2.5" Model 19 vs. Michigan LE Qualification Course

[Hrfunk]

Here's one I think you guys will like. It was a "blast" to make!

Howard


https://youtu.be/e9nj_T3KQBc

[tazman]

Always nice to see a revolver in use. The model 19 is one of my favorites.
I agree with the question about all the courses of fire being at such short distances. I know many, if not most, shooting scenarios take place at relatively short distances, but ignoring longer distances seems limiting.
Well done on the shooting. You handle that revolver well.

[Petrol & Powder]

The 2.5" - 3" DA magnum revolvers are some of the best combat handguns ever created, IMO.

The combination of size & power provided by that package is just hard to beat. Thanks for showcasing that awesome revolver !


That Michigan course is a pretty good test of some essential skills. Speed at short distance to the threat, engaging multiple threats and some accuracy restrictions. The number of rounds fired in that course seems a bit low but not excessively low.

Thanks HR

[Rick Hodges]

When I retired some 19+years ago from a Michigan Department the State did require shooting at 15 yds. Down from the 25 indoor and 50 yd. outdoor range qualifications when I hired on. We used to shoot a PPC course and were issued Ratings of Expert, Sharpshooter, or Marksman. Those badges were to be worn on your uniform. Some 10yrs later they quit giving our ratings and it was simply pass or fail. There was fear that attorneys would make an issue of an "Expert" missing in a real life situation. Marksmanship badges were forbidden. Since then there has been added fear of lawsuits that results in the ridiculous proposition that everyone qualifies, that shooting accurately is only "desired". That is what happens when attorneys write qualification standards.

[DiverJay]

Nice video. Very professional.

[rintinglen]

Good shooting! A full-bore 357 snubbie is a bit much to hold on to, I am impressed. I'm not sold on the course, though. There should be a time limit on reloading and 60 seconds is too much time for three shots, unless you are prone going for a 300 yard target. I would add a six shot 25 yard stage moving to cover (but don't use a patrol car:roll: unless you like writing letters to the chief.)
BUT I LOVED THAT GUN! My 2 1/2 inch Model 66 is my favorite, and if I could only have one, that would be it. The black and white look with the Tyler T grip adapter--poetry, metal poetry.

[samari46]

I recently qualified for my Louisiana lifetime CHL permit using my old West German Sig P6 in 9mm. Right about that time I could easily see the cloud that was covering both eye balls. All the shots were in the kill zone on the target. But the cloud bothered me. So in Sept had the left eye done and earlier this month had the right done. Now I can easily and clearly see the front sights on all of mil surp rifles I like to shoot. Frank

[Hrfunk]

Always nice to see a revolver in use. The model 19 is one of my favorites.
I agree with the question about all the courses of fire being at such short distances. I know many, if not most, shooting scenarios take place at relatively short distances, but ignoring longer distances seems limiting.
Well done on the shooting. You handle that revolver well.

Thank you! That habit of reducing the distance(s) for handgun qualification seems to be spreading. Quite a few states have dropped the longer stages from their courses.

Howard

[Hrfunk]

The 2.5" - 3" DA magnum revolvers are some of the best combat handguns ever created, IMO.

The combination of size & power provided by that package is just hard to beat. Thanks for showcasing that awesome revolver !


That Michigan course is a pretty good test of some essential skills. Speed at short distance to the threat, engaging multiple threats and some accuracy restrictions. The number of rounds fired in that course seems a bit low but not excessively low.

Thanks HR


You're welcome. One of the things taking place with respect to limiting the number of rounds fired during qualification is an attempt at cost reduction. A 50-round qualification course does not sound overly expensive until you multiply it times several hundred officers in a large department. I'm not saying I agree with the idea of officers shooting less, I'm just explaining the thinking behind the reduced number of rounds fired in some of these courses.

Howard

[Hrfunk]

When I retired some 19+years ago from a Michigan Department the State did require shooting at 15 yds. Down from the 25 indoor and 50 yd. outdoor range qualifications when I hired on. We used to shoot a PPC course and were issued Ratings of Expert, Sharpshooter, or Marksman. Those badges were to be worn on your uniform. Some 10yrs later they quit giving our ratings and it was simply pass or fail. There was fear that attorneys would make an issue of an "Expert" missing in a real life situation. Marksmanship badges were forbidden. Since then there has been added fear of lawsuits that results in the ridiculous proposition that everyone qualifies, that shooting accurately is only "desired". That is what happens when attorneys write qualification standards.

Years ago, I wanted to reinstitute the practice of allowing officers to qualify as "expert" shooters and to adorn their uniforms with a corresponding ribbon. I had heard the mantra regarding the prospect for a plaintiff's attorney to make some argument pertaining to an expert marksman failing to shoot a pistol out of an assailant's hand (or whatever other nonsense they came up with). So I researched the issue. Interestingly I could not find a single case where an officer/department was held liable because of that practice. This seems to be one of those mythical liabilities that someone just invented one day, and it consequently spread all throughout the law enforcement community (this is quite similar to the myth regarding the use of handloaded ammunition in a defensive shooting-again, no cases. none). Officers in my former department are still wearing expert ribbons if they meet the standard.

