facepalm

In remarks at the Denver Police Academy in Denver, Colo., [President Barack Obama] said that, after campaigning in rural Iowa, Michelle Obama told him, “You know, if I was living out on a farm in Iowa, I’d probably want a gun, too. When somebody just drives up into your driveway and you’re not home, you don’t know who these people are, you don’t know how long it’s going to take for the sheriffs to respond, I can see what you’d want some guns for protection.”

Source (h/t Unc)

I don’t get it.

Are the Obama’s being well… not racist but classist? stereotyping “Iowa Rednecks” or Iowa as a scary place to live? elitist attitude? or is this simple ignorance? Are they saying guns are fine in rural areas, but not in cities? for rednecks but not cityfolk? or… what?  I’m not sure what to make of the implications of their comments. But let’s just set that side and look at the plain words.

When someone drives up to your home…

You don’t know who these people are…

You don’t know how long it’s going to take for someone else to come and save you (because apparently your safety is someone else’s responsibility)…

well, in that case, they can see why people might want guns.

OK.

Well… all the people around you right now. Maybe not those immediately around you there at home or even the office (but perhaps even at the office, because I’m sure you don’t know everyone in your company or your building), but look at all those around you in the greater area. Heck, next time you go out to lunch or dinner, next time you’re out shopping, next time you’re at the gas station… do you know all those people? Do you know who they are?

Was there ever a time when some strange person drove into your driveway? Or came and knocked on your door?

Do you know how long it takes for your local law enforcement to arrive? You probably don’t. I’m not sure where this guy got his stats from, but you can see the average for these large cities runs about 10 minutes. That’s about par with my experience in Austin. Even if you don’t know the precise time, consider simple realities of time and space. There isn’t a cop standing right next to you right now, so that means if you want one, one has to travel to you. First, you have to have a way to communicate that you need one: so you or someone needs to dial 911, wait on hold, talk to an operator, explain what you need, they patch things through, depending how your 911 center is organized they might dispatch from there or the operator might have to relay your information to a dispatcher who then can send out the police… how many minutes did all this take before a cop was even starting to travel your way? Now they have to fight through traffic to get to you. Yeah sure they can turn on their lights, but I’m sure you’ve seen it — police car, fire truck, ambulance… lights and siren flashing, and it still takes them a while to get through an intersection because cars can’t or won’t get out of the way. All the while… the clock is ticking…. and your attacker continues their attack.

So… Mr. & Mrs. Obama….

What makes it about Iowa that can have guns (in your mind), but someone living in not-Iowa couldn’t? Don’t these things happen in The Big City too? Aren’t there strange people, willing to commit horrible acts, in cities too? Aren’t police in cities subject to the same rules of time and space and that it takes time to respond? I mean, not all of us are surrounded by Secret Service agents.

So please, explain to me the thinking behind your statement.

Maya Angelou appreciates her guns

Maya Angelou appreciates owning (and using) her guns:

“I do like to have guns around,” she told Time’s Belinda Luscombe when asked if she shared her mother’s fondness for firearms. “I don’t like to carry them. But I like — if somebody is going to come into my house and I have not put out the welcome mat, I want to stop them.”

Apparently she’s used her guns too:

“Have you ever fired a weapon?” the interviewer asked.

“Of course!” Ms. Angelou affirmed. “I was in my house in North Carolina. It was fall. I heard someone walking on the leaves. And somebody actually turned the knob. So I said, “Stand four feet back because I’m going to shoot now!” Boom! Boom! The police came by and said, ‘Ms. Angelou, the shots came from inside the house.’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t know how that happened.’”

I’m not going to comment on Ms. Angelou’s tactics or legal proceedings, nor the misconceptions about home invasion realities vs. where crime (attacks) typically happen.

No… just let it sink in that Maya Angelou understands that guns have a place in the lives of private citizens. She understands that guns can be tools used for protection (she apparently inherited the love of guns from her mother, who the Time interviewer referred to as ‘her protector’). She obviously considers herself a good, law-abiding, upstanding citizen, and appreciates that she was able to have — and use — a gun for her personal protection.

