Why Two Matches a Month + Practice > Two Expensive Classes a Year

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • StevenC.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2013
    304
    1
    San Antonio
    The following was published by Force Science Institutes, Ltd's April 23, 2015, email (#280)

    In that email FSI, Ltd. shared the results of a comparison study of LE academy grads' shooting skill with that of non-grads and true novices. The results are unsurprising to competitive shooters who have observed for decades that most LEOs have the shooting skill of a high D class, sometimes low-C class competitor. [USPSA rates shooters on a scale beginning at D class and progressing upwards through C, B, A, to Master (M) and Grand Master (GM)]

    Dr. Lewinski states in the article something observed and commented on for years, yet, ignored because "gamers" were saying it:

    "[Officers] haven't had enough practice to move past [their] concern about the manipulation of their weapon to an external attentional focus, where their visual and cognitive concentration is on their target and their situation.

    That state can be reached only when weapon management and the motor movements of shooting are so ingrained that they're automatic, freeing an officer's mental resources for observation, cognitive processing, and immediate decision-making."

    I know I posted that exact argument many years ago on a thread wherein some tactician was railing against competition. One reason competitive shooters do better on complex stages is that they have to devote little of their attention on the shooting, freeing up the brain more efficiently move the student about the course. That skill can only benefit the law enforcement office in a deadly force situation. The less he needs to think about shooting the gun, the more he can think about the tactics which will allow him to avoid being shot.

    I have taught students attending defensive pistol classes the absolute need to training their "weapon craft" to the "unconscious competent" stage of learning for years.

    Further, the article observes on another fact which underscores the value of competition, especially USPSA and IDPA style competitions:

    "Extensive research, he says, has shown that 'when individuals are challenged with complex, unusual, and new conditions,' those trained and reinforced at frequently spaced intervals over longer periods of time tend to perform much more successfully and better avoid skill degeneration than those who have had block education."

    The above screams to compete and explains why the competitive shooter is a better marksman and better prepared to fight with his handgun. The competitive shooter is challenged with four to five complex and unusual stages at each match he attends. The same competitor attending two matches a month, each month, for years is exposed to new conditions (different props, surfaces, weather, temperatures, even varying physical state of the shooter). As a result, his is avoiding the ineffective "block training" mentioned in the article and instead, "tend(s) to perform much successfully and better avoid skill degeneration."

    From this I conclude that a person should seek initial training in fundamentals (from someone who actually knows them as opposed to just regurgitating a syllabus), then compete. Two matches a month at $20 to $25 plus 150 rounds each. Weekly live fire practice of 200 - 300. Dry fire practice at least once a week, though you can find a little time each day to dry-fire.

    And, B class shooting skill isn't out of reach and frankly, quite impressive compared to first two standard deviations of shooters out there.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    From Force Science Institutes, Ltd,'s April 23, 2015, email (#280):

    Eye-Opening study suggests deep flaws in academy firearms training.

    By the time an average police recruit completes typical academy firearms training, how much more skilled in shooting is he than a person who has never shot or even held a handgun before?

    Not much, according to a first-of-its-kind study by the Force Science Institute that is set for publication in an international law enforcement journal.

    "[T]his study's results indicate an alarming need for improved firearms training for officers," writes lead researcher Dr. Bill Lewinski, FSI's executive director. After finishing academy instruction and practice, new officers "were a mere 13%" more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur.

    "What these statistics appear to imply," Lewinski states, "is that officer firearms training is not extensive enough and occurs too sparsely for officers to gain, and maintain, the expert level of accuracy with their service weapons that is expected of them." This training deficiency "may result in injury, death, or other severe consequences."

    TEST SUBJECTS. Lewinski's research team tested 195 male and 52 female recruits and students on ranges at two police academies and one college with a law enforcement preparation program at geographically separated locations in the US. Most of the volunteers had not yet been exposed to academy firearms training, but roughly 25% had completed that course of instruction.

    The subjects were divided into three categories:
    • "Experts," who had finished formal handgun training through the academy or in the military
    • "Intermediates," who had not yet received academy training but had some personal experience in shooting, either through hunting, recreational sport, or military training for a long gun
    • "Novices," who may have fired a weapon once or twice but for the most part had never held or shot a gun "in their life."

    After choosing a 9mm Glock, .40-cal. S&W, or 9mm Beretta semiauto, the volunteers were told to quickly shoot three rounds each at a total of nine grey-silhouette targets which were randomly placed at staggered distances ranging from three to 75 feet. Where they were to aim was not stated--only that they should fire at each target "as quickly as they could without compromising accuracy."
     
    Last edited:

    StevenC.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2013
    304
    1
    San Antonio
    SURPRISING HIT RATES.

