While no one doubts there are a handful, maybe 5% of any dept, that can actually shoot, most LEO are carrying it, not shooting it. Unfortunately also true for maybe 85% of all CCW. Many do nothing to advance their skills form the even weaker CCW qual. If you carry a gun, you better be as good as local LE, your life & mine if I am in the area, may depend on it.

Jammersix

08-14-2013, 08:22 PM

I would also argue that what a civilian wants from law enforcement is the only thing that matters: if it truly were all about what the LEO wanted, they'd be free to run from engagements.

Scharfschuetze

08-15-2013, 12:28 AM

762 shooter

08-15-2013, 09:38 AM

kevindtimm

08-15-2013, 10:00 AM

IME, on a national avg, most LEO are NOT shooters, some not by a looooong margin. I have trained with & regularly shoot with LEOs, most are competent but not good shooters. They will survive an encounter based on over whelming backup or shear luck IMO. A gun is something they carry & are forced to train with but only a small % take it seriously enough to funnel their own funds into training & practice. Shooting is a diminishing skill. With out constant practice, you only lose your skill & ability.

Strange - I'm a SW Engineer and the main tool I have for my job is a keyboard. I'm an excellent typist, at one point I was able to type > 75wpm. If you have my job and aren't an excellent typist, you don't advance -- or you end up in management ;)

This holds true for almost any job, imagine a surgeon who's just "OK" with a scalpel :(

Why is it different for LE?

fredj338

08-15-2013, 11:14 AM

I would also argue that what a civilian wants from law enforcement is the only thing that matters: if it truly were all about what the LEO wanted, they'd be free to run from engagements.

Unfortunately some do.

Why is it different for LE?
Like most govt workers, getting buy is all that is req'd. There are some brave & exc LEO, then there are the ones that just want to write their unspoken quota of tickets & go home. IT is the nature of most govt jobs. WHen you know you can't be fired for doing nothing, most will do nothing.

Larry Gibson

08-15-2013, 11:20 AM

Many chiefs of police mistake qualification with training. When I took over the firearms trainer's position, we qualified quarterly, but did not train.

I was able to convince the chain of command that the two activities were different pursuits. With permission, I was able to drop two quals per year and replace them with training events that emphasized night firing, firing from behind cover and instinct shooting while still reinforcing the fundamentals of marksmanship. This wasn't and isn't new to firearms training in many departments, but in the early 80s we set the standard for for realistic training in our area.

I also budgeted for 100 rounds a month for each sworn officer on the department to use in any way he wanted. The majority never drew the ammo so I then issued it out to the 8 officers on the department pistol team as a bonus allotment every month. We won the state PPC championships one year and dominated local combat matches.

Still, the bottom line will always be individual motivation and that's been alluded to many times in previous threads so I won't beat that dog anymore.

Scharfschuetzer makes many excellent points in this thread. I have known him for many years, he has much experience and knows of what he speaks.

As a state certified LE firearms instructor for numerous agencies in 3 counties I've had much the same experiences. Had a captain tell me once we should spend the "qualification" time on how to correctly write traffic tickets. After all how much of an officers time is spent writing tickets vs shooting bad guys. .......I responded with it does little harm to void an incorrectly filled out ticket but wasn't so good to void the officers birth certificate or an innocent civilian if the officer couldn't shoot. I got the training time but paid for the insult to the captain later. ....

Larry Gibson

1Shirt

08-15-2013, 11:21 AM

kevindtimm hits it right on the head. However to his thread I would add that lack Management motivation and lack of interest on the part of LEO's are major contributing factors.
1Shirt!

popper

08-15-2013, 11:47 AM

Ehaver

08-15-2013, 11:48 AM

In my department, when we go to qualify, I have to say I am usualy suprized at the abilities of some of my co workers. The majority of people are pretty good with a pistol, and do well enough with a rifle. It is down to the individual to train and prepare for the situation that they never want to face. At least, that is what I do.

SteveUSP

08-15-2013, 12:02 PM

In the mid 80's, when my ships guard force 'qualified' at sea, we fired 30 rounds from a 1911, at the ocean, if none hit the ship, you were 'qualified'. Some of us were actual shooters, but it was like pulling teeth to get ammo to practice. The police and military share a need to be armed, and an apathy toward shooting.

fredj338

08-15-2013, 03:05 PM

Sent the police shooting score link to my preacher, who has hired a LEO for security. Schools around here are hiring LEO also. A problem if these are 'meter maids that carry'. Large collection of 'targets', momma is really going to be mad if kiddo is hit by a LEO round. Big liability to PD. Maybe hire retired secret service field agents? Same problem with campus carry.
One of the things that really pisses me off in the media & general public opinion at large; that somehow a LEO or ex military is somehow more qualified than a trained civilian, pure BS. If I had to go into a gunfight, I would rather have one or two of the civ I shoot with than any random LEO to watch my back. Training for most LEO is minimal. Even for the military, most are NOT trained extensively with a handgun.
There are precious few LEA that actually encourage practice by paying their LEO or by at least providing ammo. So it's always up to the individual LEO to make sure they are better than competent. IF I ran a dept, my guys would all have to pass a SWAT qual to carry or go work someplace else. It's not like you aren't going to get another applicant. Yes I would work my budget out so they at least got range ammo for free. Not to mention every round fired, every match fee, training cost, etc is tax deductible for LEO, so why not take advantage of it?

Cadillo

08-15-2013, 04:06 PM

Comparing armed civ w/ LEO is ridiculous. It is the LEOs job to carry a gun & be proficient. If the dept won't raise his skill level, then he damn well better if not for his sake for the sake of the public. Most LEA give pathetic few rounds to get a raw recruit up to minimal quals. Then they only qual anywhere from 1 a monthto once a year. No one will stay proficient shooting once a month, no one. Then again most LEA quals are pathetically simple as not qualifying means LEO can't be on the street.
While no one doubts there are a handful, maybe 5% of any dept, that can actually shoot, most LEO are carrying it, not shooting it. Unfortunately also true for maybe 85% of all CCW. Many do nothing to advance their skills form the even weaker CCW qual. If you carry a gun, you better be as good as local LE, your life & mine if I am in the area, may depend on it.

Did I compare civilians to LEO's as you've stated? You just did though, with your figures of 5%/95% for LEO's compared to 85%/15% of civilians with carry licenses. Pitiful set of figures pulled from one's hat or other handy orifice!

I'm just curious, what are your qualifications or other basis for the gathering of all this data you seem to have amassed regarding how agencies train, what they spend or have spent in training people? If you think that 85% of concealed handgun license holders can as you say "actually shoot", you have not been to the range to watch them qualify. I have and do. I usually stay around and stand watch over them as the instructors score their qualification targets. That's necessary because he is usually so busy looking for all those scattered and often missing bullet holes, that they fail to notice that the "students" are disobeying instructions by handling and loading handguns, while he is down range facing away to score the targets. Qualifying at what looks to be ten yards or so is quite the challenge for those 85 percenters. I've never seen that kind of tomfoolery committed during any LEO training or qualifications.

You also seem to think that all LEO's make enough money to dig deeply into their pockets for training ammo, because as you say they better "damn well do it for the sake of the public". The officers who have families simply don't, unless they have some other means of support, and as it is with most people, feeding and housing the family comes first.

When I was in the basic academy, our class coordinator asked for a show of hands from those who were to be assigned to California. He then told us that based on our level of pay, anyone who had a wife and child qualified for food stamps there, and had better hurry over and sign up once he reached there, because they were going to damn well need the help. Being single, that didn't apply to me, but as I was already the owner of a vast supply of components, I never wanted for pistol fodder once I got established at my first duty station.

Yes, I remember sunny California. In my youth I had worked in both the oilfields and in construction, and I thought I knew how to curse. But, when I got to "Kali" I learned profanity that I had never dreamed of, and all it took was for me or my fellow officers to walk out into the public eye in uniform. Regardless of race, color or creed, a large percentage of the population simply hated people who represented authority and taught the same to their kids, teaching them by example. When I finally left for good in 1997, I pulled to the shoulder of I-8 in Yuma, AZ, knelt and kissed the desert sand. It was good to be back in America!

steve4102

08-15-2013, 10:28 PM

Unfortunately some do.

Like most govt workers, getting buy is all that is req'd. There are some brave & exc LEO, then there are the ones that just want to write their unspoken quota of tickets & go home. IT is the nature of most govt jobs. WHen you know you can't be fired for doing nothing, most will do nothing.

I love it, should be a sig line.

fredj338

08-16-2013, 03:29 PM

Did I compare civilians to LEO's as you've stated? You just did though, with your figures of 5%/95% for LEO's compared to 85%/15% of civilians with carry licenses. Pitiful set of figures pulled from one's hat or other handy orifice!

I'm just curious, what are your qualifications or other basis for the gathering of all this data you seem to have amassed regarding how agencies train, what they spend or have spent in training people? If you think that 85% of concealed handgun license holders can as you say "actually shoot", you have not been to the range to watch them qualify. I have and do. I usually stay around and stand watch over them as the instructors score their qualification targets. !
I don't believe I was addressing you specifically, & like most LEOs, you are getting your panties in a wad. If you are in the 10% of shooters, good for you. I said 85% of CCW can NOT shoot, about the same as LEO. I have trained in the LEO system shot along side line guys & SWAT, see LEO every weekend in competition. Most just can't shoot beyond competent. Denying that, regardless of your occupation, is just putting your head in the sand. Competent when you make a living carrying a gun is just not good enough IMO, but you have yours.

jonp

08-16-2013, 06:03 PM

One of the things that really pisses me off in the media & general public opinion at large; that somehow a LEO or ex military is somehow more qualified than a trained civilian, pure BS. If I had to go into a gunfight, I would rather have one or two of the civ I shoot with than any random LEO to watch my back. Training for most LEO is minimal. Even for the military, most are NOT trained extensively with a handgun.
There are precious few LEA that actually encourage practice by paying their LEO or by at least providing ammo. So it's always up to the individual LEO to make sure they are better than competent. IF I ran a dept, my guys would all have to pass a SWAT qual to carry or go work someplace else. It's not like you aren't going to get another applicant. Yes I would work my budget out so they at least got range ammo for free.

That is something that irritates me to no end. I can not remember anyone in my unit that practiced let alone used a pistol or I would trust with one. Not all military know the right end of an AR either.

Cadillo

08-16-2013, 08:21 PM

I don't believe I was addressing you specifically, & like most LEOs, you are getting your panties in a wad. If you are in the 10% of shooters, good for you. I said 85% of CCW can NOT shoot, about the same as LEO. I have trained in the LEO system shot along side line guys & SWAT, see LEO every weekend in competition. Most just can't shoot beyond competent. Denying that, regardless of your occupation, is just putting your head in the sand. Competent when you make a living carrying a gun is just not good enough IMO, but you have yours.

Regardless of what you meant to say, or the fact that it is indeed on the ambiguous side, this what you wrote:

.........While no one doubts there are a handful, maybe 5% of any dept, that can actually shoot, most LEO are carrying it, not shooting it. Unfortunately also true for maybe 85% of all CCW... Unquote

This statement is most accurately interpreted as: While no one doubts that there are a handful, maybe 5% of any department that can actually shoot, most LEO's are carrying it, not shooting it, and also true for 85% of CCW.

