It's been my (very limited, I'm sure) experience that two key problems exist for 95% of the "typical shooters" IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, saturday plinkers, etc. etc. etc. (and still, 50% for the dedicated competition shooters):
1. Trigger control (they just don't get it) and
2. Sight Alignment (they just don't get it x 2)
..... .
[THOSE WITH MILITARY/LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE ARE THE WORST! Do they even teach sight alignment-trigger control in the military anymore!?!?!?]
Yes, it's an ego booster for sure but criminees I weep for our nation if a competent enemy were to ever test us.
I am working with the college students where I teach now but man alive, the climb is steep!
Steve Swartz
Richard H wrote:I think he's talking the overall level of marksmanship in the both the military and LE, sure there are some that are trained properly and shoot well. The overall performance is not good, this isn't just a US thing or a North American thing, anecdotely people all over the world seem to have the same opinion of their military and LE. It might just be stereotypes but unfortunately there is always some truth in stereotypes, thats why they are stereotypes.
Our border guards are a good example, they want sidearms now they are failing (over 20%) can't qualify. Beleive me the qualification isn't that difficult either.
this is generally the case. there is a high tendency for people to associate precision shooting with the ease of video games shoot-outs, where everyone is bound to hit what he aims at. Sadly, many of them do not realise that, that is not the case.
i am not in the US, but i observe that the majority of LE and army shooters (non-dedicated precision sport shooters), shoot base on what i mentioned as "video-game mindset". the "i should be hitting where i point the gun at" attitude, aiming without aligning the sights.
always love to see them looking bewilded after failing to hit the target repeatedly, not knowing the reason behind why they are missing the target. The crumbling of their arrogance and ego never fail to put a smile on my face. :)
It's a miracle that a lot of LEOs can hit the target, considering that most small departments only have to qualify 1 time per year, and have no comprehensive and recurrent training, once they have graduated from their academy. But what is the solution? I'm not going to pay extra taxes to pay for range time, ammunition, instructor development, and overtime to back fill for officers spending time on the range qualifying and training! Besides, the vast majority of LEOs will never draw their weapon during their career, so why waste time and taxpayers dollars on such unimportant aspect of their career.
last week i went in to practice at our indoor range (its been COLD up here in michigan) and there was a police officer teaching a cadet how to shoot. He had no idea why he hit lower at farther distances, or what wind was. Me and my coach spent 20 min. explaining the concept of gravity to him, and another 10 explaining windage. Dosent enspire confidence in our law enforcement.
I talk to people on XBOX live who are under the impression that a 400 yard moving shot is easy. Little do they know how hard it is to really do that. The sad fact is that most people have little or no expierence with guns, and think that what they see on TV is real.
TOZNERD wrote:It's a miracle that a lot of LEOs can hit the target, considering that most small departments only have to qualify 1 time per year, and have no comprehensive and recurrent training, once they have graduated from their academy. But what is the solution? I'm not going to pay extra taxes to pay for range time, ammunition, instructor development, and overtime to back fill for officers spending time on the range qualifying and training! Besides, the vast majority of LEOs will never draw their weapon during their career, so why waste time and taxpayers dollars on such unimportant aspect of their career.
toznerd
Well If my life depended on a tool I'd be damn sure I knew how to use it.
Following your logic they most likely will never draw it and if they do they are not likely to hit their target anyways, why not save the tax payer more money and not even give them one.
This is the second time my shift+sarcasm key on my computer has failed. I need to have it looked at.
Let's be realistic. Most cops are decent shots. Sure, we could kick alot of their butts in air, free, bullseye, and even some practical pistol events. But, remember the bell curve and forget anecdotal evidence.
Besides, didn't a recent former US team member and Olympian take a position in law enforcement? I'll bet he's a good shot.
Mike, if you happen to read this, tell them what your department emphasizes in musters/roll calls and how much recurrent training you get concerning Firearms and Intermediate Force training. If you guys are lucky, you get formal department scheduled training 2 times per year. More than that is atypical.
As far as taking their guns, I say let them keep the guns, but take their bullets, save one; kinda like Barney Fife----shift+sarcasm+enter.
FWIW, most law enforcement and military folks aren't that great at shooting.
Of the services, Navy and Air Force guys are the worst, Marines are the best. Of course, there are exceptions to everything. Certain units, scout/sniper folks, etc. that are really good, but they're the exception, not the rule.
True. Very true. One of the men who trained me was a LEO, and he would be the first to tell you that the average LEO could just barely hit the broad side of a barn...from the inside.
