Thinking Man's Corner

Article By: Robert B.

Those of you who serve, or have served, as Georgia Peace Officers will be familiar with one or more of the Georgia Semi-Auto Qualification Courses used over the last 20 years or more. The course has undergone minor revisions during that time, but the basic premise is the same. Officer weapons proficiency is measured solely as accuracy in a timed fire course, assessing minimal penalties for hits outside the vital zone, meaning officers can qualify without recording a single vital hit. 

Every year after qualifications, officers compare scores. Those shooting more than 90% (270 of 300 possible points), take pride in their performance. Those who manage a 300 often feel a sense of mastery or expertise. Shooting a perfect score, in theory, should be a major accomplishment worthy of praise, but there is a serious flaw in our system. 

Since the Georgia qualification system uses “timed fire” standards with generous time allowances, the design encourages officers to, “slow down and get their hits.” By contrast, an officer who pushes speed and shoots a high 90-percent score will be seen as a lesser shooter, even if that officer shot the course in as little as half the time. 

My question: Are all perfect scores created equally? A perfect score reflects accuracy, but does it reflect reality or readiness? The goal of qualification is to measure an officer’s readiness for the day we all hope never comes – the day an officer might have to use his gun in defense of himself or a third party. There are several ways the qualification course falls short of this goal, and I’ll address them each in turn. Our data on law enforcement shootings is largely anecdotal There is some research, but critical factors such as engagement distance, time to first shot, number of rounds fired, and accuracy under stress are still poorly understood. The data provide a general picture, but rarely include measurable details like split times, true accuracy, reaction times, or the effects of fatigue, stress, and distraction. 

In spite these gaps, one thing is certain about every engagement: officers cannot predict the skill of our opponent or the time they will have to act.

Since we don’t know the opponent’s skill or the time available to score the hits needed to save lives, it seems misguided to evaluate officer proficiency on a rehearsed course emphasizingaccuracy under known time limits and a predictable sequence of fire. Georgia POST standards allow roughly 2 seconds per round with additional time reloads, movement, draws, or position changes. If no extra time is added, that equates to 60 seconds for a 30-round course. But what if an officer completes it in 50, or 40, or even 20 seconds? Under current rules, a score is a score is a score and speed doesn’t matter. Because officers are naturally competitive, the system encourages them to prioritize accuracy at the expense of time. But ask yourself: if your life was on the line, would you rather your protecter fire one perfectly accurate shot every two seconds, or four to five well-placed shots per second with great, but not perfect accuracy? 

I know, there’s liability, and danger, attached to every miss. We don’t want officers to get comfortable with the idea of missing for the sake of speed. But is a hit outside the vital area truly a “miss”? I would argue that every hit a human being absorbs in a gunfight reduces their ability to return fire effectively. Four or five rounds on target in one second, even if a few drop from center mass into the abdomen, is likely more effective than one perfect hit after two seconds – especially since that hit may not stop the threat. 

Of course, any discussion of “stopping a threat”, involves a high degree of speculation. For this article, I’ll assume that more rounds on target faster increases survival odds. While one perfectly placed round can end a confrontation, officers can never know how much time they’ll have. Accordingly, the ability to deliver multiple accurate rounds rapidly is likely a better indicator of true proficiency, and our current scoring system fails to measure it. 

You’ve probably heard, “you don’t know what you don’t know.” This is especially true for law enforcement firearms training. For decades, law enforcement officers have siloed themselves, rarely shooting alongside civilians. They host law enforcement only competitions where the state qualification course decides the winner, and they repeat myths such as, “competition shooting will get you killed in the streets.” 

This isolation reinforces the Dunning-Krueger Effect within our profession: officers with limited skill often overestimate their competence because they haven’t seen what expert performance truly looks like. 

I’ll provide you with two examples. My own resume in shooting is lengthy within the Georgia law enforcement, including: Firearms Instructor, Swat I & II, Red Dot Sight Handgun Instructor, multiple perfect scores at Semi-Auto Level III, Multiple Medals at the Georgia Police and Fire Games, and the winner of multiple firearms in shooting competitions at the Georgia Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors(GALEFI), among others. Yet, when I compete regularly among civilians, I would describe myself as an amateur. 

In practical shooting sports, competitors are ranked internationally by classification: D class (0 to 40%) up to Grand Master (top 5% in the world). These percentages based on relative performance compared to the world’s best scores for a given shooting drill. While not perfect, this classification system provides greater insight into how you stack up as a shooter compared to a large population. Tellingly, the participant base consists largely of civilian hobbyist shooters. Despite my resume, I am currently only an A-class shooter, meaning I perform between 75% and 85% as well as the best shooters in the world. The difference is humbling, and it keeps me aware of how much more there is to practice and learn. Recently, I introduced practical pistol shooting to a pair of academy students. Both had recently completed firearms week in mandate, scoring 290 and 298 respectively. Under traditional police scoring, this would suggest near-expert proficiency. Don’t get me wrong, a 298 in mandate firearms is laudable, but it is not mastery. 

