I’ve shot at a wide variety of targets throughout the years. Some were just paper plates; others were elaborate, electronically controlled human torsos capable of life-like movement. Each type has its place, and those of us who have immersed ourselves in perfecting our combative shooting skills understand what each target represents—the relatively small areas of the body vital for sustaining life.
Handguns suck as tools of rapid incapacitation, but they’re portable. LEOs rely on them when instant deadly force is reasonable and needed. The shotgun and carbine are much better for this, but what are the chances you’ll have the bigger gun when a threat presents itself? If you know a fight is coming, you might want to take a sick day. Those who understand human conflict understand that no matter how skilled you are, there’s always a chance of losing.
However, if you’re on the job and a hot call comes in, you can arm yourself appropriately before deploying. What if the situation turns bad in front of you without warning? Many claim the handgun should be used “to fight yourself to a better gun” and, although I understand the sentiment, you’ll probably fight with what you have at the time the fight starts. Reality stinks, doesn’t it?
The fact remains that law officers need to be good with their handguns. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like to shoot. You selected this profession voluntarily and that means that you will confront an armed individual sometime before you retire—maybe multiple times. Remember: Your chief or sheriff won’t be there, so firearms skills aren’t for your agency; they’re for you. If you can’t shoot well enough to save your own life, then it’s you who will die. You owe it to yourself to have the best skills possible, and this will require commitment on your part.
Two to three practice sessions a year does not a shooter make. But if that’s all that’s being provided, those sessions should be the very best the agency can provide. A quality program is the result of an innovative and knowledgeable instructor. Yes, having a well-equipped facility is nice, but it won’t make up for an instructor who’s unskilled.
Remember: Qualification is not training! It’s merely a test. Training, on the other hand, is the building and refining of skills. I’m surprised by the number of certified police firearms instructors who don’t understand how to look for and correct shooting mistakes, and don’t understand the physiology behind them.
A proper combative firearms training program must include skill building in three areas: fundamentals (how to run a gun), combative aspects (how to fight with the chosen weapon), and interactive aspects (e.g., force-on-force scenarios, crisis decision making and proving the skills taught in the other levels work). Without all three, officers will never be truly prepared for armed conflict.
I’ve had many instructors tell me that they just don’t have the time for all of this. I’ve been there, but this is where one must be innovative. NYPD has 40,000 cops to put through firearms training in any given year. They don’t have a lot of time with each officer, but they win far more confrontations than they loose. How? They study the problem and make the most of the time they have. You can too.
Just Any Target Won’t Do
You must give proper thought to what type of targets you use. Notice that I said targets—plural. A single style target won’t accomplish the task.
As I talk with instructors across the country, I always ask what targets they use. I want to hear their thoughts on how and why they do what they do. I’m disappointed, for the most part, that many instructors are more fixated on having their own agency target than truly understanding what they want the target for. Many of these targets have so many shapes, symbols and add-on targeting devices on them that they look less like targets and more like circus advertisements. Oftentimes, the target is created based on a target design used by an instructor/institution that they attended. Understand that such targets are often designed to build certain skills or complete certain drills and may not be the best choice for in-service training.
Ask yourself, “What am I trying to accomplish?” We have known since the research of S.L.A. Marshall and Lt. Col. Dave Grossman that targets are important. They prepare fighters to engage the enemy where bull’s-eyes and other non-human shapes do not. The soldier or cop who trains on a target that looks like a actual person is more likely to engage a living, breathing attacker than one who has never done so.
In addition, training on a realistic target better prepares the student for the combative and interactive aspects of the process. Have you ever experienced someone who just can’t bring themselves to point a gun at another human? They often express safety concerns (never point your gun at anything you’re not willing to shoot, kill or destroy) as the reason they’re refusing to do so. But you can see the look on their face and know they’re simply uncomfortable pointing a gun at a human.
During my classes, I’ll have my students disable their guns by plugging the barrel of their pistol in such a way so the gun cannot physically chamber a round. Afterward, I walk in front of the line so I can see how they present their gun from both ready position and the holster, because this angle just gives me a better view of the physical process. I correct them as necessary.
I also want them to get used to confronting a live protagonist at the end of their gun. Approximately 25% of students won’t do it! I know the gun can’t fire because I render it inoperable, but they still refuse to point the gun in my direction. Even after I tell them it’s OK and they aren’t violating any safety rules, they still refuse. Once the drill is over, they tell me they’ll point the gun at a “real bad guy” when the time comes—but will they really?
Training targets not only need to reflect reality, they also need to offer different angles of confrontation. Gunfights are fluid affairs. If a combatant stands still during a fight, it’s probably because they didn’t know they were in a fight. If they did, they’d be moving to some location where it would be less likely they’ll be shot. Thus, training targets must represent a wide variety of possible confrontational angles.
A 3-D target would be best, but this is difficult when multiple shooters are on the line, so targets of varied angles can provide this visual representation. Paper targets must be progressive in that they offer different angles, as well as harder shots, to achieve incapacitation. We all realize that the areas of the body that cause rapid incapacitation are small and these areas should be what we teach our students to look and shoot for, but shot placement must be trained. Students must be shown these areas and then trained to look/shoot for them quickly at varied angles.
In Sum
Ensure your target reflects the reality of confrontation. Don’t accept crappy hits in the interest of getting officers “qualified.” As Mel Gibson said in The Patriot, “Aim small; miss small.”
In the end, if you require a high level of skill on the range, you’ll likely get it back on the street. Lack of desire on their part doesn’t justify lackadaisical performance on your part. Stay alert, stay safe and check your 360 often.