What are reasonable performance benchmarks for a Tactical Pistol 1 Class

[Surf]

Great to hear that they are open to ideas!

IMO it is probably not a good idea to test all students and establish a blanket ranking system. This can be intimidating and a good reason for a shooter to not want to participate in a course. Now it might be a very good idea to have a standard that a student might need to achieve to be able to progress into a more complex level of a progressive course.

It also might be a neat thing to offer a test that has say 3 levels of rankings for the test, (ie marksman, expert, master) and allow students to shoot the test for the "wall of fame" for bragging rights. This gives the students something to strive for, but does not make someone uncomfortable in feeling like they are required to take the test.

Hope this makes sense.

[Jim D]

That kind of marketing might attract a shooter who is still wet behind the ears, but it's far too much for me.

If they want to claim that their instructors are that high speed, they need to provide details unless they want to constantly get called out.

Those standards are un-realistic, but can still serve as a goal for shooters to work towards. Maybe they can grade it like the FAST. X-Y time = advanced, Z-X = Intermediate, etc.

[jenrick]

Simply removing the time limit makes a good set of basic skills for a beginning tactical shooter. As an instructor working with new tactical shooters (police cadets for example), I want them to be able to execute skills in three tiers: safety, accuracy, speed. Once they master safe shooting (usually the first hour or two on the range), we start worrying a lot more about accuracy. Once they achieve acceptable accuracy (defined either by the instructor or the department), only then do we worry about time.

Time as is a weird metric also. If you tell someone you've got 6 seconds to fire 3 rounds at 15 yds, and they fire them in 1.5 seconds with a 4" group how do we grade them? What if they fire their rounds in 5.9 seconds but it's one ragged hole? Who is the better more proficient shooter?

For a new shooter to be able to consistently place 16 rounds with a reload in an 8" circle is not an easy task. Even without time pressure you'll have people who are skirting the edge of the circle or throwing rounds completely. Removing the time requirement and focusing on accuracy will help them down the road. As they get more proficient they can start to work against the timer to see where they're at. At the end of the day I can see breaking out the timer for bragging rights, having a time scale for folks to say they shot "expert" etc. However for a simple certificate of completion I'd say just acceptable accuracy for a level 1 class.

-Jenrick

[Wicked]

That site has my BS detecting antenna twitching for some reason.

A little funny that they do not list the instructors by name and are fairly vague as to exactly what their mil experience actually is other than saying SEAL, Navy EOD and "spec-ops." Spec-ops, really? Hard to judge their experience with out further details. Would like some names so they could be vetted over at at SOCNET. Plenty of graduates of both camps that do not have any combat experience even though they met the qualifications and have done lots of training. It also does not automatically mean they can teach anything worth a damn.

I would like to think they would not so prominently display the giant flashing neon Trident in their marketing, if not real SEALS. "The only easy day" quote is SUPER cheesy. That turned me off right there. Not so much the 'Quiet Professionals" in my opinion. That may be good marketing in some air-soft circles. My guess is they may be legit and I hope they are real-deal dudes that offer good training opportunities. But, I have a hard time getting past their slicked up over-done web site and extremely vague qualifications.

There are secret missions, but no secret SEALs. If you're 'former special forces' there is no reason not to man-up and post your name on your web site so those taking your classes can verify your claims.

[Littlelebowski]

Wicked, a very well known and vetted SEAL trainer confirmed these guys for me. I'm satisfied by his word. PM me for details.

[d90king]

Take a look at their Youtube channel and I think it will answer any questions that are left unanswered.

[Rosco Benson]

....tac reloads....

Not sure if you mean what I understand a "tactical" reload to be. That is, reloading while retaining the removed magazine.

If so, I think focusing on this technique and doing it "on the clock" is not a good habit to build. The "emergency" reload (reloading from slide lock) is worthwhile to practice and to incorporate into graduation drills as this is how we will most likely reload our pistols in real life. The "tactical" reload, on the clock, is an IDPA affectation and is about as useful to learn as juggling.

The old IPSC-style "speed" load (slide forward, let the removed mag drop) are okay I guess. This technique builds the same skills as needed for the emergency load, with regards to handling the magazine. It is also a necessary technique for some standard skill assessment drills, such as Cooper's "El Presidente" (which isn't shot at 5 yards, better to call it something else if one changes the parameters).