I don’t know when her home-defense incident occurred, but relative to that date consider…

…it could have prevented I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings from ever existing.

…it could have prevented Ms. Angelou from speaking at President Clinton’s inauguration.

…it could have denied the world of a civil rights leader.

…she likely would not have received the Presidental Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama in 2011.

…and the world would have lost one of its great writers, speakers, and influencers.

If Maya Angelou understands this, why don’t you?

Acevedo supports CHL?

Texas CHL process is what responsible gun ownership is about. Proud of our process & the overall excellence of our CHL holders.

@ArtAcevedo

Really? Color me a little surprised.

Well, now Austin’s police chief is on record, and I do thank him for his words. But, it seems contrary to prior words.

He apparently doesn’t think college students are responsible enough.

“When you start talking about 21 year-olds and college students, responsibility is the last thing on their minds,” Acevedo said. “With a lot of pressure and high campus suicide rates, the last thing we want to include in that environment, like a bar, is guns.”

(full story)

So let me get this straight. A 21-year-old Texas resident gets a Texas CHL. To have that CHL apparently demonstrates the person is a responsible gun owner — a person of excellence, according to Chief Acevedo.

But if that 21-year-old is a college student, if they cross over into the magical fairyland bubble of the college campus… suddenly somehow responsibility degrades to becoming the last thing on their mind.

Apparently I’m failing to understand Mr. Acevedo’s logic.

 

Improving my skills

Of course, during the Rangemaster Instructor Certification Course I paid attention to my own shooting performance.

Shooting around 1000 rounds over 3 days actually isn’t a lot compared to numerous other “weekend training” courses, but again, this was predominantly a class about building instructors and not all the time was out on the range.

We shot the new FBI Qualfication course, the new Rangemaster Instructor qualification course, and a host of other drills and tests. With that, here’s some things I came back with regarding my own shooting skill.

25 Yards

In the past, long distance shooting has been a weak spot. Even 15 yards was tough. Not so over the weekend. I was fine at 15 yards, and 25 wasn’t horrible, but wasn’t good either.

I do know one problem was my gun. It had been shooting left, and upon closer examination we saw the rear sight had moved. TXGunGeek gave it a whack (this was a couple weeks prior to class), but the sight was much looser in the dovetail than expected and the sight really moved! TXGunGeek did his best to recenter it, and it looked good to both our eyes. In initial testing, I swore it was a little off to the right, but couldn’t eliminate that it might be me, then we ran out of time so I said “good enough” and moved on. Upon later examination, turns out that yes it’s just off to the right. It’s hard to see except under the right light conditions, but it is “just off”. And while you can’t notice it in closer shooting, it’s sorely evident in 25 yard shooting.

However, that’s only a small thing. And frankly, given how off I was in later drills, I can tell you the performance is all me and not the sights. 🙂  I could have corrected them but didn’t want to risk making the problem worse during the weekend. Besides, it wouldn’t have mattered. It was all me.

Discussed with Karl, and he gave me some things to try. Alas, it’s mostly live-fire, which is a tough thing to do these days (ammo situation). So I asked if there was any dry fire stuff and he said: “Other than dry firing at smaller targets there’s not much to do to work on type 4/5 shooting dry fire.”  He also suggested I check out Ben Stoeger’s books.

Grip

Karl came up with a fun way to describe the grip you need: Homer choking Bart. 🙂  It works surprisingly well at getting the point across.

I’ve been inconsistent in my grip. I need to choke Bart. More specifically, I need to ensure my pinky is involved in the grip. This is something I learned back in Kuk Sool regarding grip. When you hold a champagne flute you extend your pinky, because it’s a delicate thing. When you grip a hammer, you use all your fingers and hold on. A gun has a lot more energy behind it than a hammer, so you really need to hold on. You will have MUCH more grip if you involve your pinky. Heck, when deadlifting, involve your pinky and your grip will be happier.