At a practical pistol match, I compared their performance to another A-class shooter ranking in the 75% to 85% range (not a Grand Master). Even then, our 290 and 298-scoring recruits placed at 16.9% and 21.4% of the winner’s score. Even on stages resembling law enforcement quals, (simple static shooting), they scored as low as 8.7% percent and topped out around 41.5%. 

I don’t post these scores to embarrass myself, or either of my example students. In fact, I think every police officer needs to lose a civilian shooting match at least once. It’s the best way to learn that the police range is not the real world, and that continued training matters. But a new officer who scores a 298 on the academy range has little incentive to improve, when that’s considered “expert.”

But what if there was a scoring system that could give us a better idea of our relative skill? What if there was a way to prioritize accuracy at speed? What if I told you the better scoring system had been around since the late 1970s? 

Hit-factor scoring developed by Jeff Cooper in the 70s and used by the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) and Internation Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) since the 1980s offers a better measure of proficiency. Better yet, it can be applied to Georgia’s existing qualification courses with very little modification. 

Hit-factor scoring, balances speed and accuracy by dividing total points by total time. It aligns well with Georgia’s current 10-and-8 scoring system, since USPSA’s “Major Power Factor”uses 5s and 4s, essentially the same ratio. Using the existing POST targets, hit factors would simply double numerically, but remain comparable.

As we begin to value speed, some may worry that this undermines accuracy. In fact, hit-factor scoring penalizes misses more harshly than POST’s current system. 

Under POST rules, misses simply score zero. An officer could completely miss as many as six times and still pass.  By contrast, hit-factor scoring subtracts 10 points for a miss (equivalent to a -20 in the POST system).  The same shooter who might score a 240 (80%) with six misses under the POST system would instead score 120 (40%) under the hit-factor system. 

To apply this scoring while maintaining POST compliance, first recall the current POST standards:

1. Use the SQT-A1 scored 10s and 8s

2. Fire at Least 30 rounds

3. Allow no more than 2 seconds per round (can add time for movement and reloads)

4. Fire from 15, 7, and 3 yards with rounds spread somewhat evenly

5. Fire from Holster, High-Ready, and Low-Ready

6. Score 80% to Pass

Within these parameters, agencies can still add rounds, targets, cover, positional shooting, or new yard lines.  This flexibility allows two implementation options.

Option 1: Static Course with Timed Strings

Option one preserves the current course and facilities.  The only addition is a recorded time for each string using a shot timer.  Total points are divided by total time, yielding a hit factor for the full course.  Officers retain their raw POST score, but theynow have comparative data reflecting both accuracy and speed. This instantly reveals that all “perfect scores” aren’t created equal. It also changes the shooters’ mindset.  Officers can’t relax and coast; they must manage both precision and pace.  The competitive stress introduced by time pressure better simulates real-world uncertainty, and makes range days more engaging.

Option 2: Full Course Conversion 

Option two converts the entire course into a single dynamic stage with one start signal. We implemented this at our annual pistol range after shooting the standard GSAQC, and it turned out great. In short:

Officers start loaded and holstered at the 30-yard line. On signal,they advance to cover at the 25-yard line and fire two rounds on each target. They then move to the 15-yard line where they fire two rounds left target from the left of cover, step to cover for a reload, then fire two rounds right target from the right side of cover. Leaving the 15-yard line, they sprint to the seven-yard line, where they fired a Mozambique drill left and right from the left of cover, then reload and repeat from the right of cover. After leaving the cover position at the seven-yard line, officers fire five additional shots per target while moving and before passing the three-yard line. 

For our purpose, each yard line had its own target pair.  Officers moved from left-rear to right-front, incorporating forward and lateral movement and divided attention tasks. Since the conscious mind was occupied remembering what to do next, shooting became largely subconscious, similar to stress-induced focus.

Interestingly, raw scores dropped 30 to 40% compared to staticfire. While not a scientific study, this may reflect how “gamification” and stress simulation better distinguish conscious from subconscious performance. 

To use the second option as a POST qualification, all you need to do is set a par time of not more than 60 seconds for all 30 rounds (2 seconds per round) and mandate that officers use both ready positions while moving. Then simply use their raw score for POST reporting and compare their performance using hit-factor scores.

A balance of speed and accuracy is a better measure of skill thanaccuracy alone. Hit-factor scoring not only allows more accurate ranking of shooters but also fosters a mindset oriented toward real-world performance.

If you’re still active, test this at your next range day. Training should evolve, and qualification should evolve with it. Just remember: qualification is a test of skill, not a substitute for training.