Thinking Man's Corner

Article By: Leo H.

Upon reading the article written by Robert B. (included in the blog offerings on this site), I decided to express my personal take on “qualification” scoring. I base my opinion upon observations of “qualification” attempts made by hundreds of mandate students since 1989. These attempts being made on the various “qualification” courses as required during the Basic Law Enforcement Training Course (BLETC). There have been multiple versions of the course, utilizing varying amounts of ammunition, and a multitude of target types during that time frame.

I can see where environmental concerns could generate specific tactics or techniques… but, in my opinion, the concepts behind aiming and firing accurate shots has remained fairly consistent since their inception. I often wonder how the shooting “standards” of today can be so different as those from the early 60’s when the various Peace Officer Standards and Training Councils (POST) were born. One would think, when measuring basic shooting skills, the proficiency exhibited by students demonstrating the ability to accurately fire a handgun in a law enforcement setting would not widely fluctuate.

For the most part, I commonly see shooters during timed qualification events ensuring they press the trigger the prescribed number of times within the allotted time span. Oftentimes, these shots are fired after the targets have turned away or the timer has indicated the allotted time has elapsed. These types of shooters are merely “shooting bullets” with the hope of making enough hits to have a “qualifying” score. Most can not tell you a specific point on the target they were aiming for… if they were aiming, at all. Shots fired that completely miss the target have the same value as those striking a no value area; zero points without other consequences. The statement, “it is better to hold a bullet than it is to shoot a miss,” falls upon deaf ears.

It is my opinion that shooting “for score” does create a competitive environment (which isn’t necessarily bad) rather than focusing on “shooting for affect.” My belief is were we to train to focus more on hitting what your aiming at, as fast as you can effectively hit it, rather than “shooting “x” number of bullets within an expressed time frame” it would better prepare our officers to win a “gunfight.” Of course, an ongoing awareness of bullet placement effectiveness is another prevailing requirement that needs to be taught. Here, I am not advocating pumping bullets down range until the fight ends. Rather, aiming at an anatomically significant area and firing until the desired effect has been achieved should be the goal. The “qualification” course of fire would indicate the number of rounds required to measure quantifiable results, based upon specific, obtainable, and measurable outcomes… relative to an exchange of gunfire.

My suggested scoring concept is very similar to IDPA “time plus” scoring and is intended to train the shooter to only shoot as fast as THEY can hit the intended target. Shooting quick misses accomplishes nothing. The ability to establish a realistic assessment of one’s skill set is a valuable tool and a required element where staying alive is the prize.

When measuring acceptable skill level, we are required to establish some sort of standard of which to be measured against. For instance… in keeping with the expressed POST standard of 2 seconds per shot, let us establish a 60 second time standard for a 30 shot “qualification” course. We then determine what specific skills are required to be measured with those 30 shots and break them down into task specific stages (current POST course). The shooter then fires each stage at the fastest speed within which THEY (only in competition with themselves) can hit their intended target (in this case the 10 box of the SQT target). Every shooter will probably record different times depending upon their skills set (requires more time to run course for a large group – biggest complaint I’ve heard, thus far). Shots fired into the 8 scoring area have a value of +3 seconds added to the total time for that stage. I propose a DQ for any shots fired into the area providing no score or completely off target, but, I will submit to a +5 second time penalty for those shots, if necessary. Once all stages are completed the total time is added. If the course is shot in 60 seconds or less… the shooter has demonstrated proficiency of the specific tasks within an expressed timeline (combat being time based) and, thus, has “passed” the course thereby becoming “qualified” to carry a handgun. Ranking, should such a desire actually be required, would then be determined by specific time periods associated with proficiency under speed and based upon statistics obtained from “qualifying” shooters over time.

It is important to note that GPOSTC does not award shooter ranking based upon the percentage of accuracy demonstrated by mandate shooters. Rather, while at the range, they either pass or fail. If they pass… they graduate (where all other requirements of the program are met). Rankings are generally a function of departmental policy and not always based upon the current entry level course. I think the best idea to promote firearms proficiency was launched by LAPD back in 1964. Known as the “Bonus Course,” participants receive a small “bonus” on each paycheck based upon their score. While the amount paid is rather small, the bragging rights can be immense. Only 42 officers have fired a perfect score since it’s inception.

Many folks, with whom I have spoken, believe my concept to be, “too difficult” and it would “never make it past the POST Council” since the Chief’s and Sheriff’s would not like it as too many folks would not qualify. However, I don’t see how shooting a course that is already in place (just without expressing specific times for a series of shots) would be “too difficult” if the same 60 seconds already allotted is set as the standard and then just looked at in a different way.

Try it out. Same “qualification” course.  Commands per stage are the same as the 2025 course… just without expressed times. Each shooter fires the prescribed shots (one shooter at a time) in the prescribed sequence, as fast as THEY expect to make hits. The time for each stage is recorded. +3-time penalty in 8 area, +5- time penalty for misses – these can be established at course end (my preference for no value hits being a DQ as we should not train to accept a miss). A course completed within 60 seconds is considered passing.

So far, I find folks tend to shoot faster as you move down the line. So… I’d start each stage with a different shooter (or, if you have multiple timers, at different points down the line once firing commands have been given so no one knows who the next shooter is… alternatively, give each shooter a number… when your number is called by the line instructor (who is not working the timer and is moving around) a threat exists and you are permitted to shoot… adds an element of stress… does require coordination with whomever is running the timer and the scribe).

Dave Spaulding has a new drill he calls “Time Crisis” that fits well into the above concept. Of course, his target is much more challenging than the 10 box of a SQT-A1. But… it does support the concept of your only competition being yourself, trigger speed being determined by your ability, and a DQ when you miss the target. It also gives you a personal standard to measure against. The following course description comes from his Facebook post of 05OCT25:

“Five rounds at five yards in five seconds from the holster. On the start signal, the shooter draws and fires five hits into a three inch square. If successful, the shooter runs the drill again but must get all hits in a time faster than their initial run. The shooter continues until they either miss or their attempt is slower than the previous.

The drill tests all of the essential skills…the draw, finding the sight/dot quickly (consistent path of travel), trigger and recoil control, etc. The down side is the drill can be ammo intensive depending on how long the shooter stays “in”.”

Try them both and let me know how you and your folks do.

“The most important lesson I learned … was that the winner of a gunplay usually was the one who took his time.” — Wyatt Earp

Semper Optimum