I just need to be consistent.

Press-out / Present

I was taking an approach of extreme slowness. I think it was after watching so much FAST Drill stuff, like this video of Mike Brook. You can see how the press-out looks so slow. Well, that’s what I was doing, but I was slower. I received constant feedback about how smooth my present was, but it was slow and I know I wasn’t getting out with enough time to then do the rest of the work I needed to do — which was all the work (drawing is just the first step to get you there). I could get things done, but I’d have to rush it a bit.

Why was I doing that? Well, primarily I was doing it in an effort to “see enough”. I was really working on getting the gun into my eye-target line, ensuring I could see what I needed to get, getting a good sight picture, and not letting one go before I knew I’d get an acceptable hit. I didn’t want to just be throwing the gun out there, pushing it out there, hunting for the sights, etc..

Well, it wasn’t quite getting me there.

At one point Karl told me to just get it out there as fast as you can, but decelerate on the press-out. He actually told me that some time ago and I tried it, but it wasn’t working for me. But I immediately took his advice and did it during the rest of the weekend. I was shooting much better. Buzzer sounds, move as quickly as possible to clear garment, grip, draw, move to position 3, all as quickly as I can. From there, change gears and start to slow down. Actually probably about 75% of the way out it’s still fast, then a sudden and smooth stop. And lo, it worked.

Perhaps it was that I needed to work on things a lot slower for a while, to get smoother. And now, deceleration works better.

There were times I was on the line shooting next to Karl. A few times my peripheral vision caught me pressing out with Karl or even faster than he did, so hey… guess that’s good. 🙂

But it brought to light a more important thing….

Visual Knowledge

I don’t know how else to phrase it.

I know in my head that when shooting at closer distances you don’t need a perfect textbook sight picture (e.g. Brian Enos’ “type 2”) to get acceptable hits. So I know and I go as fast as I need to, and I get acceptable hits. It works well and good. BUT there’s always this thing in the back of my head nagging, wondering, and telling me — that’s wrong! That I am shooting too fast for my sights, too fast for my vision, that I’m not seeing enough, and that I’m getting unacceptable hits. Of course after I’m done shooting, everything’s in the A-Zone, because I KNOW what I’m doing is alright and within parameters, but still… my brain doubts.

I realized why.

I don’t have the “visual knowledge”.

I think the seed for this realization was sown by my friend Tim Meyers, who is a Master-ranked shooter in IDPA. He said something to the effect of how he got there because he was able to learn what he needed to see.

This is also something I know, but I don’t know. That is, I know you gotta know this, but I don’t yet know it.

See, usually when I’m doing live fire work, I’m trying to work on other things and so I’m concerned with those things and not necessarily recording what I see. Well, that’s what I need to do. I need to shoot not to work on a skill or get all hits in the A-Zone. No, I just need to shoot at X speed and let my eyes record and register what I see. So do something like a Bill Drill at 3 yards, 5 yards, 7 yards. Just shoot. Just try to go “as fast as possible” and what I need to pay attention to and record is what my eyes are seeing. That I will see “X”. After I’m done, look at my target. If everything is good, then what I saw was ‘good enough’ for what I needed. Of course, repeat this numerous times to ensure it’s how things actually are and not a fluke run. If I have unacceptable hits, was I going too fast? do I need to see more? can I see less? And just play with it. The goal isn’t to work on grip or stance or trigger control or draw or press-out or hits or anything. The goal is to just shoot a bunch and “gather data” about what the eyes should be seeing. If the eyes see X, what results does X bring, y’know?

So in the near-future, that’s what I do with any live fire. Of course, it sucks to have this come at a time when ammo is expensive and hard to find. 🙂

In fact, it’s kinda what I need to do with my 25 yard shooting, but there it’s type 4, and here it’s type 2.

General

Of course, practice on all things is good. Working on reloads, working on draw, trigger control, you name it. Everything can always use more practice.