I'm also skilled in reading and interpreting the written English language, and yes, my shorts do get a bit wedged, when stereotyped by folks who know little of what they put forth as fact for others to accept as truth. Some things are just wrong, and should be challenged.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
-A. Levenstein-

MT Gianni

08-16-2013, 08:25 PM

I was a reserve officer in the 80's. I signed on as the SD gave you practice ammo and I was on the Search and Rescue PPC team. We had two firsts at Nationals so it worked well.
I was told then that 95% of all LEO's never fire a round other than in training in a 30 year career. The job is very different than TV portrays it. Too many feel it is such a very small part of the job the odds are like building a bomb shelter in your basement. Slim that you may ever need to use it.

Jammersix

08-16-2013, 09:15 PM

Not to mention that training resources are finite and time even more so, and for an occupation that there is an utterly endless list of training priorities. Taken to the extreme, it could be argued that a cop who is a great shot is neglecting something.

fredj338

08-17-2013, 01:06 AM

I'm also skilled in reading and interpreting the written English language, and yes, my shorts do get a bit wedged, when stereotyped by folks who know little of what they put forth as fact for others to accept as truth. Some things are just wrong, and should be challenged.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
-A. Levenstein-

Well, the internet & typing leaves a lot to be said for interpretation. I thought it was clear, you obviously reading it with some bias did not. That's fine, the facts still remain. The vast majority of LEO are deemed professionals & can barely make their depts weak qualificaitons. We all know it, you see it every day in the news.

jonp

08-17-2013, 05:45 AM

"That's necessary because he is usually so busy looking for all those scattered and often missing bullet holes"
Guy next to me at qualifying actually shot my target. He was going to be my first robbery victim if I decided to take up a life of crime.

jonp

08-17-2013, 05:50 AM

Well, the internet & typing leaves a lot to be said for interpretation. I thought it was clear, you obviously reading it with some bias did not. That's fine, the facts still remain. The vast majority of LEO are deemed professionals & can barely make their depts weak qualificaitons. We all know it, you see it every day in the news.
To jump into the middle of an argument I'd say that what you see in the news is always the most extreme and worst examples of what is going on. You always see the CCW holder who shot his wife or vice versa but not the 2 Million defensive uses of firearms every year. To use the news as a source is sketchy at best.
Also, it seemed to me having been all over the US and the world for that matter that PD's in smaller towns seem to have better qualified, with a handgun and rifle, officers than the larger departments. I didn't say they were better cops but rather had more experience with firearms and shot them more than those in larger areas. As a truck driver now I travel all over the country and I can't tell you the number of conversations with local, small town police I've had that started with them seeing my NRA Life Member T-Shirt that led to hunting and reloading.

Char-Gar

08-17-2013, 07:03 AM

Latest reports indicate it was a stolen truck but the Trooper didn't know it. The chase started because the car thief was not wearing his seat belt.

steve4102

08-17-2013, 09:59 AM

Regardless of what you meant to say, or the fact that it is indeed on the ambiguous side, this what you wrote:

.........While no one doubts there are a handful, maybe 5% of any dept, that can actually shoot, most LEO are carrying it, not shooting it. Unfortunately also true for maybe 85% of all CCW... Unquote

This statement is most accurately interpreted as: While no one doubts that there are a handful, maybe 5% of any department that can actually shoot, most LEO's are carrying it, not shooting it, and also true for 85% of CCW.

I'm also skilled in reading and interpreting the written English language, and yes, my shorts do get a bit wedged, when stereotyped by folks who know little of what they put forth as fact for others to accept as truth. Some things are just wrong, and should be challenged.

From post #2.

In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/we...pagewanted=all

IMO, that speaks for itself.

Cadillo

08-17-2013, 10:37 AM

From post #2.

IMO, that speaks for itself.

Link states:

"Page Not Found

We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you."

It's apparently from the New York Times, so it might be reasonable to assume that they are making reference to either NYPD or other New York State personnel. If that is the case, one might ask whether it would to be wise to wonder whether folks who grow up on asphalt and concrete have shooting skills similar to folks having grown up walking upon grass and natural earth. Also, we all know that the New York Times would never give Law Enforcement or the shooting public a raw deal or an unfair shake.

Hmmmmm. Could be a tough call for some folks.

This horse is covered with blowflies. Further punishment will just raise a stench, but some folks relish in that sort of thing.

GabbyM

08-17-2013, 11:20 AM

If you go out and grab up ten random people off the street. Lets say military draft. How many of those ten are at all trainable to become decent marksman? I don't know that answer.

I'd hate to bet against five cops responding to a call and not a one of them able to place a bullet on target. I see in the news often where a bad guy makes that mistake.

popper

08-17-2013, 11:37 AM

How many of those ten are at all trainable to become decent marksman?
Don't know. I've never been LEO, don't have any problem with good ones. If I were - I would be darned sure I knew how and when to use my tools. If I'm displaying a gun, I'm a target. I do think the job has changed over the years, more of a public body guard now, or at least the public has that image. It is my self preservation interest to be in the best shape and very proficient. Same as if I were in a combat situation. It's not just a paycheck.

Lance Boyle

08-17-2013, 02:16 PM

Obviously this is a hot topic. I can see there are people with their own agendas and tinted glasses here.

I am a shooting enthusiast who also happens to have almost 20 years in LE and 9 years reserve and guard military service. Back when I was in the guard most guys in the unit were horrible shots and many were disinterested in more than qualifications. You would see one or two from the cook's section and half the admin staff. The rest of those sections got pencil passed as they were preparing that days meals or working the books or even the range but not picking up a rifle/pistol. The Marines were a different story, it was still training hard for true marksmanship and your rifle scores were part of your promotional score rating along with other for PT qual, training courses completed, points for years in, etc. That made it competitive and important. In the old days expert riflemen got paid a small monthly bonus. The Marine corps added more real world shooting type training to their basic shooting fundamentals training. On the surface that's a good model. In my days in the guard, the army did away with almost all of the fundamentals and just said go do it. You got to sight in your gun on a 10m course and then go shoot popups from a metal culvert hole. I think that approach served to waste ammo and leave the soldier more or less untrained and probably a bit incompetent. Blame the bean counters.

Some units were into their training seriously and others were doing the minimums proscribed by command and regulation.
I shoot in a military rifle (service type) league and we get a few active duty soldiers who come out to shot with us. 90% of those guys can't hit ****. 20 rounds on a SR1 target with 2 hits. 10 of which were offhand. Sadly disappointing that these are the guys that go out on the front lines when deployed. Most shoot fox hole supported and unsupported for quals, that was the basic course back in the day, on electric pop up targets. Thankfully in the last few years the army has loosened up their super tight buttocks and are getting a variety of training with live ammo; convoy escort shooting (defense from ambushes, firing while mounted) all very important to them. Back in the 80's the foxhole was good enough because you'd be in a hole waiting for ivan to come storming your position. They're doing more of an active shoot than a static line shoot like they used to. That's not a bad thing but basic entry marksmanship cannot be ignored and is the basic building block before you move on. Unfortunately I think that's what exactly is happening, they're not maintaining the basics and are doing he new stuff. They need both.

I'm seeing this trend in modern LE firearms training too. Where I worked was always a bit ahead of the basic minimum standard. We'd shoot with less time per exposure and have to engage multiple targets and get the correct number of rounds on each target. We'd shoot with and without barricades and from multiple barricade positions. This was our qual and not just training. We still do other training; sometimes it would be basics; bullseye target slow fire. multiple shooter scenarios requiring thinking, identifying bad guys vs. bystanders. using vehicles for cover. As of the last few years they have us running couple hundred yards before drawing and shooting for score to get your heart rate up. The theory is if it was real life it would be up with anxiety/fear/suprise etc. The round count on training seems to have dwindled and the instructors think of ways to make it useful. You will do the same quals with the same round count and you will do less training scenarios or with a lower round count.

I would say police shooting skills are running a standard bell curve
You have the narrow wings with expert shots, I tend to hover in that direction as expert but usually under master. The bulk of the folks are shooting good averages. Then you have the struggling group. The struggling group normally doesn't practice or at least not until the week before a range day. Half of the struggling group fails the first attempt and has to reshoot to pass. Once in awhile one will fail twice and will have to come back for one on one time with an instructor who will get them to practice and pass. There is no extra ammo for extra training, it simply isn't budgeted, and in fact the ammo costs more so the budget amount buys less. The budget is not going up. There is no more agency team. They pretty much went away with the revolvers and all agency support was withdrawn. The agency would not justify paying for ammo or even work time to play games. Old days guys were salary, then FLSA put everyone on an hourly timesheet.

I used to buy ammo for my duty gun, I used to reload for my duty gun but that's highly frowned on now. At $28 a box I'm not shooting their gun so much. This is unfortunate as we've replaced ours with the same model, later generation and they really need to break in some more. Ny triggers do suck and my scores dipped a bit. I can still dry fire though. ;-) I shoot my .22's and my .357 and my .45 with my cast bullet reloads. They're my guns, if they explode it's on me and I don't have to tap dance for the boss.

You laugh at the guys moving and firing on the range. Well there is a saying "If you train how you will fight then you will fight as you trained". They don't want you standing on a line static in a fair contest handgun slug match, you move to cover so as to not make yourself an easy target, you may have to fire while actually moving. Obviously your hit percentage will go way down if you're moving while pulling the trigger. It does look out of place and dorky as hell at the local range.

i used to want a perfect score with all X's and 10's. About year 5 I had a stroke of clarity and decided a perfect score with 10's is not nearly as good 2 9's in half the time. It just might save your life with you doing the scoring instead of someone else scoring their hits on you. So if you're a 275 pound out of shape bullseye shooter who shoots master scores in that game, don't forget the rules change when you go to another game or into the real world. Leaning out from behind a wall, off balance protecting your body core while shooting isn't a bad thing.

That said, I'm embarassed for the guys who couldn't hit bowling pins at 7 yards at all while standing still. They obviously need to do something.

Also I am certainly not arguing that officers aren't responsible for where their bullets end up. That's a huge concern and personal and agency liability. That's probably the only reason why our range budget isn't getting cut more. Odds are there won't be a shooting in 10 years but it can happen and I hope it's the good guys that prevail and no one is hurt accidentally.

ETA- One other comment regarding police hit statistics compared to your target shooting on the range; how many of you were shooting in low light conditions? how many of you were moving while shooting?, how many of you were shooting at a moving target half concealed by a car? how many of you were shooting at your clay targets and your heart skipped a beat or two/nearly crapped your pants because some bad person went off script and pointed a loaded gun at you? how many of you thought your life might end in a moment? Pulling a gun in the line of duty is not the same as range time. You can train for it but it's pretty hard to get good at real world shootings. Our soldiers might have a better chance in developing a real world shooting skill becasue some of them have repeated events in their careers. My hat is off to them for sure.

I'm not saying police are better in anyway at all, I'm just saying that police line of duty shooting events are pretty hard to correlate to much of anything even other police line of duty shootings. They could all use the practice, just like most of us.

Nickle

08-17-2013, 03:28 PM

You know, I've seen a lot of comments here. I figured it's time to up the ante a little, at least in my case.

