M&P 40L vs. Mass LEO Handgun Qualification

[Hrfunk]

Hi all! Here is number 19 in this series. In this one, I'm pitting my current duty pistol agains the Massachusetts Law Enforcement handgun qualification course. Check out the video to see how it does, and then be sure to let me know your thoughts!

Howard


https://youtu.be/GmxnnV3VYAg

[onelight]

Wow complicated course , great job again!

[Rick Hodges]

It looks like it was designed by a frustrated "Dancing with the Stars" dance choreographer. Heavily scripted dialog and dance steps. That seem to have little to do with reality....

The last 1 yd. stage is one that trains people to be killed. I am a firm believer that you fight how you train. You are training people to pattycake slap a cardboard target then draw back and fire. What is needed it to strike/push the offender hard enough to throw them off balance to give you enough time to draw and fire. My agency tried to institute this.....to do it right is dangerous and carries a real chance of shooting yourself in the arm. We tried with dummy guns, and I can assure you the "cardboard target slap" defensive move...does NOT stop the bad guy from shooting. To be effective you have to strike with all you have to throw him off balance, draw and fire. One would need 180 pound tackling dummies to strike and shoot to make the practice useful. It is a designer tactic that looks good until you put it into practice. That drill will get officers killed in real life.

[Hrfunk]

Wow complicated course , great job again!

Thank you!

Howard

[Hrfunk]

It looks like it was designed by a frustrated "Dancing with the Stars" dance choreographer. Heavily scripted dialog and dance steps. That seem to have little to do with reality....

The last 1 yd. stage is one that trains people to be killed. I am a firm believer that you fight how you train. You are training people to pattycake slap a cardboard target then draw back and fire. What is needed it to strike/push the offender hard enough to throw them off balance to give you enough time to draw and fire. My agency tried to institute this.....to do it right is dangerous and carries a real chance of shooting yourself in the arm. We tried with dummy guns, and I can assure you the "cardboard target slap" defensive move...does NOT stop the bad guy from shooting. To be effective you have to strike with all you have to throw him off balance, draw and fire. One would need 180 pound tackling dummies to strike and shoot to make the practice useful. It is a designer tactic that looks good until you put it into practice. That drill will get officers killed in real life.

I don't disagree with you. I've seen this tactic taught before, and I've never quite warmed up to it. In fairness to the course, it does allow the instructor to implement whatever defensive tactic the particular agency in question authorizes, but the suggestions are "palm strike & elbow strike". I think the elbow strike would potentially be even more dangerous to the shooter.

Howard

[Petrol & Powder]

Thanks HR, another great video.

Rick, I don't disagree with you but I think there's a difference between qualifying and training.
The instructors are trying to strike a balance between measuring a skill and running a safe range.
I see qualification as a test and not as training. The training part comes before the testing part.

The training part should probably be done with simunitions and maybe a tackling dummy. When confronted with a deadly threat the student needs to strike the opponent hard and quickly deliver deadly force. After that skill is taught with repetition, the testing phase can be performed with live ammo and on suitable range. That testing may need some compromises for range safety. (only one shooter on the line at a time, only require the weak hand make contact with the target - not a full force strike, only run the course enough to evaluate the student).

And for the record, I think you're right but I understand why the testing is conducted the way it is.

[rintinglen]

needlessly complex. As a training course, I suppose it has some value, but as a qualification course, not so much. Too much movement. Too many "programs" to be executed. I am not at all surprised that even a shooter as experienced as you had some difficulties. I would hate to be the range master with a Cadet class firing this course. Rick thinks that this is training Officers to get killed. I think it is going to wound them while training.

And the absence of at least some mid-distance shooting troubled me. I once had to engage a subject across a street, some 80 feet away. No shots were fired that time, but that was because I was confident in my ability due to my participation in PPC matches that required 50 yard marksmanship. (And the suspect dropped his weapon when I screamed at him to do so.) Blazing away from the hip at one yard has some relevance, but you need to have some skill at longer ranges as well. This course will score high, but I'd give it an "F."

[Petrol & Powder]

I just don't see qualification as training. I see qualification as a test.

I do think that shooting from very close range is a valuable skill and that skill emphasizes the need for speed over accuracy. A large percentage of deadly force encounters occur at contact distances. Speed is essential to survival at those ranges. Therefore it is useful to evaluate a shooter's skill at very close ranges.
However, that skill is only one of many skills that should be evaluated and therefore a good qualification course will include other types of shooting as well. A qualification course that is conducted entirely within the zero to 10 yard line will fail to test any longer range shooting skills.
A good qualification course should include some short range shooting where speed is critical but a good qualification course will also include some longer range shooting where marksmanship is important. I've shot with individuals that can make impressively small groups on a target but those same people would be killed in just about any gunfight because they are painfully slow. They had incredible marksmanship skills but they could not function at close ranges under stress where speed trumps accuracy.
I forget the exact numbers but the vast majority of uses of deadly force occur at less than 7 yards and over half of those occur at less than 3 yards (9 feet or less !) [I believe that statistic was supplied by the National Institute of Justice, maybe HR can chime in here]

Again, I think it comes down to evaluating verses training. A qualification course is not training.

