Accuracy of the naive shooter - new study by Force Science Institute, Ltd.

[Bruce in WV]

This newsletter comes to me at work and it is a real eye-opener.
The study can be accessed in full, free of charge, at the FSI website. ...visit: www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf . It is believed to be the first to examine "the shooting accuracy of inexperienced and untrained suspects who might fire at officers...in a deadly conflict."

www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

[T2C]

The study is a worthwhile read for a LEO firearm trainer. In addition to the data, it would be interesting to review the training curriculum and qualification criteria for the agencies involved in the study.

[ShooterM4]

Great report, thanks for sharing it.

[SeriousStudent]

FSI is a great resource, and their email newsletter is definitely worth subscribing to.

[montrala]

I think that results are somehow flawed in respect of lack of speed (and possibly stress) element. Shooters were told to shot as fast as they feel will allow them to take accurate shots, but then time to get that shots was dismissed from results. If shooters where asked to shoot in their own pace (not on par time like FBI test), then time should be counted in result of probe (for eg. like hit factor in IPSC/USPSA). In real world if police officer needs to shoot, he usually needs to shoot fast.

EDIT: And IMHO this "discrepancy" in number of head shots at closest range does not tell anything about accuracy. It only tells that "expert" shooters learned lessons of not wasting time with head shots and go for centermass shots, while novice ones learn from movies.

[Dienekes]

Frankly, not greatly surprised...But mindset is not factored in that I can see.

Jeff Cooper once voiced the opinion that most LEO types are NOT warrior personalities, hence their mindset is very sadly lacking. A generalization, to be sure, but it would seem to be a consideration.

And then there's this: http://www.amazon.com/Shooting-Live-With-One-Hand/dp/1581606788

[26 Inf]

I wonder what the times were for the different levels?

And why weren't the participants asked what their focus point was? Point being some of the close in headshots may have been errant - looking over sights, or intentional. I tend to try to focus shooters toward high center mass as our target allows, I would prefer jugular notch area, but that area in our target is just inside the highest soring ring and a high shot just outside that ring is our lowest scoring shot.

I also question the validity of using the big silhouette. One of the problems is we don't train officers to shoot precise rapid shots, the large silhouette exacerbates this. I think officers should not train on the big silhouettes until later in their training - primary training should be on plates or circles. This is an epistle I wrote on the subject regarding our program:

Encouraging Mediocrity. Darn, do we actually do that? Although certainly not intentionally, I think an argument can be made that mediocrity is one result of our current training methods. This begins on Day #1. On that first afternoon, as you all know, the first 50 rounds are fired at a medium sized circle drawn onto the back of one of our standard-sized targets. There are two circles – first relay fires on the top circle and second relay fires at the bottom circle. The next fifty rounds, and every round after that is fired on some variation of our standard target with the 5, 4, and 3 point scoring zones. Think about it in these terms if you will: in using that smaller circle for those exercises we in essence give the officers a zone of acceptable performance – inside that circle, for those 50 rounds. After those 50 rounds the officers go to the larger target with a larger ‘excellent’ zone (5 ring), an even larger ‘good’ zone (four ring), and an ‘okay’ zone (three ring) which is really not relevant to police use-of-force. The point is to the officer's mind, any hit on the target is acceptable.

Would we build better shooters if we did most of our training inside 10 yards on 6 or 8 inch circles? My belief is yes, if we alter our program to focus on fast first round hits and 3 to 4 rapid follow up shots on the smaller target area, then shots at longer ranges on the larger target should be improved also. Common sense would tell us that if you train to hit the broad side of a barn, you aren’t very likely to have the requisite skills to hit the much smaller knothole on the barn wall. Aim small, miss small, is a good theory to work from. As quickly as possible shooters should be rapidly shooting groups of at least 4 rounds - rounds 3 on up are where control over the weapon deteriorates markedly for most shooters.

JMO

[echo5whiskey]

I think that results are somehow flawed in respect of lack of speed (and possibly stress) element. Shooters were told to shot as fast as they feel will allow them to take accurate shots, but then time to get that shots was dismissed from results. If shooters where asked to shoot in their own pace (not on par time like FBI test), then time should be counted in result of probe (for eg. like hit factor in IPSC/USPSA). In real world if police officer needs to shoot, he usually needs to shoot fast.

EDIT: And IMHO this "discrepancy" in number of head shots at closest range does not tell anything about accuracy. It only tells that "expert" shooters learned lessons of not wasting time with head shots and go for centermass shots, while novice ones learn from movies.

I agree with you that all of that plays into the overall scenario, but I think they were only going for the one result (accuracy) based on the one variable (experience/training). I'll have to re-read the article, but I think a set time and/or stress plus whatever else would more likely result in overall lethality or effectiveness--something to that point.

Totally agree with the second statement.

[T2C]

I think studies like this are a reminder to keep thinking about how to best train for a lethal encounter. We also need to analyze shooting incidents that occur in the field and learn what changes need to be made in response to fulfilling the need for training that has a practical application.

For years the pistol training and qualification courses of fire my agency used were oriented more toward target shooting. In 1998 the training was revised to teach combat shooting versus target shooting. Some of the people involved in training development had the mindset that being able to precisely place shots with the service pistol had no practical application. Consequently, most of those people who supported that theory were unable to shoot their service pistol accurately at 25 yards and despised those who had the ability.

