Read-Only Archive โ€” 68,067 posts ยท 4,889 threads ยท 2,978 members ยท preserved from 2006โ€“2015
Interesting Statistics Read
#1
http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/combat.htm
Older study but what has changed?

Jimmy, anything to add or debate?

Most interesting to me

The Disconnect Between Range Marksmanship & Combat Hitsmanship

It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can
certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the
reports.

An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a
combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200
such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached. To this writer's mind,
the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the
two.

If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the
dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20
feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.

The US Army recognizes that there is a disconnect. Its training manual, FM
23-35 Combat Training With Pistols & Revolvers (1988), calls for the use of
Point Shooting for combat at less than 15 feet, and when firing at night. It
does not call for using standard and traditional range marksmanship
techniques.


Sight Alignment

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers
reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of
aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from
using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and
utilizing fine sight alignment.


The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed
confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%
#2

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%


these seem really low
#3
Sorry for the delay in my response. I wanted to bring this up in a conversation with other instructors before I cast my response. I feared that I may anger some of my fellow NRA instructors, but as time passed I decided, "screw them" and let my opinions stand for themselves. Also, allow me to preface my statements as personal opinions. If you are a LEO or military, I do not mean any disrespect. I hold all of you in the highest regards. Thank you for your service, past and present.

When it comes to formal training of law enforcement and military, the true disconnect is 'skill retention". This is most true in police officers and civilians who carry Conceal Weapon Permits. I know, CCW holders were not part of the original study, but it should be mentioned. Military have a slight upper hand, but not much.

Most instructors train their students to Point Shoot when certain conditions are met.
1. Engagements under 15 feet.
2. When under a low light condition.
3. Engagements where the assailant is charging you at a distance of 30 feet or less.

That's all fine and dandy, but the problem lies in the amount of training. During law enforcement and military training, they shoot at static targets. There is no imminent threat and they know they are shooting for a score. Once this range requirement has been satisfied, they no longer reinforce this training except for annual or semi-annual requalification. In the military, I don't believe there is a requalification.

Beyond the required requalification, police and military may opt to use the range as often as they deem necessary. Due to budget cuts and lack of manpower, most don't exercise this option (or just can't).

In law enforcement, most officers hardly ever draw their firearm and discharge any bullets. I recall a study completed by the NYPD back in the 90's that had something to the effect that over 60% of their officers fire their guns less than twice a year, and is usually during requalifications. Of those, most require and second attempt at requalification due to poor performance.

Most recently, Police Chief Thomas Bennett was removed from duty and forced into retirement when he failed to pass his requalification. A score of 70 is passing. He could not get past 40.

During the recent shooting at the Empire State Building in NYC, the 9 civilians wounded were accidentally shot by the cops!

This seems to be typical of most agencies, as most have adapted a more strategic approach to handling dangerous situations. Since the introduction of the Tazer in 1994, this holds more true. They prefer less lethal and is a great way to reduce the civil suits against the departments.

As our soldiers are fighting in the Middle East, they face more dangers from multiple assailants and most are at a distance with AKs and RPGs. Their primary weapon is their M4 special purpose rifle. Their Beretta or Sig handgun is typically used as a last resort unless your are the designated sniper. Even if they have greater opportunities to discharge their handgun, it does not happen that often.

This also holds true for our CCW holders. Since late-1993 when Arizona adopted a CCW, the classes were longer, the focus was on firearm familiarity, the laws, and especially the shooting. I was one of the first to get the Arizona CCW and I remember having to bring 100 rounds to class. We spent 5 hours in the classroom and 4 hours on the range. As the years went by, the classes got shorter and the focus was moved away from shooting. For a few years I moved out of state. When I returned in 2004 I attended another CCW class to get my permit back. When I asked the instructor how many boxes of ammo would I need, he said 10. I said, "500 rounds?!?" He said, "No. 10 bullets". I paused and said, "what the hell, man!"

Since Arizona enacted the 2010 Arizona Constitutional Carry law, the requirements for obtaining a CCW permit from DPS just got plain STUPID. If you've EVER had a firearm safety course during your lifetime, from any NRA instructor or Game & Fish program, it now qualifies you to get a CCW. Basically, if you attended the Arizona Game & Fish Hunter Safety course when you were 14, it counts. To date, the shortest class the NRA offers is only 3 hours and does NOT involve shooting a handgun.

There are a LOT of instructors offering $39 CCW classes and it's just a money grab. They were use to selling $89 classes. Now that Constitutional Carry is here, they just need some way to make a living. Sell them cheap and get a LOT of people in/out of your classroom FAST!

In summary, this report (granted, it's old) does not come as a surprise to me at all. I bet the current statistics are not that much better.

Ok, just like me there are also instructors out there that actually teach a decent course. We focus on meeting the requirements, then extending the class by putting a gun in your hand and make your fire a LOT of ammo at various targets. Then, we reinforce your training by recommending you take additional courses to improve your skills. It's not just a sales pitch, it's to improve YOUR skills and save your life.

Still, the bottom line is, Get Out And Fire Your Gun at things other than a single static paper targets. Mix it up. Alternate between multiple target and various distances. Just practice safety.

If you are an individual who really want to be better than these statistics, consider joining the Stock Class IDPA. Real life scenarios, and not just target shooting.

#4
Great post! I would love to take a class from you sometime. I am very aware that I am not up to par with my handgun and need to put in some more range and class time.
#5
Anytime Bob. I look forward to tossing some lead downrange with you.