Some things to also work on are general defensive “response”, like to side-step, draw, shoot, ready, scan, 360 scan, reload, reholster, etc.. Insert MUC into the mix, etc..

But if there’s any one thing to focus on right now, in my dry work it’ll be draw and present (with deceleration). And in live work, gathering “visual knowledge”.

on capacity

One thing I love about Tom Givens is his incredible depth of knowledge. His expertise in matters of personal safety and firearms is unparalleled. Because of this, he’s able to get you thinking about things in different ways.

For example, in the recent Instructor Certification course I took with him, Tom discussed “high-capacity” magazines in guns.

When people hear “high-capacity magazines” (or more commonly, “high-capacity assault clips” *sigh*), they think about how it gives you the ability to shoot more. According to Tom, that’s not what they are for. And when you think about it, that really isn’t what they provide. They don’t really enable you to “shoot more” because there are many other ways to accomplish “shoot more”.

But what capacity allows you to do that really nothing else allows?

To reload less.

Practical

Let’s look at the practical side of it. Credit to Tom Givens for presenting this logic.

A “split” is the time between shots. So if someone is shooting 0.20 second splits, that means there was 0.20 seconds of time between the end of the first shot and the beginning of the second. So you can think of it that if someone shoots 0.20 second splits, they are capable of firing 2 shots in 0.20 seconds, if you will.

I’m going to simplify the math here, because it makes discussion easier. But the point still gets across.

If someone then has 5 rounds, which is typical of many revolvers, that means the shooter could empty the revolver in 1 second.

That’s not very long, is it?

10 rounds? 2 seconds.

15 rounds? 3 seconds.

According to data from self-defense gunfights (private citizens, FBI, DEA), the typical gunfight lasts 3 seconds.

So let that sink in.

If the fight is only going to last 3 seconds, after 5 rounds you’re out of the fight — but the fight is still going on. Of course, that’s if your fight is a typical one; would really suck if your fight was atypical and went longer.

If you’ve now lost use of a very important tool, do you think you have gained advantage or lost advantage? What are you going to do to make up that advantage? because I’m sure you don’t want to lose the fight (and possibly your life).

Oh sure, you could reload, but even the fastest reload takes time. And it doesn’t matter the technique, be it a speed reload or drawing a backup, it still eats precious time.

So if you don’t have to reload? All the better. It can keep you in the fight longer, which hopefully will be long enough to end the fight and you to prevail.

Of course, this is then argument against those small guns, those low-capcacity guns. Yes, sometimes we have to carry them. But if you have a choice, take the Glock 17 over the Kahr PM9.

Political

I wish I didn’t have to write about the political nature of this, but some people only view “high-capacity assault clips” as a way to inflict more death and violence upon the innocent children of the world.

If that were the case, why would police want guns that can hold lots of ammo?

Why would police have moved away from 6-shot revolvers to 17-shot Glocks?

Why do you think police would want more ammo?

Of course, because they might be caught in a prolonged gun battle. But also because having to reload less allows them to end attacks quickly.

Why would this be any different for private citizens?

Or for gun-banning politicians and their well-armed bodyguards…..

Here’s the rub. If you look at most mass shooting incidents, they are not 3-second affairs. The killer has many guns, and a lot of time. They are slow, methodical, often speak to their victims before shooting them. They have all the time in the world to reek their mayhem and destruction upon the world. Lowering capacity will not stop or dissuade them in any regard.

So why do it?

We don’t consider it rational in any other arena to undergo activities that have no demonstrable ability to achieve desired goals, so why is it considered acceptable to implement ineffective solutions in this arena? And if you tell me “if it saves just one life, then it’s worth it”, I can present to you now 60 students of Tom Givens’ that had their lives saved because they had their gun. So there’s 60 lives, and so by your logic it’s 60-times worth it to have guns and concealed carry.

The only thing restricting capacity does is harm innocent law-abiding citizens. Are these the people you wish to abridge? Well, some might argue that yes, that’s precisely who “gun control advocates” want to injure.