I'm retired military, a lot of years (39 1/2). Regular Army and Army Guard. Went in in 1972, retired 2011. I've seen a lot of changes in that time. I also used to frequently get asked to run a range and teach troops how to shoot, tasked by name, not just my unit.

I've also taught marksmanship. I was Chief Master Instructor with one of the better organizations out there, or at least some decent folks say it is. I'll leave my opinion out of it, just go ask Gabby Saurez, Gunsite and others. No, I didn't teach with them. Yes, they know the program I taught. And, my primary job was to teach instructors, not students.

So, I'd say I have a good right to an opinion, and I'd also say my opinion probably means something.

I'll stand by my comments that most cops can't shoot for beans. To say anything else just flies in the face of reality.

I think the reasons are numerous, but the top one has got to be the simple fact that the agencies just don't budget for the officers to train. Initial training is just that, a start. No means the end, no matter how some dipstick bean counter figures it is. That said, there's free courses out there that officers can attend. They provide their rifle and ammo, the course itself is free. And, somewhat local, too. Haven't seen but a couple take that one up, and IIRC, every LEO that did was already a shooter (and NOT one of the problem children).

There's 2 kinds of training needed. Bullseye training, to master the basic skills. Very important, and the first one to do. Tactical training, so most of those basic skills can be put to use in a tactical environment. Leave either out, you have pretty much nothing.

Perfect is over rated (look above). Good enough is good enough. Perfection, in fact, is the enemy of good enough. I don't give a hoot about 10's when doing tactical shooting, I care about HITS. HITS count, 10's are just frosting on the cake.

As to the military, they do have some marksmanship problems. Still, the AVERAGE LEO out there is still much worse (all you guys that can shoot, you're in the same group as I am). That said, the military has seen the light some, and good marksmanship is being stressed again. Support units generally suck in the marksmanship area. I retired from an infantry battalion that placed marksmanship high on the list of good attributes. Still, they relied on a truck driver and a few maintenance guys (all from the support company) to teach machine gun shooting. Why? Because those 4 guys were pretty darned good. And ironically, some of the best shooters in the battalion were from that same support company. But, marksmanship was important to them (us). We figured a support soldier that didn't survive was essentially worthless. Plus, we ran our own convoys, and were pretty good at it.

As to the questions above, yes, I have shot many times with little to no light, with night vision equipment, with night vision equipment and an infared laser, with serious distractions, with simulated attacks, with stress, well below zero, well over 100, and many other things. And, there's a point to this that folks need to learn. Every one of those things makes marksmanship HARD. Want some confidence? That's getting hits at 300 meters with night vision and an infared laser (and NO light otherwise, pitch black). If you can do that, you know you can get hits pretty much anytime, any condition. And THAT is the bottom line.

We're not asking for perfect shooting, we are asking for decent shooting. It isn't simple, it isn't easy and it is a perishable skill. Some see that, and do it on their own, some get shamed into doing it, others can't be shamed on a bet, nor will act in their best interest.

Me? I wanted to survive going to a "two way range". That's one where the bullets go both ways. Coming and going.

303Guy

08-17-2013, 09:55 PM

I grew up with a gun in my hand so it's difficult for me to judge. However, I'm not a combat shottist so while my ability to aim a shot accurately is fine, I don't know how I'd do under pressure. Anyway, in my early days I set up bench for sighting in and developing loads and so on and what I discovered is that's a good way to improve ones shooting skills. Sight picture and trigger control is what I learned and it improved my shooting considerably. It doesn't take too many rounds either. I'd recommend bench shooting training as a starting point. 22lr for training is not bad and not expensive. I read somewhere that some marines I think were doing BB gun training and scoring and that it improved their shooting skills. That was in the WWII time frame.

bbqncigars

08-18-2013, 01:16 PM

We need more people like Nickle. I can out-shoot most of my local PD with my weak hand. Weapons proficiency is a very low priority with them, to the extent that my local range revoked their privileges due to NDs. A very sad state of affairs, IMO.

waksupi

08-18-2013, 01:27 PM

Thumbcocker

08-18-2013, 01:48 PM

Where I lived in the 90's there was a straight line loading press and boolit moulds for .45 acp in the armory. Don't see that much anymore.

blackthorn

08-18-2013, 02:05 PM

Depending on a cop that can't be bothered to become proficient with the tool that just might save an inocent life is like depending on an academic to fix your car! He might be smart and he might even know the theory but-----

steve4102

08-18-2013, 02:06 PM

Lance Boyle

08-18-2013, 05:21 PM

So many departments are understandable concerned about the expense of training. If they would invest in some air pistols, they could cut markmanship training costs dramatically. The best thing I did for my pistol shooting, was to get a Daisy Power Line pellet gun. Absolutely horrible trigger, that teaches trigger control. Once you learn that, and if you can find the front sight, you have it 99% licked.

very good point, even dry firing an empty pistol is better than nothing.

My last Guard unit had training firearms in addition to the duty hardware used by the MP company. Sadly our indoor range was shut down and converted to supply storage. The Ruger mark 1 pistols would have been excellent training guns for the MP's. Only time they came out of the armory were for the adjudant general's matches for the other guys on the team that didn't have their own target .22, really a lot of fundamentals could be done in armories with .22 lr on the cheap. M16's with .22 kits, .22 target rifles which we had at that time unused for decades (win 52d's and H&R;s and savage bolt target rifles)

Frankly I missed the good years of the guard and hit the tail end. they always had reasons why you couldn't do this or that.

I have seen horrible PD shooters get put on the desk and not allowed to drive a marked unit or carry until they got their stuff up to par. That's what it took to get this individual to actually practice with a loaned .22 pistol. Her issue was she'd tire too soon and after 15 rounds start missing the paper. Yeah, i know go ahead and roll your eyes. I did too. I wasn't an instructor but I told the person before they got put off the road to pick up a .22 and shoot a box a day for basic marksmanship. The individual worked another PD before coming to us and going through a whole nuther academy with 2 more weeks of firearms training and still couldn't maintain some skill. Eventually she did qual and eventually she sought another career field. Wise choice.

I would say about 1 in 15 or 20 PO's scare me with poor shooting on the range. Not unsafe on the range, just not getting it done on target. They're the ones with a trained coach right behind them, making positive comments and corrections as needed. They're not otherwise bad officers, in fact the few I have in mind do good investigations and work.

Nickle says it better than me, but yea, you need both in training, marksmanship and survival shooting skills. One is little good without the other.

Lance Boyle

08-18-2013, 05:32 PM

Agencies will not fund more shooting UNLESS they get sued over a tragedy. That's the sad fact. Most agencies are busy with complying with all sorts of other training mandates; sexual harassment training, violence in the workplace training, software training, and all sorts of stuff driven by policy people/lawyers. Take the range time, the silly compliance training time, and the fact that they're likely paying someone else overtime to cover shifts for the guys doing that training. Add in the ammo, the instructor time, etc. and it's a very expensive proposition to add training. It's not just the price of ammo and the hourly wage.

I see some are 2x a year and others are 4x a year. A very few are 1x a year. I think 4x a year should be the minimum. Won't happen for most.

Cadillo

08-18-2013, 09:31 PM

Well, the internet & typing leaves a lot to be said for interpretation. I thought it was clear, you obviously reading it with some bias did not. That's fine, the facts still remain. The vast majority of LEO are deemed professionals & can barely make their depts weak qualificaitons. We all know it, you see it every day in the news.

Now we are getting down to why you have your skewed grasp of reality. You are depending on the news media for truth and reality.

I wonder whether you have ever been shot at. I have, and can tell you for a fact that it does have a profound effect on one's fine motor skills that is not encountered when shooting from that little table you have in your website photo.

Can you cite your source(s) for this statement(red text), or have you gone back to your hat or other hidey-hole for that bit of information as well?

And, buy a dictionary. It's getting harder and harder to try to decipher this stuff.

Jammersix

08-18-2013, 10:10 PM

Two other instructors and I were sitting in a classroom, eating lunch. A fourth instructor walked in, fastening a vest. Since most of us didn't wear vests, and a couple of us believed vests were counter-productive, we all grinned at her, and one of the other instructors asked her why she was wearing a vest. She said "cops." And we all laughed.

fredj338

08-19-2013, 04:31 PM

Now we are getting down to why you have your skewed grasp of reality. You are depending on the news media for truth and reality.
I wonder whether you have ever been shot at. I have, and can tell you for a fact that it does have a profound effect on one's fine motor skills that is not encountered when shooting from that little table you have in your website photo.

Can you cite your source(s) for this statement(red text), or have you gone back to your hat or other hidey-hole for that bit of information as well?

And, buy a dictionary. It's getting harder and harder to try to decipher this stuff.
No I am not! Did you not see where I said I routinely shoot with LEO, have trained alongside them, shot their dept quals, it's not hearsay from the media. One only has to look at the scene of most LEO involved shootings to see where a large amount of the rounds go & that is NOT into the BG. The avg LEO is quick to go to the gun because they are unsure about their ability, fire a lot of rounds because you don't land many. So confidence plays a lot into this & you do NOT get better by NOT practicing.

You can disparage my avatar pic, has nothing to do with my ability. As far as being shot at, I hear this **** all the time from LEO. Like somehow getting shot at is going to make you a better shot? Uh, no. If you can't do it on the range, you can't do it on the street. Getting shot at is not the problem, getting hit is. My mind is wrapped around this, I am pretty sure I know how it will go if I ever have get shot at. The arrogance of many LEO on this subject is a appalling to me, no better than the lowly politician. Again, if you count yourself in the top 5-10%, good for you. Educate you brother officers to be better @ their profession. You have to know that the statements about the avg LEO ability w/a gun being marginal is true, not seeing this is just not playing with reality. Unless everyone in your dept is qualifying in the top 10%, how could you not see this, & that is jut the marginal requirements of most depts quals.
BTW, since most LEOs have never been shot at, just how do they know they will be ready when the balloon goes up? Unless they train & practice routinely, they are less likely to be ready than the trained civ IMO. Wearing a uniform & badge doesn't automatically give you skills.

Cadillo

08-19-2013, 06:08 PM

No I am not! Did you not see where I said I routinely shoot with LEO, have trained alongside them, shot their dept quals, it's not hearsay from the media. One only has to look at the scene of most LEO involved shootings to see where a large amount of the rounds go & that is NOT into the BG. The avg LEO is quick to go to the gun because they are unsure about their ability, fire a lot of rounds because you don't land many. So confidence plays a lot into this & you do NOT get better by NOT practicing.

You can disparage my avatar pic, has nothing to do with my ability. As far as being shot at, I hear this **** all the time from LEO. Like somehow getting shot at is going to make you a better shot? Uh, no. If you can't do it on the range, you can't do it on the street. Getting shot at is not the problem, getting hit is. My mind is wrapped around this, I am pretty sure I know how it will go if I ever have get shot at. The arrogance of many LEO on this subject is a appalling to me, no better than the lowly politician. Again, if you count yourself in the top 5-10%, good for you. Educate you brother officers to be better @ their profession. You have to know that the statements about the avg LEO ability w/a gun being marginal is true, not seeing this is just not playing with reality. Unless everyone in your dept is qualifying in the top 10%, how could you not see this, & that is jut the marginal requirements of most depts quals.
BTW, since most LEOs have never been shot at, just how do they know they will be ready when the balloon goes up? Unless they train & practice routinely, they are less likely to be ready than the trained civ IMO. Wearing a uniform & badge doesn't automatically give you skills.