    Generally, the Experts scored the most hits. But the edge they enjoyed often proved, at best, surprisingly narrow. Notably:
    • At most distances, there was "no significant difference" in percentage of hits between Expert and Intermediate groups.
    • Against targets 18 to 45 feet away, Intermediates actually registered a higher hit ratio than academy trained shooters--about 41% vs. 38%.
    • At three to 15 feet, where most officer fatalities occur, Expert shooters hit one of the major-damage zones on the target "with eight out of nine bullets they fired," the researchers found, while Novices hit "with seven of the nine bullets they fired"--a scant advantage for the trained recruits of just a single round.

    Considering the high volume of shootings that occur "at such close ranges, officers need to have a better advantage over threatening suspects," Lewinski writes.
    • It was not unusual for Novices to cycle through rounds at a cadence of one quarter to one third of a second per shot.
    • At longer distances, Novice accuracy fell off significantly. But Intermediate shooters, apparently able to adapt their long-gun experience to handgun firing, continued to be "nearly identical" to the fully trained Experts.

    In summary, Lewinski writes, "ndividuals who had completed standard law enforcement academy firearms training were not more accurate in their shooting" than those with Intermediate skills and "were only moderately more accurate than individuals who...had little to no handgun experience... It was unexpected that the Novices would be so accurate in comparison....

    "These findings underscore that critical importance of officers taking every step necessary to maintain control of their weapon," he continues.

    "Officers will often shoot at a suspect in an attempt to end their efforts to gain control of the officer's gun and these findings highlight why this is understandable and necessary. The result of a suspect gaining control of an officer's gun--even someone who has little or no experience firing a gun--can be catastrophic."

    CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHANGE.
    "[L]aw enforcement officers are expected to perform at a much higher level" than lesser or untrained shooters "and to do so under highly stressful conditions," Lewinski writes. So why didn't newly minted officers fresh from firearms training significantly excel and why, according to other studies, do working officers' gun skills tend to degrade over time?

    Lewinski points to two important potential culprits related to traditional police training:
    1) the tendency of instructors to use "block education" in firearms training, and;
    2) the tendency of officers to lock into an "internal attentional focus" when firing, because of inadequate practice.

    • Block education, he explains, is a teaching format in which skills are broken down, taught, and repetitively practiced in "long-duration sessions over a short length of time (i.e., four- to eight-hour classes over the course of two to four weeks, each class teaching a new skill component)."

    This is efficient and can be beneficial for short-term learning, Lewinski says, because students tend to pick up the new skills rapidly. But "block training, which is used in most academies, including the ones in this study, produces one of the highest rates of swift deterioration of a skill once it is acquired."

    Extensive research, he says, has shown that "when individuals are challenged with complex, unusual, and new conditions," those trained and reinforced at frequently spaced intervals over longer periods of time tend to perform much more successfully and better avoid skill degeneration than those who have had block education.

    "Spacing out instruction and practice over time gives your brain the chance to better consolidate and integrate information about the skill on which you are working," Lewinski says.
    • Internal focus, he explains, refers to a shooter's predominant concentration on his or her weapon and body. "Here, officers' attention is on themselves, on their grip, trigger press, stance, body and arm alignment, balance, sight picture, and so on.
    "They haven't had enough practice to move past this concern about the manipulation of their weapon to an external attentional focus, where their visual and cognitive concentration is on their target and their situation.

    "That state can be reached only when weapon management and the motor movements of shooting are so ingrained that they're automatic, freeing an officer's mental resources for observation, cognitive processing, and immediate decision-making." Considering that the average academy offers only "a mere 60 hours" of firearms training and in-service perhaps 12 to 16 hours or less a year, it's currently difficult if not impossible for officers to reach that level of expertise without supplementary training and experience on their own, Lewinski points out.

    Addressing these concerns, the researchers note, should be an important part of efforts by academies and in-service training programs to improve officers' preparation. The study further suggests that trainers may want to expand their instruction to include head-shot tactics for extremely close encounters, especially considering that gang members and some other offenders are now wearing ballistic vests to defeat center-mass firing.
    Greater emphasis also needs to be placed on teaching "pattern recognition" that allows officers to pick up quickly on pre-attack cues and thereby better dominate or avoid gunfights, Lewinski says.

    The full study, titled "The Naive Shooter from a Law Enforcement Perspective: Hit Probability," is scheduled for a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Police Science and Management, based in England. Articles can be accessed for a fee through the Journal's website: Congregate Media.

    In addition to Lewinski, the research team included Ron Avery, president/director of training for The Practical Shooting Academy; Jennifer Dysterheft, a doctoral student in the Dept. of Kinesiology at the University of Illinois; Nathan Dicks, assistant professor in the Dept. of Human Performance at Minnesota State University-Mankato; and Jacob Bushey,
     
    Last edited:

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    Interesting. Thanks for taking time to post this.

    I had heard for years that the average (note: not all) LEO put very few rounds down range.
     

    PhulesAu

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 26, 2013
    3,515
    96
    Texas, Mostly
    I noticed a major difference being left out of the study. NO competitive shooter ever had to suffer the legal or mental ramification of hitting the wrong target, and never had a "target" shoot back. these competitions are still a bit lacking in realism. but everyone should realize the need for a more aggressive training program.
     

