Shooting too well???

[Iowa #1603]

Did my 218 quals this morning, damn range house mouse refused to believe I placed 15 rds in the same hole.
80% needed to qualify.

I would have given it to you

[tanksoldier]

I have heard during days at the range some officers saying not to shoot too well, and to stay away from shooting perfect scores. They said on the off chance that I was involved in a shooting and a shot missed and hit an innocent those scores would be used against me by an attorney.

False, at least here in CO.

The basic POST qual here REQUIRES a 100% score to pass.

Just be thankful kot wasn't out there when you were qualifying.

We could offer him a job...

[CCCSD]

Where'd you get that picture of law dog 101?

[Chomp]

I used to be a jewelery fan-boy but after having it brought into question, I took them off.

In my neck of the woods wearing your flair is mandatory, depending on your Sarge. I once got my *** chewed and almost got written up for not wearing a CIT pin. Some guys'd "lose" their jewelry, but then Sarge would make you go get a new one and bill it back to the Area Command, which went through the Captain who oh wait I just realized nobody outside of my agency cares.. but hell I already typed this.

[ftttu]

Pass/fail and no shooting badges. Our academy in '90/'91 was the first academy with no shooting badges, but it was years before we stopped recording scores. We like the shooting badges, but we understood why it was a bad idea to wear them.

[codemanski]

"I was still above 90%----------barely"

Just kidding about "old age" Iowa. You know I have the utmost respect for you...always have!

(By the way...I hear S/W is having a sale on .40 cal pencils!)

Ski

[Iowa #1603]

"I was still above 90%----------barely"

Just kidding about "old age" Iowa. You know I have the utmost respect for you...always have!

(By the way...I hear S/W is having a sale on .40 cal pencils!)

Ski

Funny story----------------------back when I was full time Corrections had a time where I barely qualified.........and they had a 70% qual score. I didn't care as long as I qualed...............Then we transitioned into .40's and my score picked up..........into the 80's

Fast forward to retirement & my pt job with the Sheriff & he just wanted us to qualify (80 or above) on the "easy" course (read that as no officer left behind in service course) my scores went into the 90's (back to where they were when I was a deputy shooting a 357)

We got two new range instructors who told the sheriff THEY wanted to only fire the ILEA qual course so that is what I am shooting now----the same course all peace officers do in the state................and into the mid 90's most of the time

None of the above makes any sense------------------

[codemanski]

Funny story----------------------back when I was full time Corrections had a time where I barely qualified.........and they had a 70% qual score. I didn't care as long as I qualed...............Then we transitioned into .40's and my score picked up..........into the 80's

Fast forward to retirement & my pt job with the Sheriff & he just wanted us to qualify (80 or above) on the "easy" course (read that as no officer left behind in service course) my scores went into the 90's (back to where they were when I was a deputy shooting a 357)

We got two new range instructors who told the sheriff THEY wanted to only fire the ILEA qual course so that is what I am shooting now----the same course all peace officers do in the state................and into the mid 90's most of the time

None of the above makes any sense------------------

I hear you. In my present position, I also have to fire the ILEA course, and although I don't consistently hit in the 90's, I still manage to qualify with my 17. For some reason, my score improves with my 21. Go figure. Do you think it's all in my head?

[Iowa #1603]

I hear you. In my present position, I also have to fire the ILEA course, and although I don't consistently hit in the 90's, I still manage to qualify with my 17. For some reason, my score improves with my 21. Go figure. Do you think it's all in my head?

I think it what you are comfortable with

I really liked my M&P (so much so when we issued G22's I bought the gun) and shot in the high 80's low 90's

I don't really "like" the Glock--------------but am shooting consistently in the low to mid 90's with it

THAT by the way is with TRIFOCALs------------------




Bu the way......................I hate to qualify.............I love to shoot but I hate going out to qualify. THAT is in my head

[ateamer]

We went to pass/fail in 1990. At a couple recent rsnge days I used the Colorado POST qual for our qualification course. It's actually not that tough a course of fire.

Oh, and that instructor who said to not shoot the best you can should be retrained or dismissed.

[GangGreen712]

The rumors about what not to do with guns because of how it could look if you're ever involved in any self-defense situations are astoundingly stupid in many cases. I've heard:

Never take any training classes, because the police, and later juries, will see you as a militia-type gun nut who has an itchy trigger finger.