But I say this… if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander — and all of society. So, police should also be subject to the same restrictions. Our military should be subject to the same restrictions. Your bodyguards should be subject to the same restrictions. If you are unwilling to enact the restrictions for them, why is that? And why should this class of citizens be more privileged? If we don’t like the 1% having all the privilege, why are you giving up the power to them?

Why is it OK for them to be protected, but it’s not OK for me and my children to be protected by the same measure and standard? Why are we considered less, and why are you advocating for us to be treated as lessers?

Please… someone that wishes to enact such restrictions. Please, answer my questions and convince me of your stance. Convince me what you say is right, just, true, and factually and rationally the right choice. Please show me the data and convince me that capacity restrictions will achieve your desired goals of “won’t someone think of the children”. Please. I seek truth and am willing to change my mind if the right and logical facts are presented to me — it’s how I became a gun-owner in the first place, because until about 5 years ago I wasn’t. But that’s why I changed my mind in the first place – because I finally stopped and listened to reason, facts, and logic — not emotion, not misconceptions and ignorance.

And when you’re done trying to convince me… please look my children in the eye and tell them the same.

What can we learn – 3rd party intervention

TXGunGeek raises a good point about getting involved:

The general manager of a local car dealership was shot during an incident at a San Antonio gentlemen’s club early Monday morning.

KENS 5 in San Antonio reports the victim of the shooting was Mike Vivaldi, who heads up Team Ford of Navasota.

According to WOAI Radio, the shooting happened around 2:00 a.m. Monday at the Palace Men’s Club on Northeast Loop 410.

Police believe Vivaldi was attempting to break up a fight in the truck in the parking lot between a man and a woman when a gun was pulled by the man. Vivaldi was reportedly shot twice in the mid-section.

The truck drove away from the scene, both the shooter and the woman reportedly inside.

Vivaldi was hospitalized at the San Antonio Military Medical Center, originally in critical condition, though reports out of San Antonio say he has been stabilized.

Original Story

TXGunGeek’s main point? Getting involved in third party issues.

Now certainly, we can understand the situation. You see a fight. You see perhaps some man beating up a woman. You are going to have a hard time standing by and watching it.

But do you know what’s going on?

Is it worth getting in the middle of someone else’s heated issue, because it may cost you. Mr. Vivaldi was fortunate he wasn’t killed, but look at the medical bills, lost work, and who knows what longer-term impacts upon his quality of life he’s going to have. Was it worth it?

Was it worth (potentially) dying over?

This is a personal decision. We all draw our lines at different points. Even if you consider the “beer & TV maxim” of self-defense, we can still draw our lines in different places.

To come to the aid of a third party is a personal decision. It may also depend upon who this third party is: your spouse, your child, your boss, a friend, an ex-significant other, a random person on the street. But you need to figure out where your line is BEFORE you get involved. Where is your line? where is your threshold?

Another point to consider is something John Farnam says all the time about how to avoid trouble:

Donʼt go to stupid places; donʼt associate with stupid people; donʼt do stupid things. We will add to that, be in bed by 10 oʼclock.

Updated 2013-04-04: There’s more to the story.

Updated story

According to the San Antonio Police Department’s preliminary report, a friend of Vivaldi’s told police that three people — Vivaldi, himself and another friend — had attended Sunday night’s San Antonio Spurs game and went to the gentlemen’s club afterwards, all part of a birthday celebration. SAPD noted all three were under the influence of alcohol. The names of Vivaldi’s friends were redacted in the report.

As the trio was getting into a cab, Vivaldi’s friend said an unknown white male came to the driver’s side window and started yelling an obscenity-laced string of words at the group.

The first friend of Vivaldi’s told police the trio exited the cab and started walking towards the yelling man, who waved them on towards him. The friend says he then noticed a white female who was with the male. Vivaldi would reportedly go on to remove his shirt as he and his friends moved towards the man.