Either your frustration at having your opinions challenged has you completely discombobulated, or your reading comprehension skills are no better than your written communication skills. Read again what I wrote, or perhaps have someone else read it and explain it to you.

Here's what I wrote:

"I wonder whether you have ever been shot at. I have, and can tell you for a fact that it does have a profound effect on one's fine motor skills that is not encountered when shooting from that little table you have in your website photo." In no way does that suggest that coming under fire enhances one's shooting skills, as you are implying that I have put forth, but it instead suggests that the stress of that type situation has a profound effect on fine motor skills, which makes any task requiring fine motor skills more difficult.

Well, if being unwilling to sit by saying nothing, while some blatherskite, who knows not of what he speaks, goes on and on as if he is an expert on a subject, which he can only address using self contrived statistical gibberish, makes one arrogant, then I surely must be. Did I mention that you make misstatements in writing no less, and then claim that you didn't put forth that which you did in fact write for the world to see.

Clearly you are not only an expert, but a legend in your own mind, but I assure you that I for one am not impressed. In fact I actually feel a little empathy for you in that you continue to set yourself up for ridicule, and then keep coming back for more and more not even knowing that you are continually projecting yourself in a poorer and poorer light. But by all means, carry on. The world can be a boring place at times, and you are able to do much to tickle my funny bone.

45 2.1

08-19-2013, 07:23 PM

Perhaps Mr. Cocklebur should tickle his funny bone with some of the retired military we have here, since they have been in many situations where they have been shot at, shot and carry foriegn metal in their bodies from explosive devices meant to kill them. They don't talk down to folks here either...... something our sticky friend should try to emulate...... provided he can do so.

fredj338

08-19-2013, 10:43 PM

Well, if being unwilling to sit by saying nothing, while some blatherskite, who knows not of what he speaks, goes on and on as if he is an expert on a subject, which he can only address using self contrived statistical gibberish, makes one arrogant, then I surely must be. Did I mention that you make misstatements in writing no less, and then claim that you didn't put forth that which you did in fact write for the world to see.

Clearly you are not only an expert, but a legend in your own mind, but I assure you that I for one am not impressed. In fact I actually feel a little empathy for you in that you continue to set yourself up for ridicule, and then keep coming back for more and more not even knowing that you are continually projecting yourself in a poorer and poorer light. But by all means, carry on. The world can be a boring place at times, and you are able to do much to tickle my funny bone.
SO you are free to imply something & others are not? YOu are one of the LEO I speak of when I talk about the arrogance of the badge. You even dive in & start personnal attacks, fine, that is on you. I stand behind my opinion based on weekly exp, shot at or not. BTW, that was your attempt to some how validate the LEO lack of ability. Still, wonder why so few actually try competition or even maybe a little bit of training?? Be comfy in your pension. It's being paid for by people like me.

waksupi

08-19-2013, 11:22 PM

Remember to act like gentlemen, so I don't have to make you.

Duckiller

08-20-2013, 12:25 AM

Cadillo is one of the reasons I will never serve on a jury again. I can truthfully tell a judge that I will never believe anything a police officer says. The arrogance of these people that barely made it out of high school is amazing. Cadillo doesn't think California is part of America. I don't think the 2nd Ammendment should apply to Cadillo.

steve4102

08-20-2013, 01:05 AM

It has been said that the lack of "Funds" is a big reason why many of our LEO can't hit bowling pins at 7 yards even though they are Not being shot at.

Being an LEO is a job and like most jobs there are some qualifications and skills needed to be hired for this "Job", yes. Shouldn't being able to shoot and hit what you are aiming at be a prerequisite to be hired in the first place? Why are these people even on the job it they cannot pass a simple accuracy test. If you cannot use the tools required for the job, then you do not qualify for the job. Why is it up to the Tax payer to pay for their ammo and pay their wages to teach them how to use a tool they should have already been proficient with before they were even hired.

It's like hiring a Carpenter that can't read a tape or use a hammer, or hiring a Surgeon that can't tie a knot. If they can't hit bowling pins at 7 yards, they should have never been hired in the first place. And as tax payers we sure as hell should not be on the financial hook to pay for training and ammo for a skill that should be a requirement BEFORE even being hired.

L Ross

08-20-2013, 09:49 AM

Well, hasn't this been fun? I'm always a bit surprised at the antipathy toward LEOs on a site where I thought I'd find mostly friends.
The OP stated 50' by the way on the missed pins not 21', not that it matters much.
In the two Depts. I have worked for I was always regarded as a "gun nut". My very first range master, (a Capt. by the way) demonstrated his ability by assuming a classic one handed target stance and cutting a playing card on edge at 30' with a K-38. I couldn't rest until I could emulate that.
That being said I have worked with a number of mediocre shots. They were/are splendid officers/deputies. They take the idea of public service to heart. Who knew that instead of comforting victims and children, performing first aid, investigating tragedies, mediating disputes, directing traffic, controlling crowds, assisting the elderly, disabled, emotionally disturbed, drug and alcohol addicted, and enforcing the laws we may of may not agree with, because we took an oath, we simply could have shot them?

Duke

Recluse

08-20-2013, 11:03 AM

Well, hasn't this been fun? I'm always a bit surprised at the antipathy toward LEOs on a site where I thought I'd find mostly friends.

A lot of us are former LE ranging from volunteer small-county reserve deputies to big-city feds. Our opinions are forged from actual experience. There was a time when I was proud of my LE tenure--nowadays, I rarely even admit to having done the job except in conversations here where I know there are other former cops/troopers/agents.

In the academy, our constitutional law agent taught us--correctly--that historically cops have been their own worst enemies and that the bad actions of one segment result in the changing of the laws and regulations for all. Having been a fed and worked in many locales and jurisdictions, I saw that firsthand more times than I care to remember. And for what it's worth, I despise the feds these days more than any other extension of LE.

When the institution of LE will, as a whole, abolish the "code of silence" and begin effectively, consistently policing their own rather than covering for them and making excuses for bad conduct, then you'll see the antipathy towards LE begin to significantly diminish.

However, I'm not holding my breath waiting on that to happen as by all indications, it continues to move in the opposite direction.

splendid officers/deputies. They take the idea of public service to heart. Who knew that instead of comforting victims and children, performing first aid, investigating tragedies, mediating disputes, directing traffic, controlling crowds, assisting the elderly, disabled, emotionally disturbed, drug and alcohol addicted, and enforcing the laws we may of may not agree with, because we took an oath, we simply could have shot them?

Duke

When I see the seemingly increasing number of innocent civilians being accosted and shot by these wonderful, splendid examples of LE and little to no action happening criminally (see "code of silence" up above), you'll have to forgive my growing cynicism and skepticism. We have several examples of that currently here in the DFW area of "excellent cops" having shot innocent civilians and basically not a thing happening to them other than a paid administrative leave while the internal affairs weasels follow the instructions of command/management to delay, delay, delay until the media and most citizens have lost interest and then the whole thing is swept under the rug.

I truly feel for the good cops out there doing the job, I really do. Problem is, my definition of a good cop and a cop's definition of a good cop are often far different. My definition is rather simple: A good cop follows the law of the land, which is the constitution, and exercises sound judgment in his/her actions and decisions.

As far as the Texas DPS troopers. . . I helped one of their companies convert from wheelguns to the Sig Sauer P220 (45ACP) back when I was still on the job. At least back then, those boys could dang well shoot. But then again, the Texas DPS--including the Rangers--are a shell of what they once were.

:coffee:

45 2.1

08-20-2013, 11:33 AM

Excellent post Recluse...............

USAFrox

08-20-2013, 02:43 PM

Dale in Louisiana

08-20-2013, 03:43 PM

Dang, what kind of church that you go to if you have to have a security guard at church? Or am I reading that wrong?

Shoot! I know some neighborhoods where you need a tail gunner on the garbage truck.

dale in Louisiana

bgreed

08-20-2013, 04:12 PM

Since I attend a rather large church (7200 on Sunday morning) we have our own security team as the pastor has had numerous death threats especially when teaching on Islam.
To relate an interesting PD shooting skill. Our shooting club puts on a competition for the local SWAT teams some of us were cmmenting on the quality of their marksmanship. One of the officers took umbrage to our evaluation asking "so you think you can better?" To which one our top shooters replied "yes" to which he went through the the course in half the time of the best team shooting only head shots. The officers asked if there were many who could shoot like that to which we answered in the afirmative. They just quietly packed their stuff and left.

USAFrox

08-20-2013, 04:59 PM

After having read all of this thread, I thought I'd throw in my own 2 cents regarding the current state of marksmanship in the military.

Granted, I'm in the Air Force, which I know is regarded by many in the other services as "not really military". Take that as you may...

I've worked for most of my career in a job that keeps me in the joint environment, which means that I work with all of the other services (even Coasties!) as well as various varieties of "alphabet soup" government civilian types. This has given me a lot of interesting experiences, to say the least.

I've always been considered a "gun nut", and at one of my assignments, I was leader of my work shift, which included members of all the services. As leader of my shift, I would once per month invite the whole shift to go shooting at a local range. Those of us who had firearms would bring what we had, and we would spend a day off just killing clay birds and poking holes in paper, and just having a good time. Over time, I've been surprised at the number of military members (those ALREADY IN the military), who had NEVER shot a gun. No. I'm not kidding at all.

Background: I work a REMF job. In the Air Force, since there's virtually no chance that those working my job will see combat, they figure it is a waste of time to pay for us to go to the range. Back when I went through basic training, we only touched an actual M16 for about 3 hours, on one day - the day we shot for qualification. I hear things have changed, but that's the way it was back then. Since then, the Air Force has seen no need for me to shoot on anything like a regular basis, because of my job. At my current duty station (and my last one) I'm a Security Forces (Military Police, for you guys in the Army) augmentee, which means I get to play cop if something comes up and they need extra bodies. Because of that additional duty, they let me requalify once per year. So far, in my entire AF career, I've qualified Expert 6 times on the M16, and 3 times on the M9. The only time I didn't qualify Expert was once when I just "qualified" on the M9 (in the Air Force, you either don't qualify, you qualify, or you qualify Expert - that's all the levels). So, in 14 years in the AF, I've gotten to shoot (on duty time) 10 times - total.

Now, having said all that, I've taught several folks from the AF on my work shifts, who had never before shot a gun - at all - because it was raining on the one day in basic training that they were supposed to shoot, or the range had been closed that day, etc. Yes, I know - the Air Force jokes can now begin. So these folks (who were in the MILITARY), had never shot a gun. At all.

As for the Navy: I've taught several swabbies who had never shot a gun also. Get this - the Navy folks would tell me that even in basic training, they didn't shoot guns. The Navy uses "laser tag"-type weapons to "qualify" in basic training. NO real guns at all. Now doesn't THAT give you warm fuzzies when you think about that?

Anyways, I just had to chime in with my experience after hearing several folks say how marksmanship training was so high and getting better in the military. Just hasn't been my experience, so far.

Just my own REMF observations. Take them for what you will.

