Does Conventional Marksmanship Win Gunfights?

[Matthew Temkin]

From PoliceOne.com
01/18/2010


Law Enforcement Firearms
with Richard Fairburn

21st century deadly force training for police

Conventional marksmanship training has little to do with winning a gunfight

We are a full decade into a new century, but the way we train police officers to employ deadly force is no different than we did a decade before the 21st century began. According to FBI statistics, 80 percent of officers killed each year in gunfights die at seven yards or less, a figure little changed in the past 30 years. Officers routinely score 100 percent at the seven yard line on the training range, but in gunfights far more than 50 percent of the bullets they fire miss the target. The low hit rate scored by police officers on the street is not a marksmanship problem.

One large agency’s officers scored a gunfight hit rate of just 11 percent during a 10-year period I analyzed. That’s a staggering statistic, but another number was even more shocking. Though the sample was admittedly small, the bad guys in those incidents also scored an 11 percent hit rate.

Their Academy Commander summed it up perfectly: “My officers get a hundred hours of firearms training in the academy and quarterly qualifications thereafter, but are hitting at the same rate as felons with no formal training? We should save all the ammunition, because our training program seems to be worthless!”

In the late 1990s that agency’s training program still encouraged one-hand, slow-fire, bull’s-eye target shooting at the 25-yard line. After all, if an officer can shoot tight groups at 25 yards, they can easily handle a gunfight at 10 feet, right? Wrong! (89 percent of the time.)
A raw shooter can be scoring 100 percent at seven yards by the end of the first day of training. But, at least with that one police agency, upping the training time to nearly three weeks only produced 11 percent hits on the street. Recently released data on the gunfight hit rate of officers in the New York City and Los Angeles Police Departments mirror what I found in the mid-west. During a gunfight, about 25 percent of the shots fired by their officers hit their intended target.

Most programs “train to the test,” meaning they practice the skills necessary to fire a passing score on the qualification course. Many qualification tests are an adaptation of the old Practical Pistol Course. Many agencies are training to a “test” that has no similarity whatsoever to a police gunfight.

We need to prepare officers for the next gunfight, not the next competitive shooting match. We must train deadly force in a manner that will ensure officers pass the real test — winning a gunfight at 20 feet, not punching tight groups at 15-25 yards. Taking the “top shooter” award in your training class is cool, but winning your first gunfight is way cooler.
A training program which emphasizes the management of combat stress, without any marksmanship training, would create a better gunfighter than any program based solely on conventional marksmanship training. If they can master stress, even a below average marksman will score hits and win most pistol confrontations. If they master combat stress, marksmanship may prove to be a minor part of the gunfight equation. If they can’t master stress, even the very best marksman may miss — and die.

The only pre-gunfight way to gain combat “experience” is through Reality-Based Training (RBT). I’m not suggesting we ignore the development of marksmanship skills. Instead, we need to develop and test an officer’s marksmanship skills against interactive threats, not paper images on a shooting range. Once trainees can reliably hit paper targets out to seven yards and load/function/clear their sidearm, we should pit them against stressful computer simulators and human adversaries in RBT scenarios using paint munitions. Only when a trainee can deliver 80 percent hits — under stress, against live hostile targets, while on the move at between five and 25 feet — should we return to the live-ammunition range to develop more refined marksmanship skills.

Talk all you like about one of the rare 25-yard shots that have been made by pistol-armed officers, but, we still shoot poorly on the street and merely training more of the same won’t change that fact. If we never get back to the range to develop pistol shooting skills at 15-25 yards, so be it! That’s why all cops should have patrol rifles. With rifles, we can develop higher marksmanship skills, building upon the true gun fighting skills they learn with their pistols in the RBT scenarios.
______

[Pizza Bob]

By and large, the author makes some very good points - but the most relevant point he made isn't stated until late in the article: "I’m not suggesting we ignore the development of marksmanship skills. "

The people that choose LE as a profession represent the normal eclectic cross-section of the general population. Not many of them are "gun people". The gun, to them, is a tool that they expect to be taught to use in the course of their training for the profession they've chosen. Fundamentals are what need to be taught and mastered, before they get any specific training to shoot under duress.

When I started shooting handguns, pretty much the only game in town was Bullseye shooting. That meant standing-up, one-handed shooting at 50 feet indoors and 25 and 50 yards outdoors. The fundamentals: stance, grip, breathing, sight-picture, trigger squeeze, were stressed. These were the solid foundation that I had to build upon when other shooting "games" came along.

I go to the range these days and rarely see targets placed beyond 15 yards, and I can count the number of Bullseye shooters I know on one hand. Am I advocating the return to Bullseye type shooting - no. The action pistol games we participate in today have breathed new life into our avocation. But we can't forget the fundamentals. Until those are learned cold, we will revert to every bad habit we ever had when we are under stress. Yes the police need more realistic training - they do not need that in place of their current regimen, what they need is a greater depth of training.

JMHO.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

[Steve_NEPhila]

Conventional marksmanship does win gunfights. I do not know how exactly police are trained to shoot, and I do not care much. The goal of marksmanship is hitting what you aim at, and that wins fights.

