View Full Version : Novice shooters vs police (study)
This is an interesting paper published in the International Journal of Police Science & Management, and is titled: “The real risk during deadly police shootouts: Accuracy of the naive shooter.”
The conclusion of their testing is that officers had no advantage over un trained novice shooters. I think you'll find a number of issues with this paper, such as the "expert" level shooters defined as Participants "completed law enforcement firearms course" and such, but it exposes what most know: LE firearms training does not appear to equip the LEO for the fight. Conclusion of this study was "The results of this study indicate that officers had no advantage over intermediate shooters and a small advantage over novices."
Full Paper download:
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-03-15, 08:36
Read the summary and skimmed it. Everyone in the study is 'in the system'- the novices are just untrained recruits? I think it would have been interesting to test them against general population people- and even more fun to some how test violent offenders in prison. Air guns and offers of conjugal visits for the high shooters for motivation.
Isn't that what they are worried about, really? And this is just looking at accuracy, isn't the real test some sort of inclusion of situational/scenario awareness?
People who have shot before, shoot better. They need to better define the experience of the intermediate level people versus the 'expert'.
Aren't most cops novices? At least the ones who complete minimal training.
I remember hearing a guy at a restaurant talking about an ND, saying how he's trained to handle guns and crap. Taking a course or shooti g on a static range does not qualify you as an "expert". Or mean you are responsible.
Aren't most cops novices? At least the ones who complete minimal training.
I remember hearing a guy at a restaurant talking about an ND, saying how he's trained to handle guns and crap. Taking a course or shooti g on a static range does not qualify you as an "expert". Or mean you are responsible.
Their terminology is misleading to be sure, but needed for such a study. It would have been far more helpful for the average non science reader to group them as say post trained and non, or something like that. Yes, calling someone who passed the basic enforcement firearms course an "expert" is very misleading and a poor choice on their end. What this paper does expose, which is not news to most who deal with such things. LEO deserve better and are not trained up for a life and death encounter they may face.
LEOs deserve better.
brickboy240
11-03-15, 09:49
Surprise...not all cops are "die hard gun guys" and only practice or shoot when it is time for yearly qualifications for their department.
Sure, some cops shoot competition, hunt or are frequent shooters and are serious gun guys but I would bet that most are not.
I have been shooting at one of our indoor ranges, when a group of off duty cops came in and were telling the range officer it was time to practice because qualification was next week. The guys really did not shoot any tighter groups that average shooters around me.
I have a close friend that is a police officer and he shoots quite often, hunts and reloads but from what he tell me, he is an exception and not the rule.
Why many are surprised to hear that most cops are not serious gun guys is beyond me. I guess Hollywood has most people thinking all cops shoot like Rob Leatham or Larry Vickers. LOL
I am pretty close to an officer who was involved in a shooting. Before, he was just a normal guy. After, he lost his religion, stopped trusting due to the distancing that inevitably comes (this was before the whole BLM bullshit).
Well....he did not feel he was prepared and had merely gotten lucky. Which was true. So he took all the training he could get and practiced at least once a week.
Overall it didn't help him much.
It's honestly the skill you use the least but when you need it, you'd best be competent. Writing coherent sentences and establishing elements of a case are 90%.
Statistically, few officers will be the victims of felonious assault.
You know...I don't feel sorry. If you carry a weapon, proficiency with it is your responsibility. Dry Firing in front of the TV is free.
Well....I'll tell you now that all the politicians who are agency heads don't care about you and never will. Training standards won't be upheld and a funeral and hiring a newer, younger cheaper officer is more cost effective than riots and lawsuits.
So much as PDs PREFER to hire individuals with little or no firearms experience (lest they hire a Tackleberry) and naively believe that academy training and annual qualifications will transform them into capable gunfighters there will always be a problem.
The best and worst shooters I've ever seen have been LEOs, and the ones who are remarkable shooters either had lots of experience before becoming a LEO or acquired the experience on their own time, and frequently on their own dime.
Sometimes LEOs can have strange ideas about firearms. Most have the "hope", if not the "expectation" that they will get to retirement without ever actually having to fire their weapon. To that end, I've met more than a few who don't do any additional firearms training because it might make them more likely to use their firearm.
I'd chalk it up to an anomaly that slipped through the cracks but I've met more than a handful that have said something along those lines.
As CCW carriers, most of us "hope" we never have to use our weapon in a SD situation. But at the same time, it isn't our job to intervene in conflict and chase bad guys.
After the number of stories I've seen where NYPD shows up and shoots more bystanders than the perp I'll file this under "No Shit John Madden" research....
Sometimes LEOs can have strange ideas about firearms. Most have the "hope", if not the "expectation" that they will get to retirement without ever actually having to fire their weapon.
As a statistical matter it's probably not a bad bet to make that you could go a whole officer's career without having to actually fire your weapon in the course of duty. Compared to something like a million plus officers in the US the number of people the police shoot every year is pretty darn small I think.
SomeOtherGuy
11-03-15, 14:45
People who have shot before, shoot better. They need to better define the experience of the intermediate level people versus the 'expert'.
I don't think this is true at the lower level of skill, and especially when shooting at people. There are several issues:
1) People wired correctly have a hard time shooting at other humans. Military studies have shown that a lot of recruits during war simply won't line up sights and squeeze the trigger on another human, enemy or not. I would imagine that sociopaths (=many criminals) don't have this problem, and probably a lot of regular players of graphic first-person-shooter games have gotten past it as well. Many police are going to have a hard time shooting to stop a person, even if their life is on the line.
2) Someone who's shot just a little probably jerks the trigger, doesn't focus on the front sight, and may have developed a flinch. Someone whose shooting experience is all in active crime may have different tendencies from the adrenalin rush. Likewise, someone whose "shooting experience" is in video games may have a smoother trigger and no flinch, because video games don't make the noise, blast or recoil that real guns do.
Think of your personal learning curve with a handgun. I know I started mediocre and didn't improve until after a lot of practice, not just 100-200 rounds. I would say modest improvement around 500-1000 rds but I didn't make big gains until well in the 1000's. Of course this is all square range with hearing protection and typical handguns (nothing bigger than .45 and .357, and mostly 9mm). I don't and never have spent much time on FPS video games so that wasn't affecting my skill development good or bad.
So, all in all, not surprised by this study. Anyone who wants to be skilled with a handgun needs a lot of practice, along with good training. A basic qualification course is only basic and minimal.
I didn't read the article but I do know that some people do freeze up and do squirrely shit in different stressful situations. I've dealt with "experts" and they literally dropped the ball.. Cop or no cop, everyone reacts differently. I personally don't care if you've attended 20 different courses taught by SF guys and dry fire 3 hours every night before bedtime. Until you are faced with a real deal deadly force situation, you won't know how you'll react and shoot. The X-ring shooter can now be shooting like a new shooter.
This was discussed in another thread. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?173998-Accuracy-of-the-naive-shooter-new-study-by-Force-Science-Institute-Ltd
It was worth reading, but I have several questions about the background of the LEO who participated in the study, the specific training they completed, their in service training, etc.
After more thought, the people who work the worst areas to tend to take more effort in their personal training.
You either want a fighting chance or you don't.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.