Eventually, Vivaldi’s friend told police the man made it to his pickup truck in the parking lot, pulled out a pistol and aimed it at Vivaldi’s other friend. After trying to talk the gunman down, the first friend of Vivaldi’s said the man turned the weapon towards Vivaldi and fired multiple shots.

Whenever I hear, read, or see some guy taking off his shirt in this context, I always think about LowTechCombat’s “Alpha Male” notion.

Anyways, I’ll just refer back to Mr. Farnam’s quote above.

Mayor Leffingwell – known by the company you keep?

[Austin’s] Mayor Lee Leffingwell was one of the first in the state to join the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.

Full story.

They say you are known by the company you keep.

Members of MAIG have a pretty good track record of corruption, committing crimes, being indicted, being arrested.

Mayor Leffingwell, what’s a reasonable person to think about you?

 

FBI Pistol Qualification Course – an evolution

(Updated: adding the 2019 revision of the course).

During the Rangemaster Instructor Course I attended in 2013, one of the tests we had to pass was the FBI Pistol Qualification Course.

It’s worthy of note that just a few months ago (in 2013), the FBI changed their qualification course.

QUANTICO, Va. — The FBI has quietly broken with its long-standing firearms training regimen, putting a new emphasis on close-quarters combat to reflect the overwhelming number of incidents in which suspects are confronting their targets at point-blank range.

The new training protocols were formally implemented last January after a review of nearly 200 shootings involving FBI agents during a 17-year period. The analysis found that 75% of the incidents involved suspects who were within 3 yards of agents when shots were exchanged.

The move represents a dramatic shift for the agency, which for more than three decades has relied on long-range marksmanship training.

[…]

“The thing that jumps out at you from the (shooting incident) research is that if we’re not preparing agents to get off three to four rounds at a target between 0 and 3 yards, then we’re not preparing them for what is likely to happen in the real world,” says FBI training instructor Larry “Pogo” Akin, who helps supervise trainees on the live shooting range…. A Justice Department analysis of 63 killings of local police in 2011 found that 73% were ambushes or execution-style assaults.

[…]

Until last January, the pistol-qualification course required agents to participate in quarterly exercises in which they fired 50 rounds, more than half of them from between 15 and 25 yards. The new course involves 60 rounds, with 40 of those fired from between 3 and 7 yards.

The new exercise also requires that agents draw their weapons from concealed positions, usually from holsters shielded by jackets or blazers, to mimic their traditional plainclothes dress in the field.

So of course during the class, we shot the new qualification course.

I asked Tom Givens for a copy of the new FBI test and he was kind enough to provide it. So with that, let’s look at the old test vs. the new test.

Old FBI Test

This is the previous FBI Pistol Qualification Course, as documented here.

This standard, revised April 1997, is used to qualify both agents and instructors.

Target: FBI “Q”
Ammunition: 50 rounds service ammunition
Scoring: Hits in our touching “bottle” count 2 points; misses and hits outside bottle count 0 points
Qualification: 85% to qualify, 90% for instructors

STAGE 1

Starting Point: 25 yard line
Time Allotted: 75 seconds
Total Rounds: 18

Start with a fully loaded weapon. On command shooter draws and fires 6 rounds prone position, decocks, fires 3 rounds strong side kneeling barricade position, 6 rounds strong side standing barricade position, and 3 rounds weak side kneeling barricade position. Upon completing stage, the shooter will conduct a magazine exchange and holster a loaded weapon.

STAGE II

Starting Point: 25 yard line
Time Allotted: 2 rounds in 6 seconds; 4 strings of 2 rounds in 3 seconds each
Total Rounds: 10

Start at the 25 yard line. On command the shooter moves to the 15 yard line, draws and fires 2 rounds in 6 seconds, decocks, and returns to low ready. The shooter will fire 4 strings of 2 rounds in 3 seconds, decock and return to low ready after each string. Upon completing Stage II, the shooter holsters a loaded weapon [without reloading unless gun capacity is only 10 rds –ed].

