Joined
·
13,498 Posts
Some sobering implications from the CT article…
”...hit ratios from shootings in the field are staggeringly low. The latest NIJ data shows that police officers using traditional sighting and training methods hit their mark only about 25% of the time when shots are fi red. Remember: These are trained professionals. Men and women who must qualify on the range with high scores in order to keep their jobs.”
The hit ratio, 25%, is up from the 17% we used to hear about, so that’s good. But, when is says, ”Men and women who must qualify on the range with high scores in order to keep their jobs.”, first that isn’t a sentence; it’s a fragment. That gets the “who cares” stuff out of the way and we can move on.
I shoot sometimes twice a week at a range that several LE agencies use for quals so I get to see a some officer qual shoots. They are anything but “high scores”. Some are scary. One could barely reload his gun; others miss – a lot, but still score high enough to qualify. There’s a hint here about why were seeing 25% hits in the field.
The article aptly points out some very real and legitimate reasons as well:
”…So why are hit ratios so low?
(1) Over 80% of shootings occur at night, which makes aiming diffi cult.
(2) Most armed encounters involve movement of the offi cer and/or the subject. Again, hindering aim.
(3) Add the stresses of a life or death situation, and it’s easy to see why so many rounds miss their mark.”
While I agree with the above, I also maintain that there are other equally important reasons. The major heading would be: insufficient training. There are budget constraints and training seems to get a low priority. It is claimed that the majority of officers have little desire to train with their guns. They rarely shoot more than twice a year and then just enough to past the quals.
And another thing that I think is a major reason they miss is the ranges are longer than we have be lead to believe. We have all probably heard that the majority of gunfights take place not much over arm’s length and typically the gunfight ends with 2-3 shots. What is not commonly known is that these stats come from a study in which the officers involved in the gunfight died in the gunfight!
If we think about this for a minute, we have to realize something’s not right. For example, if gunfights really do take place up close, i.e. arms length, how is it that the officers only hit a target within 6 or so feet of them only 17% of the time? I mean, that’s raise the gun and shoot. You don’t need sights, lasers or anything for that. Seventeen percent hit ratio for targets right in your face. It just doesn’t make sense.
What does make sense is a study that revealed that officers that survived a gunfight fired more like 6 shots and the typical range was from 5 to 15 yards; the difference? We’re simply not as accurate at longer ranges. What about officer survival at this range? The BGs can’t hit as good at longer ranges either. Distance is our friend.
It can’t be said enough: Make distance and use you superior shooting skills to end the fight.
”The numbers bear out Lasergrips’ success. Agencies using Crimson Trace Lasergrips are seeing hit ratios of over 90% in offi cer involved shootings. That’s a phenomenal 300%+ improvement over historic levels.”
The numbers don’t agree. If officers are getting 25% hit ratios and CTs improve that by 300%, that means the officers hit ratio goes up to 75%, not the 90% claimed. Think of it like this. You go to the range, set up a B-27 target at 20 feet and fire 100 rounds using iron sights. You count your hits and there are only 25 in the “black” – not the X, 10, or 9 rings, but only 25 in the black.
You repeat the same drill with CTs. You count the hits and there are 75 hits in the black - scary, huh? We’re use to all 100 hits being in the 9 ring or better with maybe a few “fliers” in the 8 ring, but no complete misses. But, that’s what police officers are facing - 75% hits. Why? I think it’s because of the three reasons given in the CT article, plus insufficient training, plus the longer ranges than we have been led to believe.
”...hit ratios from shootings in the field are staggeringly low. The latest NIJ data shows that police officers using traditional sighting and training methods hit their mark only about 25% of the time when shots are fi red. Remember: These are trained professionals. Men and women who must qualify on the range with high scores in order to keep their jobs.”
The hit ratio, 25%, is up from the 17% we used to hear about, so that’s good. But, when is says, ”Men and women who must qualify on the range with high scores in order to keep their jobs.”, first that isn’t a sentence; it’s a fragment. That gets the “who cares” stuff out of the way and we can move on.
I shoot sometimes twice a week at a range that several LE agencies use for quals so I get to see a some officer qual shoots. They are anything but “high scores”. Some are scary. One could barely reload his gun; others miss – a lot, but still score high enough to qualify. There’s a hint here about why were seeing 25% hits in the field.
The article aptly points out some very real and legitimate reasons as well:
”…So why are hit ratios so low?
(1) Over 80% of shootings occur at night, which makes aiming diffi cult.
(2) Most armed encounters involve movement of the offi cer and/or the subject. Again, hindering aim.
(3) Add the stresses of a life or death situation, and it’s easy to see why so many rounds miss their mark.”
While I agree with the above, I also maintain that there are other equally important reasons. The major heading would be: insufficient training. There are budget constraints and training seems to get a low priority. It is claimed that the majority of officers have little desire to train with their guns. They rarely shoot more than twice a year and then just enough to past the quals.
And another thing that I think is a major reason they miss is the ranges are longer than we have be lead to believe. We have all probably heard that the majority of gunfights take place not much over arm’s length and typically the gunfight ends with 2-3 shots. What is not commonly known is that these stats come from a study in which the officers involved in the gunfight died in the gunfight!
If we think about this for a minute, we have to realize something’s not right. For example, if gunfights really do take place up close, i.e. arms length, how is it that the officers only hit a target within 6 or so feet of them only 17% of the time? I mean, that’s raise the gun and shoot. You don’t need sights, lasers or anything for that. Seventeen percent hit ratio for targets right in your face. It just doesn’t make sense.
What does make sense is a study that revealed that officers that survived a gunfight fired more like 6 shots and the typical range was from 5 to 15 yards; the difference? We’re simply not as accurate at longer ranges. What about officer survival at this range? The BGs can’t hit as good at longer ranges either. Distance is our friend.
It can’t be said enough: Make distance and use you superior shooting skills to end the fight.
”The numbers bear out Lasergrips’ success. Agencies using Crimson Trace Lasergrips are seeing hit ratios of over 90% in offi cer involved shootings. That’s a phenomenal 300%+ improvement over historic levels.”
The numbers don’t agree. If officers are getting 25% hit ratios and CTs improve that by 300%, that means the officers hit ratio goes up to 75%, not the 90% claimed. Think of it like this. You go to the range, set up a B-27 target at 20 feet and fire 100 rounds using iron sights. You count your hits and there are only 25 in the “black” – not the X, 10, or 9 rings, but only 25 in the black.
You repeat the same drill with CTs. You count the hits and there are 75 hits in the black - scary, huh? We’re use to all 100 hits being in the 9 ring or better with maybe a few “fliers” in the 8 ring, but no complete misses. But, that’s what police officers are facing - 75% hits. Why? I think it’s because of the three reasons given in the CT article, plus insufficient training, plus the longer ranges than we have been led to believe.
Highly trained professionals my @. The lowliest D class shooter in my USPSA club could out shoot most of them, sure there were some good shots, but they all shot for fun outside of the department.