[Hrfunk]

needlessly complex. As a training course, I suppose it has some value, but as a qualification course, not so much. Too much movement. Too many "programs" to be executed. I am not at all surprised that even a shooter as experienced as you had some difficulties. I would hate to be the range master with a Cadet class firing this course. Rick thinks that this is training Officers to get killed. I think it is going to wound them while training.

And the absence of at least some mid-distance shooting troubled me. I once had to engage a subject across a street, some 80 feet away. No shots were fired that time, but that was because I was confident in my ability due to my participation in PPC matches that required 50 yard marksmanship. (And the suspect dropped his weapon when I screamed at him to do so.) Blazing away from the hip at one yard has some relevance, but you need to have some skill at longer ranges as well. This course will score high, but I'd give it an "F."

You touched on something there that I meant to mention in the video, but it slipped my mind. Specifically, I was going to say that training officers to shoot at greater distances helps improve their shooting at closer ranges, and more importantly, it increases the officer's confidence in his/her own abilities. As you so aptly pointed out, in the situation where you had to challenge a suspect at an extended distance, you were confident that you could fire an accurate shot because of your past shooting experience.

As a SWAT Sniper, I once had to set up on a drug dealer's house at a distance of 275 yards. Most of the time LE Snipers work at MUCH closer distances.
Even so, I was quite confident in my shooting skills from that range because in training and competition I routinely shot from distances far beyond that. I simply settled into my position and dialed in the proper sight correction for my rifle. As with your example, no shot was necessary during that operation. If, however, circumstances had dictated otherwise, I was confident in my abilities.

Howard

[Hrfunk]

I just don't see qualification as training. I see qualification as a test.

I do think that shooting from very close range is a valuable skill and that skill emphasizes the need for speed over accuracy. A large percentage of deadly force encounters occur at contact distances. Speed is essential to survival at those ranges. Therefore it is useful to evaluate a shooter's skill at very close ranges.
However, that skill is only one of many skills that should be evaluated and therefore a good qualification course will include other types of shooting as well. A qualification course that is conducted entirely within the zero to 10 yard line will fail to test any longer range shooting skills.
A good qualification course should include some short range shooting where speed is critical but a good qualification course will also include some longer range shooting where marksmanship is important. I've shot with individuals that can make impressively small groups on a target but those same people would be killed in just about any gunfight because they are painfully slow. They had incredible marksmanship skills but they could not function at close ranges under stress where speed trumps accuracy.
I forget the exact numbers but the vast majority of uses of deadly force occur at less than 7 yards and over half of those occur at less than 3 yards (9 feet or less !) [I believe that statistic was supplied by the National Institute of Justice, maybe HR can chime in here]

Again, I think it comes down to evaluating verses training. A qualification course is not training.


I have heard that statistic as well, but frankly, I have no idea where it came from. Nor do I know the scope or breadth of the "study" that resulted in that conclusion. I will say there has been more than one "study" that was skewed by an agenda. The "study" conducted by a very large metropolitan agency years ago that reported police officers fire "an average of 4 shots" ostensibly included accidental discharges and officer suicides in the calculations. Obviously, someone wanted to used the single shots typically fired in those incidents to lower the average.

Here's another example of a "study" that has been misleading officers and civilians alike for decades. I have heard the conclusions of this "study" presented during otherwise very good training at the state and national level. I've seen it written in books and articles, and I've heard it recited on TV and in movies. What is it, you ask? This: "The FBI conducted a study that determined the average distance for a law enforcement Sniper shot is 75 yards." Sound familiar? Several years ago when I was still an active Sniper (it's easier for me to think of myself as "inactive" nowadays rather than "former") I was a member of a group that included a gentleman who was in charge of the FBI's Sniper program and also worked in their ballistics lab. He was an extremely knowledgeable individual and I valued his input. During a particular discussion, the "FBI study/75 yard average distance" topic came up. The gentleman I've referred to stated that he had never heard of such a study. Moreover, in the wake of that discussion, he researched FBI records (most of which at that time were probably in his office). He later reported to the group that so far as he could determine, the FBI had never conducted any such study. Nor, had the Bureau compiled any data to render a finding regarding the average distance of a law enforcement Sniper engagement.

Shortly thereafter the American Sniper Association began to actually compile the data that the fictitious "FBI Study" allegedly examined. Even so, very recently I again heard a reference to the "FBI Study" and its "75 yard" conclusion. The origins of that particular urban legend are unknown but it has seeped its way into the collective consciousness of shooters, snipers, and cops and it will likely take a long time to dispel it.

In the end, I don't like the idea of basing training on any "average conclusion" from any "study". I prefer to examine real-world incidents that have actually occurred and glean what I can from them. Then I design training to address those real-world issues.

Howard

[Petrol & Powder]

Thank You for that response HR.

Would you agree that a large number of LE shootings occur at close distances and often evolve very quickly, even if there was no percentage attached to that statement?

[Hrfunk]

You're welcome. Many interactions between law enforcement officers and citizens take place at very close distances. There is no way to receive a driver's license from a motorist without being within arm's length. Similarly, an arrest cannot be effected without being close enough to apply handcuffs. That being the case, it stands to reason that if things go south it will likely be at a very close distance. This is especially true since actual enforcement actions (i.e. arrests, citations, etc) are necessarily conducted very close to the suspect, and those are the times said suspect is most likely to resist or take some aggressive action toward the officer.

Howard