Too may people are worrying about whether or not an officers "qualifies"...they should be worried about whether or not they live through a gun fight without also injuring a innocent party...
And how do you assess an officer's ability to do that without a standard to meet in a qualification?
Roger that. A basic standard is necessary to assess someone's performance and ability. It also points to the training a department needs to do in order to better prepare its people. While an argument COULD be made that qualification doesn't equate to survival, an individual who has trouble qualifying on an easy course of fire is a danger to himself or his partner.
Higher qualification scores equate to higher hit ratios on suspects. I saw that enough to call it a fact, at least in my experience. I was involved in my department's transition to 9mms from revolvers; all cops that wanted to carry a 9mm had to attend (and pass) a 3 day (later 5 day) transition course. Over 1200 rounds were fired. Taught by our department's best marksmen, the course emphasized marksmanship and weapon manipulation with no tactical shooting. After graduation, all cops were monitored for NDs and OISs (shootings) over a two-year period. I personally interviewed every cop that got into a shooting with a 9mm during that time frame. That was somewhere around 100 people. Some thoughts:
1. Poor shooters shoot way better after intense training, in both OISs and qual. Statistically, the 9mm-trained cops achieved more hits on suspects than the revolver (.38) shooters. More training is always good. 9mm is easy to train with; average shooters do well with it.
2. Marksmanship is more important than tactical training. After a cop learns to shoot well, tactics can be uploaded. A good marksman will excell in most any tactical scenario. A tactical genius can lose a gunfight if he misses. The military calls this concept "crawl, walk, run". Learn to shoot, then learn to fight.
3. Multiple hits stop bad guys; one hit-stops are an urban legend. Big bullets don't kill (or stop) any better than smaller ones. At least, that's my experience, based on 24 years as a street cop, academy instructor, homicide detective and combat Soldier with more than one tour in Iraq. Yes, there's always the SWAT head shot with a .45 that saves the hostage. That's not the usual cop shooting.
4. Lots of rounds carried are always better than a few big rounds. I carried in excess of 60 rounds on patrol and had more in my ditty bag. Less recoil is also better, in both training and a firefight. Yes, you can train to overcome the recoil of a .40 or .45, but you'll shoot better with a low-recoiling 9mm and get more hits on the suspect. Superior shooters also shoot better with a 9 than a .45. Check the scores at Camp Perry; Champions excel with any gun, but they're excelling with higher scores now that 9mm has replaced .45 ball in service pistol events.
5. Big rounds are hard on the gun as well. Glock 22s break down, if they're shot a lot. 9mms last forever. Good for the budget.
My thoughts, based on working for a very large Southern CA police department with 10,000 cops to train.
Bob
