Firearms skill assessments and qualification courses of fire include a fixed period of time, par time, in which the stage or skill must be executed. In developing those times, is there a common agreement on the amount that is valid, reasonable, or ideal for each sub-skill associated? I.e. if a drill includes a certain skill, a certain amount of time is necessary.
In reviewing numerous courses of fire designed to test basic minimal law enforcement competencies, trends in timing emerge. They are most commonly:
[ul]
[li]A presentation from a ready position: +1 second
[/li][li]A presentation from a secured duty holster: +1-1.5 seconds
[/li][li]A presentation from concealment: +1-1.5 seconds
[/li][li]A slide-lock reload: +2 seconds
[/li][li]A tactical reload: +3-5 seconds
[/li][li]Each round fired 0-10yds: +1-1.5 seconds
[/li][li]Each round fired 11-25yds: +3-5 seconds
[/li][li]A change to the shooting position: +2-3 seconds
[/li][li]Any of the above from support side: Above, +1-3 seconds
[/li][/ul]
Qualification and testing is not a gunfight, but a minimum standard of competency must be assessed. The standard has to be realistic both in achievement and result though, as well as defensible.
Are these numbers reasonable? In that approximate range, do they constitute a de facto standard for course design?
By “presentation”, do you mean the first shot time? Assuming that’s what you mean, the skill level required is pretty different.
1 second from (assuming low) ready is pretty easy. 1 second from concealment is pretty difficult. Even 1.5 seconds from concealment is much more difficult than 1 second from (assuming low) ready.
No, that’s just the time factor for the starting position. 1-1.5 sec to be ready to go to the next skill execution (discharge of shot) from the specified position. Trying to calculate what is a norm for minimums to accomplish each step in the process.
Yes, it seems slow, but consider the average and the LCD.
A COF/qual measures a minimum level of competency. The skill sub-sets within it are testable items, and should be performed against a quantifiable metric of some sort for validation. “Did well” or “did poorly” aren’t a fixed, repeatable standard, and aren’t as defensible in litigation or labor claims. It is also a stress variable further validating how the need for a skill set is realized and how it is executed, and how readily.
There is also a real-world value in executing it as promptly as possible when performed.
Guys- I have gigs of courses of fire and shooting standards. This isn’t a thread for sharing those, so please don’t post them here.
Rather, this thread is intended to discuss the underlying construction of those standards and how to figure, value, and defend the times utilized.
I have made a recent change to the not scored (buckshot) portion of our shotgun qual. I cannot tamper with any of the standard scored quals. Those standards are set by headquarters and getting them to make a change is like watching glaciers melt. We have tried to take as much “admin” out of the qual as possible to make things as field realistic as we can to put street skillsets into the qual but we are limited. Time standards are one aspect, or measurable standard, hits/shot placement are another. Finding the balance while inducing some stress and increasing shooter skill and confidence is a fine row to hoe, all in one operation.
As for your standards above constituting a defacto standard for course design? No. As for defending them, why would you need to do that? If you’re building a training or qual course, what are the outcomes you intend? Those set the standards, not what someone else thinks (so long as they’re reasonable for the experience level of those attending). That last bit is the key component BTW.
It may have helped to ask that question at the beginning then. If you want to change or add to the question and be annoyed that we didn’t intuit your intentions from your original post, that’s certainly your prerogative. In any event, your original question was if the standards you proposed were reasonable. Part of that would be assessing it against other available sets of standards from reputable trainers. Other parts would be looking at well-established numbers on standardized drills and the ability of your students once they’ve gone through your class(es) mixed with a dash of subjectivity as to what you think is most important. It’s not rocket science.
The point I was trying to make is that you have a list of par times, but it is my opinion that that par times in your list are not consistent in the skill required to achieve them, and I would think you would want that.
Other than that, I don’t get why you wouldn’t want the times to be for the first accurate shot. ‘Presentation’ seems a little tough to judge to me. Maybe this is a common thing in some circles and I’m just not aware of it.