Howard

[Hrfunk]

Good shooting! A full-bore 357 snubbie is a bit much to hold on to, I am impressed. I'm not sold on the course, though. There should be a time limit on reloading and 60 seconds is too much time for three shots, unless you are prone going for a 300 yard target. I would add a six shot 25 yard stage moving to cover (but don't use a patrol car:roll: unless you like writing letters to the chief.)
BUT I LOVED THAT GUN! My 2 1/2 inch Model 66 is my favorite, and if I could only have one, that would be it. The black and white look with the Tyler T grip adapter--poetry, metal poetry.

Yes, I agree. The "reloading" and "malfunction clearing" required by this course were kind of odd. The 60 seconds for three shots was also excessive, to say the least.

Howard

[Petrol & Powder]

Years ago, I wanted to reinstitute the practice of allowing officers to qualify as "expert" shooters and to adorn their uniforms with a corresponding ribbon. I had heard the mantra regarding the prospect for a plaintiff's attorney to make some argument pertaining to an expert marksman failing to shoot a pistol out of an assailant's hand (or whatever other nonsense they came up with). So I researched the issue. Interestingly I could not find a single case where an officer/department was held liable because of that practice. This seems to be one of those mythical liabilities that someone just invented one day, and it consequently spread all throughout the law enforcement community (this is quite similar to the myth regarding the use of handloaded ammunition in a defensive shooting-again, no cases. none). Officers in my former department are still wearing expert ribbons if they meet the standard.

Howard

The speculation offered by observers as to why a particular policy exists or doesn't exist is often suspect. The explanation for not having a shooting skill ribbon displayed may be as simple as the department doesn't wish to pay for the ribbons or the administration wants to de-emphasize public symbols related to shooting.
Just because some officer states the reasoning for the elimination of the ribbons is due to some liability doesn't mean that officer is accurate, or even has knowledge on the topic at all.

I do think administrations want to change public perceptions of use of force and one way to do that is to eliminate marksmanship ribbons displayed on uniforms. Whether that is the reason in any particular situation is merely speculation on my part.

[Hrfunk]

I understand what you are saying, but the old yarn concerning additional liability associated with marksmanship classifications is something I've been hearing from many different sources for pretty much my entire career. As to who started it, and why it became so prolific, your guess is as good as mine.

Howard

[Rick Hodges]

I understand what you are saying, but the old yarn concerning additional liability associated with marksmanship classifications is something I've been hearing from many different sources for pretty much my entire career. As to who started it, and why it became so prolific, your guess is as good as mine.

Howard

My administration returned from an International Association of Chiefs of Police seminar back in the early-mid 80's. They banned marksmanship badges and keeping score/ratings and went to pass/fail. They said it was for liability reasons. At least 8 other area departments (mutual aid group) followed suit. Shortly after we abandoned our 90 rd. NRA PPC course that we fired monthly for score, for a new state wide 15 yd. maximum range 50 rd. course fired quarterly for practice and annually for qualification. I have no reason to doubt that they were encouraged to make the changes at that seminar like they said they were.

It is my surmise that the "desired" accuracy language in the Michigan course is a continuation of that line of reasoning.

There is no doubt that the change saved the department money on ammo and in paying the officers while at the range. There was a net decline in training time for firearms with no increase in training for anything else. There was a conscious decision made to train to the lowest common denominator.

[Petrol & Powder]

One absolute trait about misinformation and rumors is that false information only requires the tiniest of toeholds to become prolific.

HR, the fact that you have been unable to find even a single civil case that supports a link between marksmanship ribbons and civil liability seems to re-enforce the concept of eliminating the practice of displaying marksmanship ribbons has nothing to do with civil liability.

I think Winston Churchill said it best, " A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on".

All it takes is one person to say that marksmanship ribbons were eliminated because of "civil liability" and boom - that concept takes off even if it is based in pure speculation.

Rick - I completely agree with you as well. There is nothing as poisonous to logic as a member of upper or middle management returning from a seminar. Just because someone holds a high position in a corporation or an agency; doesn't preclude them from being gullible. I've seen plenty of people that held lofty positions that were as dumb as a duck. They go off to some seminar and they come back believing whatever they were told.
If they go to a seminar and some idiot with a lot of initials after his name stands at a podium and tells them marksmanship ribbons create liability - they will swear that was the gospel truth.

In the private sector, dumb ideas tend to be killed off by economic forces (sometimes it takes the death of a company). Unfortunately in government agencies stupidity seems to be shielded a bit more.