Jammersix

08-20-2013, 09:04 PM

Who knew that instead of comforting victims and children, performing first aid, investigating tragedies, mediating disputes, directing traffic, controlling crowds, assisting the elderly, disabled, emotionally disturbed, drug and alcohol addicted, and enforcing the laws we may of may not agree with, because we took an oath, we simply could have shot them?

This.

I'll say it again: time and money are finite. If you concentrate on making every officer a decent-good shot, you're going to neglect another skill that he or she has more need for.

Jammersix

08-20-2013, 09:08 PM

When I see the seemingly increasing number of innocent civilians being accosted and shot by these wonderful, splendid examples of LE and little to no action happening criminally (see "code of silence" up above), you'll have to forgive my growing cynicism and skepticism.

Ian Birk. Not from Texas, but a dramatic demonstration of non-zero treatment.

There are excellent reasons for not prosecuting an officer who makes a mistake. But in Birk's case, he's not SPD anymore.

303Guy

08-20-2013, 09:52 PM

I saw a movie set in the Rodney King event. I didn't know things got that bad) or rather, had forgotten. I do recall that patrol cars were subsequently fitted with cams. Nothing to do with shooting skills but everything to do with good cop bad cop and cover-ups (although that one backfired badly).

However, L Ross shows us the other side of the coin.

steve4102

08-20-2013, 09:57 PM

This.

I'll say it again: time and money are finite. If you concentrate on making every officer a decent-good shot, you're going to neglect another skill that he or she has more need for.

BULL ****. Every job requires numerous skills and training. Train yourself to Do them all and do them all well or find another Job. If your "officers" cant shoot straight, then either take there guns away or fire them. Not having the $$funding$$ is getting awful tiresome when it come to covering for the under qualified, inept, Government Employees.

Jammersix

08-20-2013, 10:37 PM

Tiresome doesn't add more money to the budget or create more time. Without time or money, training and skills don't magically appear.

steve4102

08-21-2013, 06:21 AM

Tiresome doesn't add more money to the budget or create more time. Without time or money, training and skills don't magically appear.

Like I said, It should not be the financial burden of the employer/taxpayer to teach a skill that should be a mandatory requirement for initial employment.

If the "applicant" does not posses the necessary skills required to perform his job, then the applicant does not get the job. You don't high him, hope for the best, then complain when you don't get tax $$dollars$$ to fix what should have never been.

Who knew that instead of comforting victims and children, performing first aid, investigating tragedies, mediating disputes, directing traffic, controlling crowds, assisting the elderly, disabled, emotionally disturbed, drug and alcohol addicted, and enforcing the laws we may of may not agree with, because we took an oath, we simply could have shot AT them?

There, fixed it for ya.

Jammersix

08-21-2013, 07:12 AM

Like I said, It should not be the financial burden of the employer/taxpayer to teach a skill that should be a mandatory requirement for initial employment.

I cringe when I think of the cops we'd end up with...

The reason cops are trained is because we all want them trained our way. I'm perfectly happy to pay for their training, but I don't think they need more training in firearms when it has to come at the expense of something else, because firearms training isn't as important as skills they use every shift.

steve4102

08-21-2013, 07:35 AM

I cringe when I think of the cops we'd end up with...

The reason cops are trained is because we all want them trained our way. I'm perfectly happy to pay for their training, but I don't think they need more training in firearms when it has to come at the expense of something else, because firearms training isn't as important as skills they use every shift.

Now that's down right scary.

Tell me, what is more important than responsible firearms use? Being able to shoot and shoot accurately may not only save their lives and the lives of their fellow officers, but the lives of the innocent victims caught in their spay and pray shooting technique.

I guess dead civilians are, as Obama put it, "Bumps in the Road".

fredj338

08-21-2013, 02:44 PM

Tiresome doesn't add more money to the budget or create more time. Without time or money, training and skills don't magically appear.

Why it's up to the individual officer to get it, even at his/her own expense. It's not just their job it's their life or the life of an innocent person. Far too may LEOs are in it for the check, some of my own family members included. Sad, but state of affairs in most govt jobs.

fredj338

08-21-2013, 02:47 PM

I cringe when I think of the cops we'd end up with...

The reason cops are trained is because we all want them trained our way. I'm perfectly happy to pay for their training, but I don't think they need more training in firearms when it has to come at the expense of something else, because firearms training isn't as important as skills they use every shift.

Wrong, the exact reason a LEO NEEDs constant training & practice is BECAUSE they will not get on the job training for it. Your people skills, observation skills, driving skills, etc, all get daily on the job training. Gun fighting skills, maybe 1-2x in a LEO 20yr career on the job. You shoot only your quals, you will suck, fact. In a gunfight you will NOT rise to the occasion but sink to the level of your training & practice. So get the other skills required on the job, but your gun skills will have to come on your own time. That way you don't end up a stat or killing/wounding someone that doesn't deserve it because of your lack of skill.

fredj338

08-21-2013, 02:50 PM

Now that's down right scary.

Tell me, what is more important than responsible firearms use? Being able to shoot and shoot accurately may not only save their lives and the lives of their fellow officers, but the lives of the innocent victims caught in their spay and pray shooting technique.

I guess dead civilians are, as Obama put it, "Bumps in the Road".

Honestly, driving skills are probably one of the most important, you do it daily. Do it wrong, people die just like a bad shooting. The diff is you do drive daily, so you get on the job training. Gun fights, uh no.

Jammersix

08-21-2013, 06:09 PM

dilly

08-21-2013, 06:18 PM

You guys should talk to an ironwork, a carpenter, a laborer or just about any other trade with this "on your own time" idea, and see what kind of reaction you get.

It's a job. It needs to be done professionally. That means when you go home, you go home.

A "way of life" cop is a scary idea.

Well, I kind of disagree. Most carpenters did woodworking prior to their career on an amateur basis prior to becoming "professional," even if it was just helping his dad out with basic home carpentry. Additionally, he will do his own carpentry around his home, maybe for his parents if they are older, etc.

What you do being a way of life is not at all foreign to most careers. Doctors, and lawyers spend their own time staying current with their fields.

My brother was a LEO for many years, and as such was able to carry concealed in many places, even where a normal CCW forbids and prior to much of the current CCW legislature. He always kept his head about him and had the "civilian sheepdog" mentality.

It's also a police officer's responsibility to stay in decent shape (yeah I know that will get some laughs!), but do you think LEO's ought to be on the clock while they are on the treadmill? It's just part of what you have to do if that's what you want to be.

fredj338

08-21-2013, 07:32 PM

303Guy

08-21-2013, 07:58 PM

Every trades person out there has to undergo an apprenticeship. That means getting trained in the chosen trade. Same with Law enforcement or any other profession. That includes doctors and layers but those have to get a degree before they start their 'apprenticeship'. Tradesmen only need a school leavers certificate to enter their trade. LEO's too. All the rest is on the job training with pay commensurate with skill level. Same with the military - they do not require shooting proficiency in order to join the military. It could be made a entry qualification requirement but it isn't. They wouldn't get the recruitment numbers. Those of us who could shoot prior to entering the military were simply the better shots initially. Some of the guys would fire a shot then as the pointer came up they's shoot the pointer! Didn't do their scores any good. One guy was aiming at the cattle on the hill behind the berm! Or so he said. Mind you, I was in the airforce and we went to the range precisely twice! The infantry boys did a heck lot more shooting than we did.

Jammersix

08-21-2013, 10:10 PM

No one hires a carpenter w/o skills.

How do you think they make carpenters?

Speaking as a carpenter by trade and general contractor by profession, the trades all have apprenticeships. I served mine through Locals 131 and 1797.

Being an apprentice means you learn on the clock, for pay.

On day one, a new apprentice knows less than nothing. (The jokes run that after three years, he still knows nothing, but can fix coffee. He's a useless idiot, but he's our useless idiot. But I digress.)

The next question is obvious. Would you want an apprentice cop drawing down on you on day one of his apprenticeship? Answer: not if you're sane.

So they need training. On our dime. I do not want an untrained cop on the streets, and I understand and agree that training must be paid if it is to be quality training. So that's how I vote.

steve4102

08-21-2013, 11:17 PM

How do you think they make carpenters?

Speaking as a carpenter by trade and general contractor by profession, the trades all have apprenticeships. I served mine through Locals 131 and 1797.

Being an apprentice means you learn on the clock, for pay.

On day one, a new apprentice knows less than nothing. (The jokes run that after three years, he still knows nothing, but can fix coffee. He's a useless idiot, but he's our useless idiot. But I digress.)

The next question is obvious. Would you want an apprentice cop drawing down on you on day one of his apprenticeship? Answer: not if you're sane.

So they need training. On our dime. I do not want an untrained cop on the streets, and I understand and agree that training must be paid if it is to be quality training. So that's how I vote.

I'm going to have to call B as in B, S as in S on that one.

As a Carpenter for over 30 years and a General Contractor for 10 of those years you are completely full of BS.

The only "Apprenticeship" program available to any of the trades is through the Union(less than 12 % of the carpenter tradesmen in the US are Union), you know that and I know that. The General Contractors that choose not to partake in the Union scam have no "Apprenticeship" program as they have no need for one, they hire "individuals" based on their skills and their abilities.

Back to the Union Scam, An apprentice Carpenter has a few hoops to jump through before he gets into the "program". First, but not always a requirement, is to go through two years of Vo-Tech. Then he/she has to find a "sponsor". That would be a Union General Contractor that would be willing to hire him/her under the Apprenticeship program. This is more of a "Who-ya-Know" as apposed to a "What-ya-Know. Once you get hired as an apprentice, then the fun begins.

As an apprentice you have to go to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week at a "reduced" wage as you are NOT yet a Carpenter. After work, usually 3 nights a week for several years you are required to attend classes. Yup, classes, and on your OWN TIME, what a concept. Once you have completed all the classes on your own time and worked at a reduced wage for 7000 hours you will be eligible to earn "Carpenters" wages.

So, you are full of BS. Union Carpenters, Plumbers, Electricians, Pipe Fitters and Tinners all go through the program and they take classes after work on their own time. Something that NO government employee would be caught dead doing.

As for hiring Carpenters without skills and then "On the Job Training" nope, wrong again. It don't work that way, not even in the Union.

Here is how it really works in the real Construction World, My World. As I said, I have been doing this for over 30 years. You fill out an app., it gets reviewed by the front office. The Applicant gets sent to me for an interview. I ask a few simple questions, "can you read a Blue Print", "can you Tape"? Yes to both is required by me.

I pull out a print and ask a few more simple questions pertaining to the print, If they cannot correctly answer these questions the interview is over and they are done. I do not train, I hire trained employees. If they pass the Print test I ask to see their taping tools, if they do not have them, interview over, if they do have them and they look as though they have been used (a lot) on to phase two.

Phase two is to show me whatcha got. I take them to a few different job sights and see what they actually can do. If they "Pass Muster" with me on site, then they get hired on "Probation" for 30 days. If after 30 days if my "crew", not me, feels he/she is an asset then they stay, if they feel he/she is dead weight then they are gone.

My point to all of this is simple. Don't train your LEO to shoot on My Dime, Hire LEO that can already shoot. If they can't shoot, don't hire em. Make em train and learn on their own time like the rest of the world.