If you have martial arts, law enforcement, or combat training, you must register your hands and feet as lethal weapons and cannot physically defend yourself in anything less than a deadly force scenario.

Never use any gun except a double barreled shotgun or competition pistol to defend yourself in your home. If you use a home defense shotgun, semi-auto rifle, or semi-auto pistol, you'll be seen as a loose cannon and will likely lose any criminal or civil case brought against you.

Now, if you're a cop and too good of a shot, it works against you if you miss in an OIS situation? Makes no logical sense.

[hemicop]

I got news for the OP & veterans here----they'll use it against you, IMO, depending on who you are.
I shot at & missed a violent, fleeing felon I witnessed comitting a crime (armed car-jacking) once. The Use of Force Board had (typically) asked what my target was. "The suspect." was my reply. They then asked WHERE on the suspect was I trying to hit. "Center of mass." Well, in their opinion since I had scored in the high 230/low 240 range (250 =100%) I should've been able to hit him so the shooting was found "out of policy" & I got suspended for 2 weeks. An appeal brought it down to 1 week.
At the appeal hearing the Hearing Officer asked both the IAD Sgt. & an ***'t Chief what the correct response should have been. Both said (& I'm not kidding!) "I don't know but not that!".
Now I imagine a good attorney would ask at what point IS someone passing or failing their qualification and the dept. would be backed into a corner--is 50% good enough? How about 60% or 40? I don't have problem with qualifying (naturally) I am of the opinion your score could be used against you.

[Iowa #1603]

I got news for the OP & veterans here----they'll use it against you, IMO, depending on who you are.
I shot at & missed a violent, fleeing felon I witnessed comitting a crime (armed car-jacking) once. The Use of Force Board had (typically) asked what my target was. "The suspect." was my reply. They then asked WHERE on the suspect was I trying to hit. "Center of mass." Well, in their opinion since I had scored in the high 230/low 240 range (250 =100%) I should've been able to hit him so the shooting was found "out of policy" & I got suspended for 2 weeks. An appeal brought it down to 1 week.
At the appeal hearing the Hearing Officer asked both the IAD Sgt. & an ***'t Chief what the correct response should have been. Both said (& I'm not kidding!) "I don't know but not that!".
Now I imagine a good attorney would ask at what point IS someone passing or failing their qualification and the dept. would be backed into a corner--is 50% good enough? How about 60% or 40? I don't have problem with qualifying (naturally) I am of the opinion your score could be used against you.

EVERYTHING will be used against you.....................so it really doesn't matter what you say or do

The bottom line is --------------this has been floating around the law enforcement community forever. It's basically a joke and a joke answer.

Besides everyone knows that high scores on the range does not necessarily equate to excellent shot placement in real life

[MCAPO]

I remember asking this very said question to the lead firearms instructor and range master - basically said in the years he has taught; there was only one guy he could remember - older guy who worked for AZ DPS - would always fire an almost perfect and "dumped a round" somewhere - 248/249s out of 250 possible. Wasn't a coincidence every time.

I know our targets are not collected but the scores are tallied and marked on the actual paper targets and than they are PASS/FAIL and chance to re-qualify or whatever should someone miss out of the 70% qualifying mark(s) -

Iowa - that's crazy that you even hit the timed drills - with all that gun power loading and lighting a fuse - there is no way you could get off enough rounds in time. That's beyond high master if you ask me!

[Kieth M.]

I worked LAPD for 30 years. The crowning achievement of my police-shooting life was when I made the Distinguished Expert (DX) rank. I was proud of wearing that medal, just as Adam-12's Pete Malloy character did. There was an extra $64 a month, too, for a year while I held the rating. I stand in abject disbelief whenever departments go to pass/fail, rather than recognize marksmanship levels. I have heard, for years, that same line..."yeah, some plaintiff's attorney will bring up the fact a cop shoots DX and then wonder why he didn't 'shoot to wound' his client"

LAPD has a reputation of being sued with so much regularity that we (still) maintain a whole division of cops to do the investigative work to assist the deputy city attorney's defending the department. The status of an officer's marksmanship level has, to my knowledge, NEVER been brought up. Trust me that if it WAS an issue, which cost the department/city money, the practice of shooting medals and cash bonuses would go the way of the dodo.