Analysts can study the statistics of assaults against law enforcement personnel for years without positively impacting training.  The numbers are simply too one-dimensional: night time is more dangerous than daytime, rifles are more deadly than pistols, etc, etc, ad nauseum.   In order to advance the efficacy of training, the data must be translated into a paradigm shift.  Determining the causal relationship between the “inputs” of training and the “outputs” of actions under stress should drive improvements to training.

To deconstruct every aspect of firearms training would entail writing a series of books that someone smarter than me will have to undertake.  In order to keep the voluminous data manageable, I’ll focus on just two simple concepts: which tasks agencies choose to train and how the training is conducted.

Determining which tasks to train can seem like a straightforward process.  The selection of tasks however, is the simplest aspect of planning.  The more critical task is determining the desired endstate for each task.  As an example, lets assume that an agency is interested in accuracy as part of the firearms training program.  Sounds easy, right?  Give me officers who are accurate with their department-issued handguns.  But accuracy to what standard?  Accurate at what range?  Under what conditions?  Do officers need to be accurate while shooting on the move?  One-handed?  Weak hand?  Law enforcement leadership has a greater responsibility to their officers than just declaring “Accuracy for all!”

To a large degree, the manner in which training is conducted will determine its effectiveness.  By staying with the example of accuracy as a goal, we can illustrate this.  The simplest way to measure accuracy is to draw a bullseye on a paper target and assign point values to each ring.  The simplicity of this method is attractive to law enforcement agencies.  In fact, shooting bullseyes from 25 meters is a daily task for Special Forces soldiers during advanced firearms training courses (SFAUC, SFARTAETC).  Engaging paper targets has value, but it won’t prepare officers for a violent assault.  The unfortunate truth is that many agencies extrapolate the value of using paper targets to develop a qualification program which is simplified to the point of uselessness.  Officers engage stationary targets from stationary positions during daylight hours with minimal stress.  Standards for qualifying are so low that officers pass the “test” once a year without needing any additional training.  This approach ignores the realities of modern day gunfighting.

This entry  serves as a primer to firearms training development.  In future entries, I’ll cite case studies to highlight specific training shortfalls which may exist within law enforcement agencies nationwide.  In the meantime, I’d encourage all law enforcement professionals to begin dissecting their training programs to identify opportunities for improvement.  Jedburgh Corp has developed the most comprehensive and realistic training programs possible.  We are available to provide both training and training support to organizations desiring to advance their firearms training.  Contact us at info@Jedburgh-USA.com to provide feedback on the blog, or discuss your training needs.  Also, feel free to post your comments.