Jammersix

08-21-2013, 11:31 PM

I remember why I made the switch to union crews, now.

My company was both union and non-union, crews from 2 to 20. Or so. (Small, by union standards.)

Here in Seattle, there is a non-union apprenticeship through the King County Master Builder's Association and King County. It doesn't use the PERT system, and in my experience, didn't provide the same level of technical training. It ran during the day, and my employees were paid to attend it. The time it took was comparable to the union school at Renton Voc-Tech, (two full days per month), but I wasn't happy with the curriculum. Too many short cuts. Then again, I was trained.

I signed with Local 456 (the Residential Carpenter's Local) in 2004, and never looked back. That affiliated me with 131 and 1797 for any commercial work.

There will always be contractors who use unskilled labor, just like there will always be "MBA" contractors with no skill at all. Always have been, always will be. There is no certification to call yourself a carpenter. There is, here in Washington, only L&I, financial and insurance requirements to call yourself a contractor. No skill required for either title. No one has to serve an apprenticeship-- you can just call each other carpenters.

When you're talking about a crew in the trades, you can keep them.

I'm retired, now. My career is finished. If you make it that far, come up to Seattle, and we'll go shooting, drink some beer and I'll show you how much fun laughing at apprentices can be.

A carpenter, with no apprenticeship?

Okay. I hate to tell you this now, but there was an easier way. You could have been paid for all that study you did.

Have a nice day.

steve4102

08-21-2013, 11:51 PM

A carpenter, with no apprenticeship?

Okay. Have a nice day.

Now that's some funny Sheet right there. You are actually more concerned about a non Union, non- apprentice trained "Carpenter" being unleashed on the American public more than you are about an LEO with a GUN that can't hit what he is aiming at.

That's nuts!

steve4102

08-22-2013, 12:40 AM

Honestly, driving skills are probably one of the most important, you do it daily. Do it wrong, people die just like a bad shooting. The diff is you do drive daily, so you get on the job training. Gun fights, uh no.

True, but these "driving Skills" are also something that the lazy LEO cannot honestly do at home and on his own time. He/she can't really jump in the family wagon and practice this, so it must be trained /practiced on the job. Shooting and Accurate shooting is far different, it is a skill that can be practiced and perfected just about anywhere and at any time.

CLAYPOOL

08-22-2013, 12:52 AM

I didn't understand the reference to "Cops" in post # 117. Vest..? I missed that one. Please explain as I will keep checking this tread if some one will explain that one for me. Thanks..

steve4102

08-22-2013, 01:10 AM

I didn't understand the reference to "Cops" in post # 117. Vest..? I missed that one. Please explain as I will keep checking this tread if some one will explain that one for me. Thanks..

Not sure if it can be explained. In that post he was an LEO instuctor training without a vest.

In post # 147 he is a Carpenter and a General Contractor.

In post #149 he is retired.

In this post #153, I say he is a troll and not LEO or General Contractor.

9.3X62AL

08-22-2013, 01:15 AM

Most cops never have to run up against a real "hard case" that will shoot it out rather than surrender. The cops that have to deal with them are frequently way out of their league. As I used to say, I had to train to fight an enemy that was out to kill me, had a rifle, and knew how to use it. Cops don't have to deal with that.

Oh, really? America isn't Afghanistan or Iraq (yet), but there are MANY hard-core, highly-motivated, well-conditioned, and sometimes highly-trained opponents in the street that confront cops with frequency. This will get worse as the black-robed fools turn loose more and more convicted felons in their wrong-headed zeal to address prison violence and over-crowding issues.

Thank you for your service to our country.

fcvan

08-22-2013, 01:21 AM

A lot of folks have touched on the core issues here with the greatest being training. Someone was scoffed at for suggesting that there are other skills used more frequently than the firearm. The truth is the pen, or more aptly basic writing skills, are more frequently used than the gun.

A LEO needs to be proficient at many skills, and shooting is but one of them. The agency sets the level of proficiency expected, and the level of liability they are willing to be exposed to. The proficiency level for line officers is lower than for tactical officers. Meeting those basic levels is not that difficult. The agency doesn't require marksmen (other than our snipers) and that is what they get.

When an agency is found liable for failing to train to a higher standard then and only then will the standard be revised. If an officer is a poor shot and hits a bystander the agency can take administrative action for a shot taken outside of policy procedure and training. It would seem the agency is more interested in shifting liability away from the agency and toward the LEO.

When I first started, my agency had what they called 'remedial practice range' which was designed for marginal shooters to improve their skills. It also allowed shooters to go on their own time and shoot the state's bullets and weapons. With F.L.S.A. compliance regs there was no such thing as remedial training on your own time. Some years later, there was not room in the training budget beyond the cost of annual and quarterly qualification beyond a small percentage of FTQs requiring a re-shoot. The bean counters took over.

The mentality became 'we trained you to the department standard at academy, you are required to maintain that standard on your own.' For a couple years I was the training manager for a division with 1000 sworn, and 600 non-sworn personnel. It was very frustrating trying to get business services to approve new staples and staple guns for use on the range, getting extra ammo was impossible.

I can't speak for all agencies, I can only speak for my own. The agency stopped encouraging its officers to be proficient shooters beyond a minimalist level. Individual officers encourage each other to increase their proficiency. The few real shooters I know are active competitors and frequent volunteers to help train those folks who decide for themselves they want to improve their shooting skills.

Our tactical officers are the only ones who receive training that includes realistic scenarios and shooting positions, and/or using simunition rounds. Call it paintball if you want but you are shooting while being shot at and not just punching paper. The MQs for tactical officers are more rounds, higher percentage, and less time. Those guys push each other internally and hold an annual competition among themselves. The stress of competition is nowhere near the stress of an actual shooting but it is better than shooting a piece of paper that is just standing there.

Jammersix

08-22-2013, 01:41 AM

Not sure if it can be explained. In that post he was an LEO instuctor training without a vest.

In post # 147 he is a Carpenter and a General Contractor.

In post #149 he is retired.

In this post #153, I say he is a troll and not LEO or General Contractor.

I guess you'll just have to wait for the movie. :)

Duckiller

08-22-2013, 02:03 AM

Steve4102 is FULL OF BS. As a government employee when I became a supervisor all supervision classes I took we on my own time at my expense. In fact most of the classes I took were full of other government employees trying to inprove their skills. Based on your post #148 I think your are the troll here and everything you say should be ignored. I you don't train you have rotten employees and I don't want you anywhere near a job of mine.

steve4102

08-22-2013, 07:47 AM

The mentality became 'we trained you to the department standard at academy, you are required to maintain that standard on your own.'

As it should be!

9.3X62AL

08-22-2013, 10:20 AM

The Department Standard as far as firearms competency is concerned is not a high hurdle at all. In an ideal world, these skills should continue refinement, and in most venues apart from firearms proficiency this is an ongoing and evolving process throughout a LEO's career. The fact is, in most agencies firearms proficiency is much-discussed but little-addressed in a substantive way. It costs time and money, both of which are finite and shrinking apace. It also requires a safe place to do the firing, which in many locales is becoming a critical problem--range space and access to same.

I saw early-on that I wouldn't be getting the training and practice I needed to maintain proficiency with the sidearm or shotgun, so I made it my business to maintain that proficiency on my own time and on my own nickel. This search for affordable practice ammo was one motivator toward boolit casting that I got into in early 1981, and the outcome of a shooting I became involved in on 8/3/81 paid back all that practice time in spades. Even while sustaining a face wound from a shotgun, I was able to return fire at a covered assailant (behind a dumpster) and inflict 2 wounds to his forward hand out of 5 rounds fired. This was point/instinctive shooting at a range of 26 feet, in very low light and within a second of being struck. I saw the shotgun being lowered in my direction, he fired, and I fired immediately thereafter. This was recorded via radio transmission, in my haste to get set I threw down the radio mic and it stuck open somehow. There was an arrestee in my back seat, too--and I got him to lay down before the shooting commenced. Yes, it was a clusterf---. And I was solo--the assisting deputy arrived a few minutes after the shooting, and only because he was enroute to transport my arrestee to jail. Otherwise, assistance would have likely been 10-15 miles away.

All that aside......my practice regimen certainly saved my life and enabled me to shoot well enough to put the assailant out of action. I doubt that in absence of that off-duty practice that I could have performed to the level that I did. Those thousands of 38 Specials sent downrange without benefit of sighting--just pointing and getting that roller going, from 2 yards to 30 yards--made the difference. Needless to say, THAT occurrence did NOTHING to discourage me from continuing my training regimen, and it never occurred to me to find another line of work--at least, not because of armed hairballs. Those sorts of hazards I could train for.

45 2.1

08-22-2013, 10:25 AM

Different states, different districts, different locals ALL have somewhat different work rules. What you experience isn't what someone else does........ And unions might think they run the job, but they don't. The guy signing the pay order for work done does............... This nation is as different as night and day depending on just where you are.

blackthorn

08-22-2013, 12:54 PM

Recluse

08-22-2013, 02:06 PM

I was discussing this thread with some family members yesterday, all of whom are also ex-military and past/present law enforcement. Every single one of us could shoot and shoot extremely well when we were on the job. We could also drive very well, write good reports, we knew how to use our radios and communications gear, etc etc.

It was called pride in your abilities as a peace officer.

A couple of our younger cousins who are in their first few years in two different large city police departments told us that they saw three kinds of new cops on the job:

1. Legacies & patriots--those whose parents/uncles/etc were cops and wanted to continue on those footsteps, or those who had served in the military and felt the call to continue serving back home.

2. Clock punchers--just another job and with no real zeal or affinity for the job. Primary goal is to get off shift on time and get home.

3. Adrenaline junkies--no explanation needed. Virtually every one of these numbnuts were reality TV show junkies, iron pumpers, tacticool-obsessed, etc etc.

Of the three, our family folks who are still on the job say they despise Group #3 the most and say they are the most unreliable in a bad situation because many turn into instant cowards when the SHTF or they rush in so headstrong that everything gets *****'d up. Also said this group was by far the worst shooters because you couldn't tell them anything--they knew it all from reality shows and YouTube videos.

Something else to think about, I guess.

:coffee:

fcvan

08-22-2013, 02:56 PM

What Recluse said:

" . . . Every single one of us could shoot and shoot extremely well when we were on the job. We could also drive very well, write good reports, we knew how to use our radios and communications gear, etc etc.

It was called pride in your abilities as a peace officer."

Recluse speaks from great knowledge and personal experience. Reading his entire post brought one word to mind. Character. The agency can train its employees to perform certain skills but it is the character of the individual that inspires them to try to do their very best and not just the bare minimum required of them. Persons of good character often become examples to others by their performance. Those same persons are often the best trainers and the best leaders.

Persons of good character generally don't come to the agency without any sense of character, or sense of honor. They bring to their branch of the military or their agency the character instilled upon them by their family. Recluse nailed it with #1:

"1. Legacies & patriots--those whose parents/uncles/etc were cops and wanted to continue on those footsteps, or those who had served in the military and felt the call to continue serving back home."

Folks like that are folks I admire and respect.