And the military is not that much better. As an organization, the Marines do stress marksmanship...but the other services are more concerned with not having accidents than with actually hitting anything. It's a side-effect of extended peacetime service.
I do not know whence this quotation came and I think it regarded carrying arms:
"It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
Certainly that is my position on concealed carry... and you darn well be accurate. It has been said by many shooters that if you can shoot Bullseye and International Pistol, you can do well in any of the pistol disciplines. I believe that the disciplines that we practice are transferable.
In my Basic Training for the US Army we were taught how to shoot the
M-1 Garand Rifle with more than a modicum of accuracy - we spent a lot of training time on the range and most in my unit were Sharpshooter level. Now, admittedly there is a difference between that rank in our disciplines and the military version; none-the-less, I would not have wanted to be downrange as a target with anyone in my unit looking to hit me.
We did not train or qualify with the side arm... I guess that infantry line soldiers were expected to use the Garand exclusively. It was not until I became a Sergeant that someone thought I needed to learn and qualify with a 1911 .45 - now that was DIFFICULT!!!
Now, I took Basic in 1959 and have had no experience in the military since I got out in '65. Anyone with more recent experience in military marksmanship, please comment.
Well, in the Air Force . . . Oh wait, you were talking about the military?
Never mind!
Steve Swartz
(Non-LEO career field (aircraft maintenance). Qualified with the .22 LR version of the M-16 in basic training in 1978. Qualified with the S&W K-38 at ROTC summer camp in 1980; had to requalify with the Beretta M9 after commissioning in 1986. Requalified with the M9 two more times. Shot for score a grand total of 5 times over a 24+ year career. Oh yeah, during that time I was filling "combat mobility" positions both as enlisted and officer; the theory was we would be trained right before deployment as needed. Note that in each case with the pistol, we never even fired a full box of ammo!)
Hey, at least the Navy and USAF have SOME elite units. The Coast Guard (Is that even still part of the military?) has nothing. Theyre just police with boats, protecting our sand from the imminent invasion. They dont even qualify with long guns, just pistols. So dont knock the USN and USAF too bad.
Marines are the best as a whole group, espically at distances over 200 yards. Marines took so many headshots during the invasion of Fallujah that there was an investigation to see if they were excuting insurgents. The report found that the average headshot was taken at 150 yards.
Couldn't agree with you more, other than a couple of exceptions the AMU has produced the best shooters (rifle anyways) in the US. I don't think anyone can argue with their success (but I sure someone will).
The US isn't alone either look at the background of some of the top shooters in the world and you will find a lot with a military background.
This is a long thread, and I haven't read all of the responses, so pls excuse me if the following point has been addressed already.
IMO the 900lb gorilla in the room w/ regard to recruiting juniors is that their parent(s) may recognize that any association with firearms could be a severe liability to their child when it comes time to apply to colleges. The academic culture in much of the US is stidently opposed to firearms ownership much less the promotion of shooting sports. This same culture also tends to regard a familiarity with firearms as a proxy for all sorts of negative traits ( e.g. mental instability, violence, racism etc..). So if you're going to allow your child to pursue competitive shooting, you have to accept that this may limit their educational opportunities in the future.
the 900lb gorilla in the room w/ regard to recruiting juniors is that their parent(s) may recognize that any association with firearms could be a severe liability to their child when it comes time to apply to colleges.
Will .... I can't agree with that. I'm sure there are some pockets here in the US where that is true, but generally I think the sport is well regarded ... especially when you get into the shotgun events.
(and I'm willing to accept the concept that the reverse >>might<< be true, and I live in a pocket where it is accepted, and I look thru the rose colored glasses) But I think I'm correct.
You know what? Thats precisley the reason i dont want to go to a tradional college. If they dont like my guns, too bad. My right to own firearms is protected by the founding document of our country, and i will never give it up without a fight. Its not my problem that all the "Educated" people out there are too dumb to see that without the 2nd amendment, we couild be stripped of all our rights and be powerless to stop it. The hippies can talk about 'peace and love' all they want, but the fact of the matter is that there will always be someone who wants to bring us down, and theres only 1 way to deal with that. We seem to have forgotten 9/11.
If the hippies had thier way, this website, and the entire sport for that matter, would cease to exist. Consider that.
Some of you pistol guys ought to try a few plays from Fairbairn and Sykes.
You would be amazed at what you can do without aiming if you know what you are doing. FYI, shotgunners can hit small objects travelling very fast and in sometimes irregular flightpaths without using sights.
And, yes, I do know how to use the sights as well. But then the focus of those who see and use handguns as defensive weapons is significantly different than those who use them as sporting goods. There is something called the sight continuum......
