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."
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: