# What is handgun competency to you



## Runs With Fire (Feb 27, 2018)

My cpl class competency test, at the end of the course, is to fire two magazines  or ten rounds in a seven inch circle at fifteen yards in something like fifteen seconds (forgot exactly how much).  I'll accept that as basic accuracy;.  Nothing to write home to mom about, but a good starting point. 
        I couldn't hit a three foot cardboard box at twenty yards when I first used a pistol (Glock 20),  that range day was a humbling and expensive disappointment.   On an average day, I'll hit my 4" spinning target fairly consistently at 20 yards.  My wife is a bit behind me but we work on it.  I plan on hunting whitetail with my glock this year.  I struggle to have a 12" group at 50 yards.  I'm  still working on it.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 27, 2018)

Competent—-you safely draw and fire the weapon and hit a silhouette within 15 yards every time.

Also can you safely load and unload the weapon.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Feb 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Competent—-you safely draw and fire the weapon and hit a silhouette within 15 yards every time.
> 
> Also can you safely load and unload the weapon.


Sounds practical to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Competent—-you safely draw and fire the weapon and hit a silhouette within 15 yards every time.
> 
> Also can you safely load and unload the weapon.


I'd agree this is one measure of minimum competency. Not one used in any CCW class I've ever seen (the liability for drawing from a holster apparently is too much for their insurance), unfortunately.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 28, 2018)

Runs With Fire said:


> My cpl class competency test, at the end of the course, is to fire two magazines  or ten rounds in a seven inch circle at fifteen yards in something like fifteen seconds (forgot exactly how much).  I'll accept that as basic accuracy;.  Nothing to write home to mom about, but a good starting point.
> I couldn't hit a three foot cardboard box at twenty yards when I first used a pistol (Glock 20),  that range day was a humbling and expensive disappointment.   On an average day, I'll hit my 4" spinning target fairly consistently at 20 yards.  My wife is a bit behind me but we work on it.  I plan on hunting whitetail with my glock this year.  I struggle to have a 12" group at 50 yards.  I'm  still working on it.


There are hundreds of different, competing, "competency" "standards" out there.  Every state has a State Police handgun standard and many independent police departments have a different standard.  And some states have a different standard for Security Guards.  And most of the big name instructors/schools have one or more differing sets of standards.  Often these schools will have several standards of incrementally increasing difficulty.

The whole idea of "minimum standards" is receiving a lot of attention in the firearms community now.

Here are some links with discussions on what constitutes standards and some links with many of those standards, including some with incrementally increasing standards (NRA Winchester Marksmanship for one).

Handgun World Podcast – top 10 drills, plus 2
Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol
Minimum standards – functional vs. legal
minimum competency | Stuff From Hsoi
NRA Explore | Marksmanship Qualification Program
NRA Explore | Courses of Fire
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/HandgunStandards1.pdf
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/HandgunStandards2.pdf
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/HandgunStandards3.pdf
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/HandgunStandards4.pdf

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## wab25 (Feb 28, 2018)

I believe any minimum competency standard should include an awareness of what is "down range." 


Can you clearly identify who or what your target is?
What is between your gun and the target?
What is between your target and where the bullet stops?
What are you going to hit when you miss the target completely?


----------



## Buka (Feb 28, 2018)

I think it's going to be different to different people. And different to the same person as they gain experience. I think your competency level can also vary with each of your firearms, if you have more than one firearm that is.

To me, it entails more than it might for others. It entails retaining your weapon in close quarters when someone is on you, and not because someone told you how to do that. Drawing under adverse and emergency conditions. Being smooth. Being smooth is huge, it will save you time, maybe save your life.

Being aware of everything around you when drawing. Being aware of target background, have to see it, notice it, process it.. _as_ your drawing, not when you start firing. You have to have your mind locked on the constant mantra of front sight, front sight, front sight. 

And always keep in mind one very important thing - *if you carry, every single place you go - there is going to be at least one firearm present*. 

Every single place you go.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 3, 2018)

On the side I teach CCW courses.  My course is about 20 hours of class and practicals before at least one ranges session.  The basics I cover for competency are:


Applicable carry laws.
Nomenclature.
Official statistics (FBI, CDC etc) on defensive shootings.
Familiarization with their person firearm.
Safety loading and unloading the firearm.
Malfunction and clearance drills.
Reloading and tactical reloading.
One-handed reloading and malfunction drills with either hand.
Shooting with either hand.
Weapon retention.
Specific on-range drills. 
I'll include other specifics if necessary such as topics on long gun.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 3, 2018)

I should add, in addition to being a State Certified Police Firearms Instructor I am also an Israeli Shooting Instructor.  If the student wishes to learn Israeli Carry i.e. full magazine with empty chamber, I am qualified to teach that.

If they are using a revolver I am qualified to teach that also.


----------



## CB Jones (May 3, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I should add, in addition to being a State Certified Police Firearms Instructor I am also an Israeli Shooting Instructor.  If the student wishes to learn Israeli Carry i.e. full magazine with empty chamber, I am qualified to teach that.
> 
> If they are using a revolver I am qualified to teach that also.



I like the Point shooting but not big on carrying with an empty chamber.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I like the Point shooting but not big on carrying with an empty chamber.



This pretty well sums up my opinion on Israeli carry...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 4, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> This pretty well sums up my opinion on Israeli carry...


I love that guy. I'm going to have to watch more of his videos. Now I know how I'm going to avoid working today.

EDIT: All of my weapon defense training from now on will defend against the "fast stroll" attacker.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

Israeli carry is fast, effective and combat proven.  As a methodology of training, I've found that those that are proficient are vastly better trained than those that typically choose to carry with one in the chamber.  There are exceptions of course, but in general I've found this to be the case the vast majority of the time. This is because of the overall material included in the method (some of which I've detailed in my first post).  While I like Yankee Marshall, he is not the source I would use for a qualified opinion on IC.  That would be like asking someone that is somewhat familiar with knives to explain open heart surgery.  In other words, he isn't qualified to have an opinion on the subject because he isn't familiar nor proficient in the method.  Sure he (or anyone) is entitled to their opinion.  But unless they've properly trained and have experience that opinion is fairly meaningless.  And unfortunately those that are ignorant of the methodology often spout things that aren't factual.  

I've lived in the Middle East and have family that still live there and serve or have served in the IDF.  They would run circles around most that carry in this country because of the totality of the methodology of training.  

Some of the arguments:


_It's slower than chambered carry_.  Not if you're proficient and properly trained.  
_You need both hands_.  No, you don't.  And to be honest, if you aren't proficient in how to reload or clear malfunctions using only one hand then you are kidding yourself about your level of training or preparedness in a real world threat situation.  And I typically find that to be the case.  A person buys a firearm and may even have been around firearms all their life.  They may even have a bunch of firearms.  They go to the range (static and controlled environment that in no way simulates combat shooting) and shoot for a good group. Yet they've never practiced one-handed or with either strong or support hand.  They shoot from standing rather than prone, on their back, on their side, or any number of positions that real life can require.  Most don't know how to clear a malfunction much less know how to do so with one hand.  Most shoot on that static range rather than under duress and adrenaline dump in combat conditions.  And they build themselves a false sense of security.  IC on the other hand is pure combat shooting that goes beyond empty chamber.  It addresses all of these topics and more.
_You can't fight H2H using this method._  Yes, you can.

As part of my training to become an instructor I had to pick up my partner in a fireman's carry (as though he was wounded and unconscious).  I then had to run to cover while drawing from concealment, chambering a round one-handed and engage three threats live fire.  Another drill was fighting off an attacker from the rear while chambering one-handed and engaging threats to the front live fire.  In timed drills I was maybe 2/10ths of a second slower drawing from cover, chambering and firing one round on target as opposed to simply drawing and firing one round on target.  2/10ths of a second isn't a time lag that is of any concern in the real world.  And of course IC is inherently safer when reholstering as well as weapon retention.  

The video in the first post of this link is a fair representation.

Israeli Carry


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Israeli carry is fast, effective and combat proven.



No. You cannot change the laws of physics. Israeli carry _*cannot*_ be as fast as carrying with one in the chamber. It is impossible. How proficient you are has nothing to do with it. Draw, aim, fire will _*always*_ be faster than draw, load, aim, fire.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> And of course IC is inherently safer when reholstering as well as weapon retention.


Wait, how are you getting back to condition 3 before reholstering, when your magazine isn't empty? I'm familiar with (but not trained) in most of the other concepts and tactics you mention, but this one has me scratching my head.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 4, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. You cannot change the laws of physics. Israeli carry _*cannot*_ be as fast as carrying with one in the chamber. It is impossible. How proficient you are has nothing to do with it. Draw, aim, fire will _*always*_ be faster than draw, load, aim, fire.


At the very least, it's more complex.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> While I like Yankee Marshall, he is not the source I would use for a qualified opinion on IC.



Just curious....what are your qualifications?

You stated your a State certified police firearms instructor.....do you work for an agency as a firearms instructor?


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> At the very least, it's more complex.



That is one of the things I dislike like the most about it.

When your life is on the line the simplest method is the best.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. You cannot change the laws of physics. Israeli carry _*cannot*_ be as fast as carrying with one in the chamber. It is impossible. How proficient you are has nothing to do with it. Draw, aim, fire will _*always*_ be faster than draw, load, aim, fire.



As I stated above, the differential in time in inconsequential.  We are talking a couple/few tenths of a second if/when comparing two individuals that are equally trained.  While a time differential of a full second 'may' be a factor, tenths of a second aren't.  And to expand further, a person proficient in IC on average is going to be much better trained than someone that isn't.  So yes, someone that is highly trained and proficient can be faster than someone that isn't trained to that level.  I am not Superman, but I am highly trained in this method.  Quite a bit of the time I can draw, chamber and fire faster than the guy next to me that isn't trained as extensively.  Again and to be clear, that isn't a boast.  Simply that because I'm an instructor in this method I take it seriously enough to be as proficient as I can possibly be.  The masses that, while somewhat proficient with a firearm, simply aren't highly trained with one.  

And to be clear again, one does not have to be a gun-ninja in order to effect self defense.  My points above are that most don't fully understand what they should know and if they are fortunate enough to defend themselves without Mr. Murphy showing up they were more lucky than they were skilled.  While I'll take all the luck I can get, I don't want to depend on it should the gun malfunction or I find myself in other than a standing position or I find myself having to do one-handed manipulations.  



gpseymour said:


> Wait, how are you getting back to condition 3 before reholstering, when your magazine isn't empty? I'm familiar with (but not trained) in most of the other concepts and tactics you mention, but this one has me scratching my head.



Let me clarify, not every draw necessitates the gun firing.  I'm referring to drawing the weapon administratively such as doing a check or placing the firearm in storage and then retrieving it.  Although not a daily occurrence (I hope) I've seen people draw their gun (for whatever reason such as to place in or take out of a locker) and drop it.  Although a modern firearm should have a drop safety, it is something I'd rather not rely on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> As I stated above, the differential in time in inconsequential.  We are talking a couple/few tenths of a second if/when comparing two individuals that are equally trained.  While a time differential of a full second 'may' be a factor, tenths of a second aren't.  And to expand further, a person proficient in IC on average is going to be much better trained than someone that isn't.  So yes, someone that is highly trained and proficient can be faster than someone that isn't trained to that level.  I am not Superman, but I am highly trained in this method.  Quite a bit of the time I can draw, chamber and fire faster than the guy next to me that isn't trained as extensively.  Again and to be clear, that isn't a boast.  Simply that because I'm an instructor in this method I take it seriously enough to be as proficient as I can possibly be.  The masses that, while somewhat proficient with a firearm, simply aren't highly trained with one.
> 
> And to be clear again, one does not have to be a gun-ninja in order to effect self defense.  My points above are that most don't fully understand what they should know and if they are fortunate enough to defend themselves without Mr. Murphy showing up they were more lucky than they were skilled.  While I'll take all the luck I can get, I don't want to depend on it should the gun malfunction or I find myself in other than a standing position or I find myself having to do one-handed manipulations.
> 
> ...


That makes sense.

As to your above point, that's an advantage of someone being trained more, rather than an advantage of IC. I prefer not to confound the two. Just because the average IC user is more trained than the average carrier, that is not really an argument for or against either - rather, it's an argument for training. Personally, I'd rather be highly trained in a slightly more complex method than untrained in a really simple method. But that says nothing about the value of either method; I'd just rather be highly trained than untrained.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Just curious....what are your qualifications?
> 
> You stated your a State certified police firearms instructor.....do you work for an agency as a firearms instructor?



Yes.  I'm am a State certified instructor in firearms and defensive tactics and have taught academies, EOT and in-service.  I'm 27 years into my career as a Deputy for one of the largest agencies in my state.  Additionally, I have several advanced instructor certifications, one of which is as an Israeli Instinctive Shooting Instructor which is the IC method plus other tactics.  My BIL, niece and nephew are or were active IDF (detective, presidential protection (PM actually as well as visiting dignitaries).  I also have credentials in Executive Protection and in the military.  

None of this is said as a pat on the back, I've just been fortunate to have had the opportunity to take a lot of high level training over a very long career.  I'm still on-the-job and still learning.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> As I stated above, the differential in time in inconsequential.



Right. So as I said, it's slower. Thanks for admitting it. And it's more complicated. Which means more prone to error.
You can rationalize it in any way that makes you happy.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes.  I'm am a State certified instructor in firearms and defensive tactics and have taught academies, EOT and in-service.  I'm 27 years into my career as a Deputy for one of the largest agencies in my state.  Additionally, I have several advanced instructor certifications, one of which is as an Israeli Instinctive Shooting Instructor which is the IC method plus other tactics.  My BIL, niece and nephew are or were active IDF (detective, presidential protection (PM actually as well as visiting dignitaries).  I also have credentials in Executive Protection and in the military.
> 
> None of this is said as a pat on the back, I've just been fortunate to have had the opportunity to take a lot of high level training over a very long career.  I'm still on-the-job and still learning.



Your Agency allows and/or teaches Israeli Carry?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That makes sense.
> 
> As to your above point, that's an advantage of someone being trained more, rather than an advantage of IC. I prefer not to confound the two. Just because the average IC user is more trained than the average carrier, that is not really an argument for or against either - rather, it's an argument for training. Personally, I'd rather be highly trained in a slightly more complex method than untrained in a really simple method. But that says nothing about the value of either method; I'd just rather be highly trained than untrained.



Normally I am all for keeping things as stupid simple as I possibly can.  And to be honest, prior to becoming an instructor in the method I was skeptical (the whole class was mainly because we were all instructors in other methods and doubted the voracity of IC).  After taking the class, well, while being the most painful firearms course I've ever taken it was also 'flat out and hands down' the best...by far!  Pure combat shooting.  

So it goes down to the old saying of, 'if it looks stupid but it works...it's not stupid'.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Your Agency allows and/or teaches Israeli Carry?



No, policy dictates a round chambered because not everyone has been trained in the method.  Fiscally it is difficult to do that level of training with thousands of Deputies.  Particularly when tens of thousands of dollars have already been spent on each Deputy in another methodology from the Academy and up.

However, our regional training center offers this training which is where I became an instructor.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, policy dictates a round chambered because not everyone has been trained in the method.



If that method is better....Why not change policy that if trained in method the deputy is allowed to use that method.  Furthermore, from this point on start training all new hires in this method and phase out the old method with time.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> If that method is better....Why not change policy that if trained in method the deputy is allowed to use that method.  Furthermore, from this point on start training all new hires in this method and phase out the old method with time.



Couple of issues.  First, it would have to change on a state-wide level.  Recruits are taught in an academy, in a regional training center.  The outline is one that is approved by the state's L.E. standards and training.  By statute and state policy certain things have to be taught the same for standardization purposes.  That way Officer so-in-so in a small rural dept. has the same mandated firearms and DT training as Deputy so-in-so in a large dept.  At least that is the theory.  It often ends at the academy level unfortunately.  Only then are the recruits sent to the agency that hired and/or sponsored them for orientation and field training.  

Now imagine a dept. like mine that has 2K+ sworn.  You'd have to retrain each new hire to the new methodology that in part differs from the methodology they just learned and qualified in to graduate.  In addition you'd have to implement a program to retrain veteran officers/Deputies otherwise you'd have a mix-match of training which is unsound in a tactical situation.  All of this while you are still having state mandated training in all the other areas a Deputy is required to be re-certified in i.e. DT, CPR, AED, Baton, ASR, less-than-lethal, bean bag, long gun, driving, CIT, ethics, law, blood borne pathogens and the list goes on and on and on.  I can't speak for any other state or their departments but we are always being updated in training or recertifying or learning new stuff.  For example, Taser just changed procedures so everyone department wide gets updated.  

All of that with a training staff already obligated in fifty other projects as well.  It just isn't feasible or physically possible even if the training staff were increased substantially.  And then this goes into the fiscal aspect.  We already go through who knows how many rounds in a year for normal training.  That costs money, both for the FMJ training rounds (to include .380, .38, 9mm and .45) but also the GD hollowpoints issued.  Duty round is .45acp but off-duty the other calibers are authorized which means $ has to be spent in all those other calibers for training and qualification.  

The state isn't about to change their standards.  First because there are those that don't understand the methodology or what the system offers as a whole.  Secondly, again the budget.  All the instructors statewide would have to be retrained into the methodology. Just isn't going to happen. 

However, the method is valid on an individual basis for those (CCW holders) that would like to learn.  That's why I teach it if it is desired.  At the very least, all the stuff I mentioned in my first post should be incorporated into training regardless of actual carry method.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> If that method is better....



And to clarify, I'm not stating that it is _better_.  Only that if properly trained it _can_ be better overall.  That boils down to the commitment of the individual.  Also that the system simply works regardless of anyone like YM that offers an unqualified opinion to the contrary.

And I like YM and subscribe to his channel.  He's a hoot sometimes and I often agree with him on stuff.  But this is an area that he's not qualified to have a valid opinion.  Sure, he can have an opinion, but an opinion is only worth what backs it up.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Still I find it hard to believe if that was a better method or as good a method that your department couldn’t put into place a policy authorizing you to carry IC if you were trained and certified in that method.

That policy could easily be written before lunch.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Again I like the point shooting but I disagree with carrying with an empty chamber.
In that we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

We might not be on the same sheet of music. If you’re talking about on duty, it is not logistically, or financially possible. If you’re talking about off-duty, then it is possible. I can carry IC off-duty if I want to.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Again I like the point shooting but I disagree with carrying with an empty chamber.
> In that we will have to agree to disagree.



 I tell people to carry as they were trained. I also tell people, to get as much training as possible, with whatever method they choose.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

Also, it is not my mission to change how people carry. But as an instructor, fluent in both methodologies, I feel a duty to point out inaccurate statements and false information when I see it.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> We might not be on the same sheet of music. If you’re talking about on duty, it is not logistically, or financially possible. If you’re talking about off-duty, then it is possible. I can carry IC off-duty if I want to.



No....it would not take anything but ink and paper to include into policy that anyone certified in IC may carry IC if they choose.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

I’m just trying to understand why certify you in IC if the department doesn’t allow it.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> No....it would not take anything but ink and paper to include into policy that anyone certified in IC may carry IC if they choose.



That isn’t true.  Waving a magic pen without consideration of uniform tactics is unsound.  For example, our dept issues the same duty weapon, same ammo, same holsters for consistency of tactics and training.  Some agencies allow staff to carry on duty any weapon they want and can qualify with.  That’s not a sound strategy.  Let’s say you and I are partners.  I carry a Glock in .45acp.  You carry an HK 9mm with a thumb safety.  One of us goes down or runs low on ammo or has a malfunction involving a magazine.  Are you familiar with a Glock .45?  Am I familiar with an HK with a thumb safety?  Our ammunition and mags are not compatible so we have no available options to exchange for malfunction clearance or ammonia shortage.  Tactically unsound.  Same if you have some Officers carrying in a different condition.  Things go south and under stress it is beneficial for all involved to be as in sync as possible.




CB Jones said:


> I’m just trying to understand why certify you in IC if the department doesn’t allow it.



Dept didn’t certify me, regional training center offered the instructors only course put on by the Israeli’s.  As an instructor I feel an obligation to advance as much as possible, not only for my own benefit but to offer the mst I can to a student.  Even without empty chamber as a factor the tactics offered in that course were invaluable.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 4, 2018)

Kong Soo Do said:


> That isn’t true.  Waving a magic pen without consideration of uniform tactics is unsound.  For example, our dept issues the same duty weapon, same ammo, same holsters for consistency of tactics and training.  Some agencies allow staff to carry on duty any weapon they want and can qualify with.  That’s not a sound strategy.  Let’s say you and I are partners.  I carry a Glock in .45acp.  You carry an HK 9mm with a thumb safety.  One of us goes down or runs low on ammo or has a malfunction involving a magazine.  Are you familiar with a Glock .45?  Am I familiar with an HK with a thumb safety?  Our ammunition and mags are not compatible so we have no available options to exchange for malfunction clearance or ammonia shortage.  Tactically unsound.  Same if you have some Officers carrying in a different condition.  Things go south and under stress it is beneficial for all involved to be as in sync as possible.



So officers aren't smart enough to figure out a thumb safety, but the added complication of loading the gun (under stress) prior to firing isn't important.


----------



## Buka (May 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> No....it would not take anything but ink and paper to include into policy that anyone certified in IC may carry IC if they choose.



I've mostly worked in Law Enforcement in Massachusetts and Hawaii. Getting _anything_ changed, about _anything_ - takes forever. If at all.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 4, 2018)

Buka said:


> I've mostly worked in Law Enforcement in Massachusetts and Hawaii. Getting _anything_ changed, about _anything_ - takes forever. If at all.



But that's more a matter of Cultural Inertia, than actual ability.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> So officers aren't smart enough to figure out a thumb safety, but the added complication of loading the gun (under stress) prior to firing isn't important.



Lets take a close look at your question.  Officers are people.  People react the way they've trained under stress/duress.  Unlike Hollywood portrayals, Officers don't shoot three people before lunch or shoot down helicopters with a 9mm.  So to begin, I discussed similarity of tactics, holsters and weapons.  I have a triple retention holster on duty.  I'm pretty darn quick getting the weapon out of that triple retention holster because I've done so in training and for real thousands upon thousands of time.  If you have no familiarity with that holster, and you were under duress such as being shot at it would take time to be able to draw from that holster.  Doesn't mean your not 'smart enough' as you put it.  It means that under duress it is going to take you time with an unfamiliar piece of equipment.  How much time will vary from individual to individual.  Same with any firearm you're not familiar with.  If you aren't a 'gun' person (and most Officers aren't) and you are only familiar with what you've been trained with then you may indeed have a level of difficulty with an unfamiliar weapon.  A good example would be an 'American' mag release vs. a European mag release such as on the Walther or HK.  It can be figured out, but under duress it becomes more difficult.

Secondly, you use the misinformation of 'added complication of loading'.  Well, if the person is trained in IC then it isn't an added complication now is it.  It is simply one added step that has been trained for by rote that is no more difficult than using your thumb to drop a mag or using the other hand to grab a fresh mag while your dropping the mag with your thumb.  I've done it under duress and since I've trained for it...no added complication.  Simply doing the steps necessary to accomplish a task that has been trained for repeatedly.

So your comparing apples and oranges and thus your argument has no validity.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 4, 2018)

Buka said:


> I've mostly worked in Law Enforcement in Massachusetts and Hawaii. Getting _anything_ changed, about _anything_ - takes forever. If at all.



Yep.  I've tried for years to get .40 S&W to be an authorized round.  Won't happen.  First, because the authorized list predates the existence of .40 S&W and no one wants to update it.  Secondly because of the fiscal increase to buy both training and HP ammunition.



Dirty Dog said:


> But that's more a matter of Cultural Inertia, than actual ability.



It is more a matter of logistics and fiscal considerations.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Buka said:


> I've mostly worked in Law Enforcement in Massachusetts and Hawaii. Getting _anything_ changed, about _anything_ - takes forever. If at all.



Luckily, we don’t have that trouble.  Our command staff typically takes our recommendations especially if it has to do with safety.

For us, instructors become subject matter experts.  We are assigned to working groups that update/write/create/test P&P and tactics as needed in our field of expertise.

We propose the changes to the command staff who will accept, deny, or ask us to re-examine it.

Probably 1/3 of the members in the groups are full time instructors who are continuously testing the tactics in controlled settings while the other 2/3s are part time instructors who are still working in the field.


----------



## Buka (May 4, 2018)

I currently carry without one in the chamber. But I am living on another planet, so usual applicable things are completely moot.

And, yes, I've trained hundreds of hours this way. And I can rack a slide as fast as anyone I know, with or without the use of my hands. But I do know many guys on the mainland that don't carry one in the chamber.

But, CB, want me to blow your mind? Tell you something you probably won't believe about my department?


----------



## Brian King (May 4, 2018)

Hat tip, nice to see educated and respectful conversation on a topic that is more than a passion to some. Thanks all.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

Buka said:


> But, CB, want me to blow your mind? Tell you something you probably won't believe about my department?


----------



## Buka (May 4, 2018)

Okay, and I even have this in writing. It's about the use of force continuum we use.....which is none at all.

If a suspect pulls a knife, you cannot, may not, will not pull your side arm. You can ONLY PULL A KNIFE. You can only equal the threat.

Apparently they want to encourage knife fighting in an airport. And, God forbid should that happen, and I do what any reasonable LEO would/should do, and perhaps get fired.....I'll be renaming that airport in a couple of years to Buka's Place. Kind of a catchy ring I think.

Told you it was going to blow your mind.


----------



## CB Jones (May 4, 2018)

@Buka 







That's Crazy!


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (May 5, 2018)

Lots of great points in this thread, and I'm especially intrigued by the discussion of Israeli Carry... I've always had a thing for a good 1911, but I don't like the idea of carrying an SAO weapon with a round in the chamber for EDC, hence why I usually carry a decocked DA/SA or a striker fired. I may look into the Israeli Carry method ad reevaluate the 1911 as a viable option.

As for the question of competence, I would say, as others in the thread have said, that a big component of overall competency is being able to shoot under pressure. I had my first experience with this at a USPSA match; I went in thinking that I was shot **** because I had taken fifth in an Excellence-in-Competition at my base, and, as if often the case in the martial arts, left thoroughly humbled at how terribly I did when adrenaline hit my system. However, I continued to compete, and got much, much better at shooting under pressure. Such training has really made the difference in the course i'm in now, where I watch my classmates, all of whom are in theory qualified to handle a weapon, mess up when opposition firing back with simunitions are introduced.


----------



## Hanshi (May 5, 2018)

"Equal force" is meaningless.  In such a case, survival is more of a toss-up rather than a certainty.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 6, 2018)

Buka said:


> Okay, and I even have this in writing. It's about the use of force continuum we use.....which is none at all.
> 
> If a suspect pulls a knife, you cannot, may not, will not pull your side arm. You can ONLY PULL A KNIFE. You can only equal the threat.
> 
> ...



Wow, Buka that is a clear example of the administration not having the first clue about tactics and proper use-of-force responses.  And it seems they are more on the side of the bad guy than their own officers.  I agree, should it ever be put to the test you'll end up owning the airport after some lengthy legal battles.


----------



## Runs With Fire (May 7, 2018)

I don't know all the terms, and my only actuall training was an 8 hr cpl class however, my instructor advocated carrying chamber empty. Slide back/ slide forward- whatever fits.    He also said "if you're not going to take my advice,  you better be consistent, or you'll end up dead".


----------



## CB Jones (May 7, 2018)

Runs With Fire said:


> I don't know all the terms, and my only actuall training was an 8 hr cpl class however, my instructor advocated carrying chamber empty. Slide back/ slide forward- whatever fits.    He also said "if you're not going to take my advice,  you better be consistent, or you'll end up dead".



Not a fan of your instructor then.

@Kong Soo Do advocates empty chamber........but he advocates lots of training to be proficient in this.  That carry method would take a lot of training and you need to train under pressure.

Advising someone to carry this way with out training them...is setting them up for failure.


And if he is advocating carrying with the slide locked back.......HECK NO!  Extremely bad idea!


----------



## Runs With Fire (May 7, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Not a fan of your instructor then.
> 
> @Kong Soo Do advocates empty chamber........but he advocates lots of training to be proficient in this.  That carry method would take a lot of training and you need to train under pressure.
> 
> ...


That may be.  I'm not disagreeing with you.  Most of our three hour range time was learning how fast we can push while maintaining all bullets in the circle on the shiloette.  I do see that carrying and handling a pistol responsibly in all situations takes alot of training. Makes me wish I started firearm training before I got married ( when I didn't care how much time and money I spent away from home). This thread really turned quite intetesting and informative!


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (May 7, 2018)

Runs With Fire said:


> That may be.  I'm not disagreeing with you.  Most of our three hour range time was learning how fast we can push while maintaining all bullets in the circle on the shiloette.  I do see that carrying and handling a pistol responsibly in all situations takes alot of training. Makes me wish I started firearm training before I got married ( when I didn't care how much time and money I spent away from home). This thread really turned quite intetesting and informative!



One of the inadvertent benefits of being perpetually single is I have considerably more money for ammo and range time!


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 11, 2018)

The Instructors-only course I took was 40 hours.  About 10 minutes of that was class time, the rest was on the range.  As I've noted previously, it was the most hard-core combat shooting course I've ever taken.  Not just the IC portion but the totality of the system i.e. head shots at 25 yards, H2H while shooting, stress shooting (around corners, gauntlet running, hostages and all sorts of stuff of that nature).  The actual training of IC was the first part of the day and then simple repetition.  I don't remember how long the civilian course was, perhaps two, maybe three days?  We had more stuff in our course because it was for instructors and it involved a lot of things civilians wouldn't necessarily need.  The point is, it doesn't take a long time to learn the actual process of IC.  It is pretty simple when you break it down.  The rest is repetition and various scenario factors.

Just like Boatman edged weapon training or WWII combatives.  Both brutally effective but the actual training time is minimal.  One would think that in order for something to be highly effective you'd need to spend gobs of training time.  Actually the reverse is more accurate in a lot of cases.  The more stupid simple something is, the more effective it can be i.e. gross motor skill type stuff.  Boatman edged weapon was 16 hours worth of training, and that was for instructors.  Actual rank-and-file officer training was like 4 to 8 hours with refresher every 18 months.  And without regards to style-ego it was more realworld and effective than ANY martial arts edged weapon training I've taken in the last 40 years.  

I could train someone in IC in 2-3 hours and the rest is them just working on proficiency.  There's always stuff you can 'add-on' of course, but the bulk of what someone would probably need in most situations can be covered in a short amount of time.  Might need another hour or two with stuff like one-hand weapon malfunction clearing and such but the rest is simply practice.  That's up to the individual.


----------

