Video: Debunking the Police Qualification Myth

[daddyo]

Next time someone tells you that the average citizen couldn't pass a police qualification course, show them this video:

Edited September 24, 2012 by DaddyO

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That was, how shall I say? Enlightening.

[Defender]

Betcha some departments have less stringent courses of fire too!

[E4 No More]

Good video DaddyO. Thanks for posting.

[chrisw670]

That was, how shall I say? Enlightening.

Very!

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have been through a fair amount of qualifications.

I will say that other than some freak safety violation the average, weekend shooter could have passed the majority of them with flying colors.

Dolomite

[Guest sventvkg]

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I have 3 buddies and one family member who are police and every one of them will admit I can outshoot them. They train when they have to qualify for the most part where many of us train quite frequently. I know many SCARY good civilian shooters and i'm sure ya'll do as well.

[BryanP]

Thanks for posting this. Interesting viewing and filed away for future reference.

[DaveTN]

I know cops that never shot except during qualifications. To say they could out shoot someone that does it as a hobby is ridiculous.

To say that the average shooter couldn’t pass a Police qual is probably not true.

To say the average citizen couldn’t pass a Police qual; I would bet money is true. The average citizen has never fired a structured course of fire.

How many of the top competition shooters are cops; I’m guessing not many.

[Mechanic_X]

Bob Vogel, the best competition shooter right now, is a cop. Just won IDPA nationals by over 15%.

The man that was overall champ at our sanctioned match is a cop.

LEO's and military are always safe on the range at least.

[gjohnsoniv]

LEO's and military are always safe on the range at least.

I disagree to some extent with this. All the ones I've been around have been the least safe, not all, but some.

[Reservoir Dog]

Hmmm. Never knew there was a "police qualification myth."

Having worked in LE, I found the qual courses to be quite easy, but I had a lot of shooting background before going in. The vast majority of LE qual courses exist merely to set a departmental minimum standard for liability reasons, so that the department can say "hey, the officer passed/failed our standards." It keeps the lawyers happy. They are usually static quals (like our HCP class), with no moving and shooting. Personally, I despise LE qual courses, and feel they are detriment to the officer by teaching more bad habits than good. They need to be more dynamic: more running and gunning, more use of cover/concealment, more clearing of jams, etc...

I agree with DaveTN, I feel that the average shooter could pass a LE qual course (with a minimal amount of practice) without any problems. An IDPA/IPSC/USPSA shooter would blow through the course quite easily. The average citizen would have more problems, and probably would not pass without a good deal of training and practice.

[NRA]

Our dept. is not that easy. It turns a hobby into a job. I know my skill level has increased with all the training.

[Guest 270win]

That is easy. And I am somehow not qualified to carry in a school in Tennessee? Yeah right. Bunch of garbage.

[Guest Geoffrey Boothroyd]

Surely a state like Illinois will have a rigorous course of fire for its police officers, right?

http://www.ptb.state...pdf/pa94103.pdf

These are the targets used:

http://www.letargets...px?item=ILSP-06

One wonders how many citizens in Illinois (or any other state) could meet the basic qualification standards (much less the standards for off-duty or LEOSA carry).

[E4 No More]

When I was a LEO from 1988 to 1993, the qualification was pretty simple. We qualified once a year. The course was simply drawing and firing on a silhouette target from the standing position at various yardages with about 15 yards being the max. 50 rounds total. Totally pathetic!

Red Handled Gun was much better training, but that was designed for training to react; not shooting proficiency.

EDIT: Also, most of the officers didn't shoot at all between annual qualifications. I had a female sergeant say to me, "If they want me to practice then they'd better give me the ammo to do it with!"

Edited September 26, 2012 by SWJewellTN

[Guest FIST]

I disagree to some extent with this. All the ones I've been around have been the least safe, not all, but some.

We (Mil) have our fare share of unsafe shooters, and that's in a line infantry unit that shoots more often than most. Our last BN commander was big into shooting as a sport. He made sure we handled weapons safely and just as importantly fired accurately the first time through any live fire range. We have a system called the EST (Engagement Skills Trainer) that is a laser qual course for the M4. It uses compressed air to simulate recoil and we were required to score a minimum of 27/40(I know, not that impressive) to even walk to the zero range with our issued rifle.

For anyone that hasn't seen or used the basic Army M4/M16 qual range it's not too shabby of a setup. Pop up silhouette's from 50-300 meters on timers that had a pre set sequence of popping up. Some times a single target, some times two with both at a different distance. You have 40 rounds, shoot 20 from prone supported, 10 prone unsupported, and 10 kneeling while wearing all your kit (Helmet, armor, gloves, eye pro etc). Some posts have flat ranges, some have large to small inclines. All have worn out targets and you'll sometimes get a miss due to that, some are sensitive and a strike in the ground can throw up rocks and you get a hit. For standard units it a very structured and disciplined range. Point being is that many only have this range type for shooting experience and when pappa isn't watching some guys lose their mind and get stupid at a civilian range or while deployed. The biggest problem is many NCO's get tasked as a range safety but they know just as little as the younger enlisted/officer. That's you butter bars .

Edited September 26, 2012 by FIST