The 16 shot drill is kind of akin to a "Bill Drill" in that it mostly tests one's ability to manage recoil and have the pistol recover back on target quickly. Not sure it is meaningful in the context of a defensive pistol graduation test. I can't imagine a scenario in which one would need to dump that many rounds into a single point-of-aim on an attacker. If the first few rounds aren't doing the trick, shoot at something else (head, pelvis, etc).

Using a 4" dot probably overemphasizes Diligentia over Celeritis (accuracy over speed for those who came in late). Although I can also accept that one won't shoot as well under deadly stress, so increasing the difficulty of the qualification might make sense. In my experience, it is easier to get a fast shooter to tighten up his hits than it is to get a slow and accurate shooter to speed up. This is just a teaching/coaching issue and not a major quibble with this course of fire.

The course of fire seems awfully ambitious for a 4 hour "level 1" class. I would be interested to see the teaching methods that could get a novice up to that level of performance in that amount of time. If they are doing so consistently, they have some serious teaching skills.

Rosco

[rickp]

Time as is a weird metric also. If you tell someone you've got 6 seconds to fire 3 rounds at 15 yds, and they fire them in 1.5 seconds with a 4" group how do we grade them? What if they fire their rounds in 5.9 seconds but it's one ragged hole? Who is the better more proficient shooter?

-Jenrick

The guy shooting the drill in 5.9 sec with one ragged hole, is shooting too slow, he's not pushing himself or shooting outside his comfort zone. If he is that accurate in that time he can speed it up. You're comparison of time/ accuracy isn't valid the way you presented it.
The guy that shot the 4" group, that's still acceptable, its called combat shooting. Done in 1.5 sec, I'll take him over the other guy everyday of the week.

Time and accuracy is a very delicate balance than most novice shooters don't understand.

R.

[jenrick]

The guy shooting the drill in 5.9 sec with one ragged hole, is shooting too slow, he's not pushing himself or shooting outside his comfort zone. If he is that accurate in that time he can speed it up. You're comparison of time/ accuracy isn't valid the way you presented it.
The guy that shot the 4" group, that's still acceptable, its called combat shooting. Done in 1.5 sec, I'll take him over the other guy everyday of the week.

Time and accuracy is a very delicate balance than most novice shooters don't understand.

R.

I don't see what is invalid about the time/accuracy argument. Every qualification course I've ever shot has been presented as "fire X rounds in Y target area in less then Z seconds." There are no bonus points for being faster then the standard. This traditional type of instructions or drill is an accuracy standard, not a speed standard. What commands do you give for bullseye shooting, "shooter you will have x seconds/minutes to fire Y rounds including sighters." Bullseye shooters just happen to use a graduated target to refine their point values rather then a simple all or nothing approach.

If the COF gives someone 6 seconds to fire their rounds, what's wrong with taking all 6 of them? If both shooters take the same amount of time and one produces a larger group then I'd agree that one shooter probably has "better" skills/ability then the other. I'd argue that both shooters should strive to us as much of the time given as possible and shoot as accurate of a group as they can if given those instructions.

The Viking Tactics Three Style drill is a good example of looking at things in the reverse. The first string is 7 yds, 5.5 seconds, as many rounds as possible in the A zone. A higher number is better. Now we're judging the shooters ability to balance speed and accuracy for themselves. If we give the shooter more time or a bigger A zone, we should see more hits. If we decrease the time or shrink the A zone, less hits.

Reference your preference for the guy printing a 4" group in 1.5 seconds over the "slower" more accurate shooter, we have no idea what kind of group the other shooters prints if he fires 3 rounds in 1.5 seconds. Mainly because we didn't ask him to.

-Jenrick

[Rosco Benson]

"fire X rounds in Y target area in less then Z seconds." There are no bonus points for being faster then the standard.

Time is life. Faster is better. If we want/need to put this in a context that allows for scoring, the classic "Comstock" scoring is pretty useful. The "Paladin" scoring, as developed by Rick Miller, is probably even more useful (as well as being administratively easy).

"Par" times tend to reward shooting so as to use the available time to one's best advantage. This may, on any given test, reward a shooter for shooting more slowly than he can. This is not something that ought to be rewarded, in my humble opinion.

As fast as you can, as carefully as you must should be the mantra of the practical shotist.

Rosco