Cadillo

08-22-2013, 03:18 PM

Why it's up to the individual officer to get it, even at his/her own expense. It's not just their job it's their life or the life of an innocent person. Far too may LEOs are in it for the check, some of my own family members included. Sad, but state of affairs in most govt jobs.

So what was or is the motivation for your entrance into whatever field of endeavor you have pursued, or are pursuing? Or were you born independently wealthy? The comedy just keep coming!

steve4102

08-22-2013, 03:40 PM

Quote "I do not train, I hire trained employees. If they pass the Print test I ask to see their taping tools, if they do not have them, interview over, if they do have them and they look as though they have been used (a lot) on to phase two. "

Probably trained on a Union program! That makes you cheap and the owner of a company that dearly deserves to be Unionized! Around here the Companies are whinning about not having a pool of competent tradespeople comming up to replace the "Boomers" aproaching retirement! Guess what? they are reaping the crop of hiring (for years) people who were trained on someone elses dime! The Union movement in this country told them over 20 years ago that this was going to be the result of going "cheap"!

You make little to no sense.

If I am advertising for a Carpenter then that is what I expect the applicant to be, trained and qualified. If I am advertising for a Laborer or Carpenter Tender that is a different story. Entry level positions are just that entry level and their pay and duties reflects that. If my entry level employees want to advance and learn the trade, then I along with my crew will help them any way we can, But I will not pay Carpenters wages for an entry level position, only the Government does that.

Boerrancher

08-22-2013, 03:49 PM

Joe,
Please forgive my temerity, but am I reading your post correctly? I believe you are saying that you picked up four standard unbroken clay pigeons that measure about 4.25" in diameter, that you threw them up on a berm and from 100yards drew and fired a Ruger Redhawk with mixed ammo and broke all four pigeons in approximately 8 seconds?

No wonder the officers left, they must have been frightened senseless. I have only been in law enforcement for 37 years and have been around guns and shooters since very early childhood. I have never seen anyone demonstrate such prowess with a sidearm. I'm not even sure I've seen many people capable of such a feat with a long gun. In offhand Schuetzen shooting it is a given that a shooter that can place all his/her shots into four minutes of an angle will win almost every match they enter. Of course every possible refinement of a single shot rifle fitted for offhand shooting is the norm, as are high power target scopes or finely adjustable tang mounted target sights.
Kudos to you for your pistolcraft! Fair to middlin' does not begin to describe your shooting.

Duke

Most city and town folks have no clue as to what a person can do when they literally grow up with a gun in their hand, and being able to shoot it,and maintain it so it shoots well determines when and what you eat or how much money you get or don't get for that calf being chased by coyotes.

Dad put a 22LR single shot in my hands at the age of 4, by the age of 5 I was out fetching dinner with it every few days. When I was 7 he put a .357 lever gun in my hand and put me in charge of the cows. Before I was 12 he handed me a Flattop Ruger Blackhawk 357, because I was working off a horse and the rifle wasn't fast enough sometimes.

I don't claim to be a pistol shooter, compared to dad and some of the guys I grew up with I am down right crappy at it and don't even try to compete with them. I know guys that will shoot one inch six shot groups at 100 yards with a revolver, and we had to quit having matches at our private club that were open to the public because the public quit coming. If you can't hit a clay bird every time at 100 yards with a magnum revolver you need to practice more or just plain give it up because there are a lot of us hill folk that will flat out hand you your *** when it comes to shooting.

When I was in my 20's and 30's, and Uncle Sam was buying much of the ammo I was shooting over a thousand rounds of pistol ammo a week and as much as 200 rounds of .308 win a week. I use to be a shooter. Since I was severely wounded in Afghanistan I can't shoot as well as I use to, too much nerve damage, but I can still bust clay birds at 100 yards with any of my revolvers. Hell my buddy who visits from Australia, who had never held a revolver until 5 years ago was busting birds at 100 yards with my red hawk after I coached him through the first box of ammo.

No wonder most cops think they can shoot, because most of their instructors think they can shoot when they really don't have a clue

Joe

Cadillo

08-22-2013, 04:09 PM

Some have put forth the idea that LE agencies should hire people who already have shootings skills. Where pray tell will they find them? Every day, more and more of the applicants have zero experience with firearms. "Why is that?", one might ask. The answer is both simple and complex.

Developing shooting skills is quite an expensive proposition. A person with the means to have quality firearms, and enough ammunition to attain and maintain a high level of efficiency, is usually sufficiently heeled as to be not likely to seek a low paying job in Law Enforcement, which requires that (s)he start out as a trainee and be treated and paid as such until off probation, and even beyond depending on the average age and length of service of his/her local co-workers.

I was drawn to the life even though it meant a substantial pay cut, but did it because my father and uncle had retired and were living well after careers with the agency I selected, and because I knew I would make it through probation given that I was already a competitive handgunner and had the foreign language skill that was required. It was tough financially at first, but turned out to be the best decision I ever made, but I can tell you that the guys with families, who go into the field, are really strapped for cash and just don't have money to buy ammo for extensive practice. That is an absolute fact.

In today's world, even if a person has the desire and means to buy sufficient ammo to develop shooting skills, where does that person go to shoot? Here in Texas all land within a reasonable drive at least, is privately owned, excluding state parks, wildlife refuges, etc., so unless a person or his family or associates have land that makes for a safe place to shoot, (s)he must go to a shooting range. There are only a few ranges in our area, and the fees can add up depending upon how often one tries to go.

The one gun club I currently belong to has a membership that fluctuates between eight hundred to one thousand members. Factor in the members' family members and other guests, there is often quite a crowd to have to deal with, something that can be less than pleasant at best, and unsafe at worst. This is not a situation which nurtures enthusiasm among people new to the sport.

More and more I run into newbies at the club, and they know nothing at all about what they are trying to do. It seems that many of them decide to buy a gun for one or more reasons, and they go to the gun shop, and ask for advice on what to buy. They walk out with a gun and ammo, go to a club meeting, sign up and head for the range. Not all of the people are youngsters either. It seems more and more that the skilled shooters I see at the range are people who are at or near retirement age, and that the few youngsters showing up are truly novices, who know little to nothing about range etiquette, safety, marksmanship etc. From this I draw the conclusion that recreational shooting is a dying sport and will be mostly if not completely lost here in the U.S. within a generation or so. I would hope and pray that it would be otherwise, but I just can't ignore the evidence that I see.

fredj338

08-22-2013, 04:33 PM

So what was or is the motivation for your entrance into whatever field of endeavor you have pursued, or are pursuing? Or were you born independently wealthy? The comedy just keep coming!

Oh I work, a lot harder than most govt employees, but I actually take pride in what I do, always have, regardless of what it was. FWIW, worked in the govt sector for awhile as well as a union shop, my opinions/observations are not baseless or emotional, just facts. Even a casual observer can see the deficiencies in the govt employee system. Hopefully your attitude as a cop is better than forum member.
You are right though, increasingly people are hired as LEO w/ little to no firearms training. Why it's so important for them to get the practice & add'l training on their own that may just save their lives or prevent needless death of innocents. As someone else noted, pride in your profession.

Del-Ray

08-22-2013, 05:23 PM

Probably trained on a Union program! That makes you cheap and the owner of a company that dearly deserves to be Unionized! Around here the Companies are whinning about not having a pool of competent tradespeople comming up to replace the "Boomers" aproaching retirement! Guess what? they are reaping the crop of hiring (for years) people who were trained on someone elses dime! The Union movement in this country told them over 20 years ago that this was going to be the result of going "cheap"!

I started at 15, working at Meijers as a bakery stocker. After a year I have learned enough to become a clerk in said bakery. After another few months I started as a baker. The last years I spent making donuts on midnights. While the entire job was union, it was a company union and no training was paid for. You learned on the job or you didn't go higher. Start at the bottom, work up. If you don't want to learn then you get fired or stay at the bottom.

I went on to become a locksmith. Learned how to pick locks from my dad, and learned to rekey locks so I could practice picking them. Livonia Lock and Key hired me as a basic tech in the store, and I learned over months to open cars, and cheap safes. Ended that job as one of his on call drivers. When it's the butt crack of dawn and you're charging 100.00 bucks to open a door, you better get it open fast. Started at the bottom, worked my way up.

Then I became an apprentice. UAW Hydraulic Repair at Rouge Steel in Dearborn MI. That's where I learned all about seniority. About how it's my companies responsibility to train me. About how the first job would be for me to make the coffee, carry the tools, and work the jobs the guys with "seniority" don't want. Overtime? Is it a running turn? (no jobs, just breakdowns) They are IN! Is it a downturn? (hours worth of work) Nope. Give it to the apprentice. Which got me to thinking, if these jobs can be done by an apprentice, why do they need journeymen?

School was paid for. It's a joke. Seriously. Basic math, geometry, algebra, then trig. Things a high school graduate should know. THen the actual schooling for your trade. Things taught that you already knew from working.

The UAW apprenticeship that I went through is a joke. It's designed to do nothing but pad the unions, and make something for the company to pay for.

Hiring should be based on what you know, and what the job needs. Cops should be hired like I was as a baker, or a Locksmith.

Do desk work, you learn your reports, how to fingerprint. And go up from there. If you can't learn starting at the bottom and work up then you don't want the job.

I'm currently a licensed boiler operator/ refrigeration operator in the City of Detroit. The law here is a boiler needs a licensed operator. It's a sweetheart deal set up with the unions. You HAVE to have a license to run a boiler, but you need to run a boiler to get a license. Oh, or you can go through a union program, and get the paperwork that way....

They drag out 2 months worth of training over a couple of years. I did it. I learned more on the job in the first month. But in the liberal utopia of Detroit you have to play the game.

To think a union trained carpenter is any better then a carpenter that learns everything from the ground up is silly at beat.

They both start at lower wages, and work up. Just one has to do it on his own, the other has the union there to make it easier. I'd rather hire the guy that learned because he had to to make more money. Not because he had a 4 year program, 2 years of which are spent wiping a journeyman's rear end for him.

Cops need to get back to being cops. Not paramilitary forces. It's not that hard to learn to shoot ONE gun well. If you're paid 50K a year, and can't afford to shoot a box or two of ammo a month then you need to re-evaluate what you're spending money on.

Something that can save a life is more important that ALL other skills. Driving, shooting, baton work, chemical agents, and tazers should stressed. Would I rather have a cop that can hit the bad guy and not my daughter, over a cop that is capable of sweetly calming me down after killing her?

That's a easy answer for me.

dondiego

08-22-2013, 05:30 PM

Detroit and all of their unions are doing fine........right?

blackthorn

08-22-2013, 07:06 PM

My post was not about Union Vs. non Union. I don't care one way or the other. There are lots of non union employers that run apprenticeships and train their employees the way they want them. All I was trying to point out was/is that in (long term) not fullfilling (what I see as) their obligation as a "good" employer, results in a shortage of skilled workers down the road, and this appears to be a prophesy that is going to come true! My oldest son: got hired as a labourer, got a welding ticket (on his own), got on as a welder in the sawmill (union) where he worked, applied his ability to become an uncertified Fitter, took the required courses and up graded to Millwright, got an apprenticeship and is now a certified Millwright. Some of his training was paid for by his employer and he continues to work for them! He has some sense of loyality to the folks that trained him. He went through a graduated pay scale to reach full Millwright's rate so I discount the arguement that an employer has to pay full scale to someone he hires "off the street"! That is just an excuse for a cheap employer to justify hiring the fruits of someone elses investment!