After a few years it was determined that training solely focused on fast shooting was not effective. Then a combination of some precision shooting at 25 yards mixed with fast engagement at closer distances was introduced and it seemed to be the most practical. Those of us who pushed to reintroduce precision shooting at 25 yards also pushed to train our people to primarily shoot on the move inside 12 yards.

I had the opportunity to see hundreds of new recruits trained to shoot. When a new group of recruits were not shooting up to standards at close distances, we stopped and returned to training to shoot precisely at 25 yards. Once they developed the mental discipline to hit accurately at 25 yards, we returned to running drills at 12 yards and closer and saw a vast improvement in their performance. We also saw a marked increase in their confidence level, which helped later on when we trained them to shoot shotguns and carbines.

Once we implemented a combination of both precision shooting and rapid engagement training, at the end of a training cycle our recruits could engage pepper popper steel targets at 100 yards with the service pistol and engage targets rapidly inside 12 yards while shooting on the move.

Solely focusing on one type of shooting failed us and other agencies that I interacted with during training and while working in the field.

When I read a study like this, the first thing I want to do is review the training curriculum for the people involved in the study. Training has to constantly evolve to meet the needs of the type of personnel who are being trained and the needs of the officers working in the field.

[26 Inf]

T2C:

First of all great post!

For years the pistol training and qualification courses of fire my agency used were oriented more toward target shooting. In 1998 the training was revised to teach combat shooting versus target shooting. Some of the people involved in training development had the mindset that being able to precisely place shots with the service pistol had no practical application. Consequently, most of those people who supported that theory were unable to shoot their service pistol accurately at 25 yards and despised those who had the ability.

This is pretty much the experience we have had with folks coming in from other academies that don't focus on much beyond fifteen. One of the problems being that folks in those circumstances generally like to practice where they are the best, this generally means close, where mistakes aren't as obvious. We spend a lot of time at 25 shooting at huge freaking targets, my preference would be on a bull for initial training at that range. I love bullseye, unfortunately it has died out around here, the problem is that too many people focus on precision to the exclusion of training speed, and too many focus on speed to the exclusion of precision.

After a few years it was determined that training solely focused on fast shooting was not effective. Then a combination of some precision shooting at 25 yards mixed with fast engagement at closer distances was introduced and it seemed to be the most practical. Those of us who pushed to reintroduce precision shooting at 25 yards also pushed to train our people to primarily shoot on the move inside 12 yards.

As above, at 25 yards I think the target makes a huge difference. What were you using?

I agree, after building base speed on good 3 to 5 round groups in a reasonably sized plate or circle for the range, then the emphasis should become move and draw, versus draw and move.

Most officers shot at close range were, obviously behind the power curve. We can't really control officer's SA in any given situation, but we can instill in them the gift of instinctive movement off the threat axis.

One of the major problems I see is that the square range limits movement when training the masses. The zone where 80 percent of the police firearm fatalities occur is within 20 feet. I you do the angles, the most effective movement inside that zone, assuming a open space encounter with no cover is diagonally forward - this causes more tracking movement by the adversary to engage than any other method. The officer is able to move much faster going forward at an angle, then they are backing out or moving laterally. Unfortunately this is virtually impossible to do safely with any number of people on the conventional square range because of the angles involved.

When a new group of recruits were not shooting up to standards at close distances, we stopped and returned to training to shoot precisely at 25 yards.

You, are, the, man. Kudos for that, how often do we see shooters hopelessly behind others, just drug along because of the lesson plan? Either stop and go back, or separate into ability groups and continue training at the group's speed. Unfortunately, we mostly we let the schedule and what we have to accomplish that day drive training, rather than results.

]What are your thoughts on daily eight hour sessions, versus four hour sessions every other day?

I started on revolvers, and it was readily apparent that in many cases, by mid morning we had exceeded the grip endurance of the shooter, both large and small. At some point it became just launching bullets for those guys, useful reps were pretty much gone. The problem wasn't as bad when we began training primarily DA/SA pistols, although it was still and issue. Unfortunately many folks still don't understand the exertion required to shot a pistol quickly and effectively. We still are loosing training effectiveness by mid day.

Great post!

[T2C]

26 Inf,

We used a NRA B-16 25 yard slow fire pistol target. The black is 5-1/3" in diameter. We looked for people on the line to consistently shoot over 80/100, which required keeping a lot of the shots inside the 8 ring, which was 3-7/8" in diameter. I would have them dry fire 10 times for every 1 live round shot for the first hour or so. After running accuracy drills, we always saw significant improvement in performance in close action drills.

There is some merit to limiting firearm training to 4 hours per day for a new shooter, but I would want to train every day of the work week and not skip a day.

[montrala]

I agree with you that all of that plays into the overall scenario, but I think they were only going for the one result (accuracy) based on the one variable (experience/training).

And what they got is useless* in practical use knowledge, acquired in proper, scientific way.

* - Useless, unless it was good way to spent some grant money. Then it was very practical.

[ShooterM4]

I would want to train every day of the work week and not skip a day.


And if you are a member of the SOCOM club, you too can shoot tens of thousands of rounds, all day, every day, of both rifle and handgun ammunition working up for a deployment.

:)

[T2C]

And if you are a member of the SOCOM club, you too can shoot tens of thousands of rounds, all day, every day, of both rifle and handgun ammunition working up for a deployment.

:)

It's not about the number of rounds sent down range. It's about the quality of training with the available rounds.