I noticed that the concept of the gunfight has been strangely plasticized by what appears to be the modern training school of thought for the police. Shooting skill is not the only thing that is going to save anyones ass in a gunfight, you have to use your brain. Are police officers taught to draw their weapons while running, while running backwards, while in a fist fight? How many departments forbid the carry of a backup weapon? (more then you think)

The Police and the armed citizen are worlds apart when it comes to commonality. The police wear badges and regularly interact with known criminals, we do not. The police often have to get withing touching distance of criminals, we do not. My point is, marksmanship is a critical skill, as is tactical skill.

[hipowr]

I work in law enforcement, and I train cops to hopefully be effective with firearms. I look at it as the basic "you have to walk before you can run". You have to start with basic marksmanship and then move on from that basis. You can't shoot quickly and effectively at any target (moving or otherwise) until you can first hit a nice stationary target at a slow and deliberate pace.

There is no doubt that scenario based shooting, both live fire and airsoft/simunition is excellent training. You also aren't going to do it on the first day of the academy.

AJ

[1832]

I spent about 30 years as a LEO and I was lucky enough to rub elbows with some of the legendary cops from a variety of agencies who have survived multiple gunfights. No doubt, basic marksmanship and practice are essential. Similarly, tactical shooting and interactive training are also valuable. I competed for many years in LE competitions as well as being on my agency's team for the Camp Perry shoots.

All that being said, nothing can fully prepare you for that moment when you "see the elephant" (a slang expression for a gunfight). I was fortunate enough to only have experienced that situation three times in my career. I'm convinced that the informal advice given to me by the real experts, the LEOs who have survived a dozen or more such encounters contributed greatly to my survival. The advice was usually received over a few beers after the shooting day was done. It consisted of two simple rules: scoot then shoot.

Basically:

1. When the threat is identified, start moving as erratically as possible. This buys you some of that "lag time" you've already lost to the bad guy by forcing him/her to keep trying to acquire you as a target. Practice your moves as well as your marksmanship.

2. "He who makes the noise first, usually wins the fight." Basically, this involves getting your first shoot off as quick as you can, usually from the hip as you are bringing the weapon to bear more accurately. The objective is to mess up the attacker's concentration and hopefully cause him/her to start ducking. Once you achieved this objective, you then go for the center mass with controlled pairs, evaluating your target after each pair.

Owing to some liability concerns, these rules are never taught to officers during formal training. Instead, they are usually passed on by the "old hands" during the field training period.

FWIW, this is only in my experience, your results may differ...

[Asmodeus6]

There's a big difference between a one way and a two way range.

Any part of an officers job that would see them using their firearm is going to be a two way one. But they train on a one way range, as a one way range.

I'd say something snarky like "do the math" but it looks like they already did it. 11%

That leaves 89% of those rounds unaccounted for. Where are those going? Who do those hit? That's a pretty serious question considering most of these situations occur in populated places. Homes, businesses... roadways etc. Now add the BG's 89% of misses to that equation as well. Where are those going? Who do those get to hit? The quicker the officer puts the BG down the lower the number of that 89% goes potentially into innocent bystanders... So in the end, you've got a lot of rounds flying and not hitting their intended targets. This is not ideal. And with any of these situations it's understandable why it's so difficult. But, these guys need to be given the right tools to protect both themselves and the people around them. Directly, or inadvertently (by hitting what they are aiming at) and also by stopping the BG from being able to fire a string of ill aimed rounds by getting rounds in him first.

They should train force on force until they can do it with their eyes closed.

[Brown-Bear]

These threads always make me wonder how many of the posters here could hit a bullseye 10 x's out of 10, while being fired at. I would venture to say that many of us could hit the 10 ring while being fired at by a weapon in a vice or otherwise unable to move, and was never in any danger of actually hitting us. But I wonder if "you" were standing on the firing line shooting at a target, and the gun that was firing back at you was moving randomly and only 11% of the rounds from that weapon were guanteed not to hit you, the other 89%, who knows where there gonna go? How accurate would you be then.

Get your heart rate up and try it. Step away from the line and do 20 jumping jacks, then try and hit a bullseye right away off the bat.

[PennsyPlinker]

This is exactly the kind of training I got to take last December. The instructor said most people performed at about 50% of their best range day. I did a little better than 60%. And that was only at the beginning. I got better as I went on.

It isn't just someone shooting back, it is the target moving in unpredictable movements, and just trying to hit another person with a bullet while the situation develops and is over in just a few seconds. It is so far different than any other shooting situation I have ever been in, that describing it does not come close to actually being there. I am sure that real life ramps it up at least that much more again, if not even more so.

Marksmanship is very important, but decision making is even more important. One can be the best shot at the range, but if he doesn't have the mindset to have his gun out in time, or recognize the threat in time, he is very likely going home dead. Shooting while moving yourself just compounds the complexity of everything too.

[Eod1]

You know, I have read most all of these posts and have to say, you might be missing some must have training. When I worked for DOD they were teaching what was the best of the best, it wasn't. When I left I thought my trainers were the finest around they weren't. 10 years after I left, I made contact with a person that was trained by the OSS from WWII. Let me tell you, WWII open hand combat, knife on knife, hand against knife, hand against gun and gun against gun is mind blowing . The Rex Applegate and Fairburn and Sykes techniques are what our cops need. It changed my life. Every cop and swat guy I put in front of my instructor say the same thing, where did I find this guy. I say he found me. If you have any question just ask.

[Sgt.K]

I never saw this thread before as it predates my time here. That said:

Taking the “top shooter” award in your training class is cool, but winning your first gunfight is way cooler.

Know what's even cooler than that? Winning your *last* one.

Just sayin'...