Jammersix

08-22-2013, 07:32 PM

There are lots of non union employers that run apprenticeships and train their employees the way they want them. All I was trying to point out was/is that in (long term) not fullfilling (what I see as) their obligation as a "good" employer, results in a shortage of skilled workers down the road, and this appears to be a prophesy that is going to come true!
This.

Further, it makes good business sense, from a straight up profit point of view.

I've had this same discussion many, many times, and I've never understood how anyone who can read an income statement could miss it.

You take an ape. He's however new he is. If he's brand new, he costs you 60-70% of J-man's wage.

You spend a few pennies on his school, you buy an old door, (or whatever) and you spend a day (or two) teaching him to hang doors. Or frame stairs. Or frame windows. Or whatever.

What do you have now?

You have an employee who is gung-ho, grateful and can frame windows (or whatever) and he still only costs you 60-70% of J-man's wage.

The more you teach them, the better it gets. You end up with doors, windows or whatever getting done at the apprentice's rate, not J-man's rate.

Or you can do some authoritarian ego thing where you try to recognize real skill from whatever test you think you have. I won't mention that that limits you to your knowledge. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

steve4102

08-22-2013, 07:37 PM

I started at 15, working at Meijers as a bakery stocker. After a year I have learned enough to become a clerk in said bakery. After another few months I started as a baker. The last years I spent making donuts on midnights. While the entire job was union, it was a company union and no training was paid for. You learned on the job or you didn't go higher. Start at the bottom, work up. If you don't want to learn then you get fired or stay at the bottom.

I went on to become a locksmith. Learned how to pick locks from my dad, and learned to rekey locks so I could practice picking them. Livonia Lock and Key hired me as a basic tech in the store, and I learned over months to open cars, and cheap safes. Ended that job as one of his on call drivers. When it's the butt crack of dawn and you're charging 100.00 bucks to open a door, you better get it open fast. Started at the bottom, worked my way up.

Then I became an apprentice. UAW Hydraulic Repair at Rouge Steel in Dearborn MI. That's where I learned all about seniority. About how it's my companies responsibility to train me. About how the first job would be for me to make the coffee, carry the tools, and work the jobs the guys with "seniority" don't want. Overtime? Is it a running turn? (no jobs, just breakdowns) They are IN! Is it a downturn? (hours worth of work) Nope. Give it to the apprentice. Which got me to thinking, if these jobs can be done by an apprentice, why do they need journeymen?

School was paid for. It's a joke. Seriously. Basic math, geometry, algebra, then trig. Things a high school graduate should know. THen the actual schooling for your trade. Things taught that you already knew from working.

The UAW apprenticeship that I went through is a joke. It's designed to do nothing but pad the unions, and make something for the company to pay for.

Hiring should be based on what you know, and what the job needs. Cops should be hired like I was as a baker, or a Locksmith.

Do desk work, you learn your reports, how to fingerprint. And go up from there. If you can't learn starting at the bottom and work up then you don't want the job.

I'm currently a licensed boiler operator/ refrigeration operator in the City of Detroit. The law here is a boiler needs a licensed operator. It's a sweetheart deal set up with the unions. You HAVE to have a license to run a boiler, but you need to run a boiler to get a license. Oh, or you can go through a union program, and get the paperwork that way....

They drag out 2 months worth of training over a couple of years. I did it. I learned more on the job in the first month. But in the liberal utopia of Detroit you have to play the game.

To think a union trained carpenter is any better then a carpenter that learns everything from the ground up is silly at beat.

They both start at lower wages, and work up. Just one has to do it on his own, the other has the union there to make it easier. I'd rather hire the guy that learned because he had to to make more money. Not because he had a 4 year program, 2 years of which are spent wiping a journeyman's rear end for him.

Cops need to get back to being cops. Not paramilitary forces. It's not that hard to learn to shoot ONE gun well. If you're paid 50K a year, and can't afford to shoot a box or two of ammo a month then you need to re-evaluate what you're spending money on.

Something that can save a life is more important that ALL other skills. Driving, shooting, baton work, chemical agents, and tazers should stressed. Would I rather have a cop that can hit the bad guy and not my daughter, over a cop that is capable of sweetly calming me down after killing her?

That's a easy answer for me.

Now that's a good post right there!

steve4102

08-22-2013, 07:44 PM

Or frame stairs. Or frame windows.

Frame Stairs? Frame Windows?
I thought you were a General Contractor?

Tell me, how do you "Frame Windows"?

Did you mean, frame rough openings? You can't Frame a window, it's what is installed in the framed rough opening.

You can build a window to install in the framed rough opening, but you cannot frame a window.

No contractor, carpenter or even laborer would use terms like that. I have heard home owners and women on HGTV use terms like that, but never a real construction worker.

303Guy

08-22-2013, 07:55 PM

I was trade trained through the union admin - that's what the trade unions did. They administered apprenticeships and training and kept unskilled people out of trade jobs and they made sure reasonable rates of pay were maintained. They prevented abuse of labour and so on. I an see how these powers could be abused by the unions but it wasn't being abused in my day and place. I had to do a trade test to qualify and they didn't hand out qualifications in lucky packet. Many candidates failed. Of course one could simply do ones time and qualify that way. Even so, there were good and bad artisans. In a factory I worked as a fitter they had an in-house training school. Good apprentices were offered jobs at the end of the time/passing of trade test while bad ones were not. Of course the apprentices did work in the departments and so earned their keep but it was also part of their qualifications. Most of them were offered positions in various departments but it was up to the department heads to make offers. There was a tax incentive to run training schools so big companies found it worth their while, both from the skills point and the financial point. At that time the unions were not the enemy.

Jammersix

08-22-2013, 08:00 PM

I have heard home owners and women on HGTV use terms like that, but never a real construction worker.

We've already established, quite clearly, that the definition of "real construction worker" is quite different between you and I.

Del-Ray

08-22-2013, 08:02 PM

You take an ape. He's however new he is. If he's brand new, he costs you 60-70% of J-man's wage.

You spend a few pennies on his school, you buy an old door, (or whatever) and you spend a day (or two) teaching him to hang doors. Or frame stairs. Or frame windows. Or whatever.

What do you have now?

You have an employee who is gung-ho, grateful and can frame windows (or whatever) and he still only costs you 60-70% of J-man's wage.

If it's a real apprenticeship then you can only have so many "apes". I seem to remember 4 journeyman to one apprentice. If this is a union job you probably have to over hire. No, if it's like the UAW you HAVE to over hire, because the guys with experience, (making the most money) seem to feel they deserve to do less work, close to none at all.

Why not hire the people that already know how to do it, and a few people at general labor rates to do the tripe work? Let the general laborers know that when they get their work done they can go assist the others.

Instead of dragging out the training over 4 years, you get it done WAY faster. And the federal government isn't involved that way either.

And the unions in Detroit are doing... As well as they should be.

steve4102

08-22-2013, 08:09 PM

If it's a real apprenticeship then you can only have so many "apes". I seem to remember 4 journeyman to one apprentice. If this is a union job you probably have to over hire. No, if it's like the UAW you HAVE to over hire, because the guys with experience, (making the most money) seem to feel they deserve to do less work, close to none at all.

Why not hire the people that already know how to do it, and a few people at general labor rates to do the tripe work? Let the general laborers know that when they get their work done they can go assist the others.

Instead of dragging out the training over 4 years, you get it done WAY faster. And the federal government isn't involved that way either.

And the unions in Detroit are doing... As well as they should be.

Bravo! Del-Ray for President!

Jammersix

08-22-2013, 08:09 PM

If it's a real apprenticeship then you can only have so many "apes".
There was a minimum, but no maximum, at least in the C&J in 2010. The problem is balance. The advantage of an ape with a skill is cost, the advantage of a J-man is that he doesn't need nearly as much supervision.

I had to do a trade test to qualify and they didn't hand out qualifications in lucky packet. Many candidates failed. Of course one could simply do ones time and qualify that way.
When I started (1977) it was simply whether or not you got hired on your first job. You got a letter saying you had been hired, and you were in.
You got hired "off the bank", meaning that you kept after the carpenter foreman or the general foreman until they hired you to shut you up. That's what I did. They didn't know me from Adam, or I them. They didn't find out my last name until payday.

In the very early 80s, (1981 or 1982, as I recall) the Longshoremen were sued over an issue with women making the A-list, (a very different dispatch system) and the Carpenters & Joiners established a test that was clearly objective-- no part of it was subjective, specifically so that no one could ever claim the he or she was discriminated against, or was hired under some type of "good-ole-boy" system.

I have never seen anything in the trades, union or non-union, that was truly about "who you know"-- the profit margin per yard/square foot/ton is simply too small.

Del-Ray

08-22-2013, 08:25 PM

There was a minimum, but no maximum, at least in the C&J in 2010. The problem is balance. The advantage of an ape with a skill is cost, the advantage of a J-man is that he doesn't need nearly as much supervision.

At least for the UAW that's because the journeyman isn't doing as much work as the apprentice... All kidding aside. It's cheaper to train a person FASTER, then to drag it out. Especially when almost the first half of the apprenticeship is getting coffee, looking for sky hooks, knanuttin vales, and washing tools.

Though my experience is with the UAW, not construction trades.

I have never seen anything in the trades, union or non-union, that was truly about "who you know"-- the profit margin per yard/square foot/ton is simply too small.

At the Rouge, plenty of people got in because their father or family member was a union rep. I got in because I passed the entrance test, and the 200 highest scoring tests were hired.

waksupi

08-22-2013, 08:40 PM

Since this has drifted this direction, I will say I know some log smiths that a union carpenter wouldn't be qualified to carry their lunch pails. Most of these guys have no formal education or training. You think the Amish are union? I've watched locals eyeball a splined birds mouth joint location thirty feet over their head, cut the joint by hand, and get a perfect fit every time.

Cadillo

08-22-2013, 09:02 PM

Oh I work, a lot harder than most govt employees, but I actually take pride in what I do, always have, regardless of what it was. FWIW, worked in the govt sector for awhile as well as a union shop, my opinions/observations are not baseless or emotional, just facts. Even a casual observer can see the deficiencies in the govt employee system. Hopefully your attitude as a cop is better than forum member.
You are right though, increasingly people are hired as LEO w/ little to no firearms training. Why it's so important for them to get the practice & add'l training on their own that may just save their lives or prevent needless death of innocents. As someone else noted, pride in your profession.

You dodged the question again! I suppose you consider that quite a feat of funambulism.

I call it something else.

You criticized folks for working in pursuit of monetary remuneration, which begs the question; "What is your motivation for doing whatever class of work you do or have done if not a pursuit of legal tender?"

I have an idea. Since you work not for any want or need of money, and you think that most cops don't practice enough, even though any objective look at the situation clearly shows that there is an economic barrier separating them from the much needed practice of which you so adamantly refer, why don't you create a fund, foundation, or other, which would provide them with the resources they would need to come up to the standards that would meet with your approval.

I hope that you will step up and do it. It would be a good thing. You owe it to all those endangered citizens.

Heck, you might even parlay it into a Nobel Peace Prize or other.