    StevenC.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2013
    304
    1
    San Antonio
    I am fairly certain no one, ever, has had targets shoot back, truly shoot back, in training.

    Even force-on-force/simunition/paintball/air-soft fails to carry the consequence of having a hole blown through you, gurgling up blood, and death. That only happens in real combat. So, EVERYONE does the same as prep work- shoot paper targets. Some just do it more and as a result are better prepared for the real combat.

    Nor in training, for MIL or LE, has anyone every had to suffer the legal or mental ramifications for shooting the wrong target. We could make the consequence for shooting the wrong target worse, I suppose. DQ from the match? Lifetime ban from the sport? Or we could penalize it heavily and allow it to be a learning opportunity, one stating, "You exceeded your ability."

    I don't recall ever seeing a no-shoot in a LE qual. I saw some in video-based training scenarios, which were good.
     
    Last edited:

    zincwarrior

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2010
    4,775
    66
    Texas, land of Tex-Mex
    In that email FSI, Ltd. shared the results of a comparison study of LE academy grads' shooting skill with that of non-grads and true novices. The results are unsurprising to competitive shooters who have observed for decades that most LEOs have the shooting skill of a high D class, sometimes low-C class competitor. [USPSA rates shooters on a scale beginning at D class and progressing upwards through C, B, A, to Master (M) and Grand Master (GM)]

    I would definitely NOT say that. I'm a hack shooter (sharpshooter). I've shot with police and sheriffs in CA and Texas. The average skill I saw was pushing low D. There are many exceptions and different jurisdictions are different (I think NYC ranks as anti-skilled) but their skill level is low.

    This is ok. Thats not their primary job, just a small and hopefully never needed subset.
     

    SIG_Fiend

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 21, 2008
    7,218
    66
    Austin, TX
    One of the best comments I've heard on the subject was:

    "Don't confuse the drill for the application"

    Training will never and can't ever fully replicate the real thing. People (speaking generally) often misunderstand the entire purpose of training and putting one's self to the test occasionally, to maintain accountability. You're getting in reps with various fundamentals, tasks, and decision making skills when training. You're then testing those skills under a degree of pressure, induced with various constraints, ultimately maintained with some sort of accountability (shot group size, scoring, shoot/no shoot targets, DQ, etc.). It is the basic process for building performance in literally any area of life. The Talent Code, a book by Daniel Coyle, is an excellent read on this subject.

    Also, the VAST majority of training happens outside of class. Let that sink in for a minute. People put a LOT of time, thought, and expense into training classes, but what they often fail to realize is the vast majority of what you stand to accomplish is ultimately determined by what you choose to do outside of that class. The class serves merely as a solid base to start from, or a periodic check (another form of testing) on your progress. Some learning occurs, and experienced instructors can help you perceive things in a different manner that you may not have been capable of seeing previously. It can help amplify the speed of your progression in skills but, those are merely lessons that you then must take, put into practice, and put to the test, afterwards.

    For others, that you could sometimes call "professional class takers", it may serve as more of a social development and/or recreational environment than anything necessarily performance-based. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it would be advantageous for people to be honest with themselves about their purpose. I have literally seen people spend $10-20k/yr in taking 10+ training classes a year.....only to not even be an IDPA Master class or USPSA A class shooter.... And sometimes those are people that are not even remotely in the defense industry in any capacity, like computer programmers. Again, nothing wrong with that. There are simply far more efficient ways, if performance was the actual goal in mind.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    That state can be reached only when weapon management and the motor movements of shooting are so ingrained that they're automatic, freeing an officer's mental resources for observation, cognitive processing, and immediate decision-making.
    What did Jeff Cooper say in Cooper on Handguns, published when I was still in junior high?

    Paraphrasing, he said that when people ask him what firearm to use for defense, he would ask "Do you shoot regularly for fun?" If the answer was yes, his response was "Fine. Use that." He felt that unless the firearm was otherwise completely unsuitable to the task that ingrained familiarity with its operation overrode all other considerations. Not having to think about the gun and thus being able to think about the situation trumped all other considerations when under extreme stress.

    I always thought that was pretty smart. I see some folks still agree with that very old bit of wisdom.
     

    Mexican_Hippie

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 4, 2009
    12,288
    21
    Fort Worth
    So an 870 that I've shot untold numbers of birds with for years and could operate in my sleep might not just be so horrible? I might not die instantly in a home invasion because I chose it instead of an AR? lol

    Sorry didn't mean to rehash shotgun vs AR. It's just funny that conversation always devolves like 9mm vs 45acp.
     

    TexasBrandon

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 14, 2011
    4,471
    66
    Salado
    Now that I'm getting back into handguns outside of basic concealed carry, matches would be my next stop. Still not comfortable shooting for points yet though, I've been a long time avid rifle man that could hit a 3 inch plate at the 300. Guess I'll start looking around for some amateur level matches if they exist. Not really versed in that stuff.
     
    Top Bottom