STAGE III

Starting Point: 15 yard line
Time Allotted: 15 seconds
Total Rounds: 12

Start at the 15 yard line. On command the shooter moves to the 7 yard line, draws and fires 12 rounds in 15 seconds, to include a reload. Upon completing stage III, the shooter holsters a loaded weapon. Shooter then arranges remaining 10 rounds to have 5 rounds in the weapon and 5 rounds in a spare magazine.

STAGE IV

Starting Point: 7 yard line
Time Allotted: 15 seconds
Total Rounds: 10

Start at the 7 yard line. On command the shooter moves to the 5 yard line, draws and fires 5 rounds with strong hand only, reloads, transfers the weapon to weak hand and fires 5 rounds weak hand only. Upon completing stage IV, the shooter will unload and holster an empty weapon.

New FBI Test (2013)

The following is the new FBI Pistol Qualification Course (revised January 2013), as provided to me by Tom Givens, of Rangemaster. I’ve retyped it only for format/layout.

Target: QIT-99 silhouette
Ammunition: 60 rounds
Scoring: 1 point per hit
Qualification: 48/60 (80%) for agents; 54/60 (90%) for instructors

All fired from concealed carry (you will draw from your concealed holster).

Stage 1 is the only stage involving one-handed shooting. All other stages are shot two-handed.

STAGE I

Starting Point: 3 yards
Total Rounds: 12

  1. 3 rounds, 3 seconds, SHO
  2. 3 rounds, 3 seconds, SHO
  3. 3 rounds SHO, switch hands, 3 rounds WHO, 8 seconds

STAGE II

Starting Point: 5 yards
Total Rounds: 12

  1. 3 rounds, 3 seconds
  2. 3 rounds, 3 seconds
  3. 3 rounds, 3 seconds
  4. 3 rounds, 3 seconds

STAGE III

Starting Point: 7 yards
Total Rounds: 16

  1. 4 rounds, 4 seconds
  2. 4 rounds, 4 seconds
  3. Start with only 4 rounds in the gun (1 in the chamber, 3 in the magazine). 4 rounds; empty gun (emergency) reload; 4 more rounds; 8 seconds

STAGE IV

Starting Point: 15 yards
Total Rounds: 10

  1. 3 rounds, 6 seconds
  2. 3 rounds, 6 seconds
  3. 4 rounds, 8 seconds

STAGE V

Starting Point: 25 yards
Total Rounds: 10

  1. Move to cover; 3 rounds standing; kneel, 2 rounds; 15 seconds
  2. again

Commentary (comparing 1997 vs 2013)

The differences are pretty stark. Neither test denies the “other case” is possible, but the emphasis is certainly different. The old test certainly puts the emphasis on long-range shooting, with more than half of the test being shot at 15 yards and beyond. In fact, very little emphasis is placed on anything “close-in”. The new test is mostly about close-in, with two-thirds of the test being at or within what the old test considered “close”!

But this is all good. If you look at private citizen encounters, FBI agent encounters, DEA agent encounters — all similar in the sense that they are people in plain clothes and thus all look “like potential victims” to criminals (just the criminal failed the victim selection process) — it all added up to what became the established “typical gunfight”: 3 shots, 3 steps/yards, 3 seconds. So if that’s what the typical gunfight is going to be, shouldn’t we ensure people can perform in that capacity?

For those of you that think this is easy, good for you, because you evidently have the necessary skill. No one is born with this skill. I teach many levels of classes, and I see many people who cannot pass this test. I see many people who cannot manage “3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds”. Or rather I should say, 3 acceptable hits. Of course, through instruction and practice, it doesn’t take too long for folks to achieve this level of skill.

Back to the tests.

I appreciate the new test’s one-hand shooting at 3 yards. This isn’t to say that within 3 yards you should be shooting one-handed, but rather that you ought to be able to. Why? At that distance, you may well be using your other hand for other things, like moving someone out of the way, blocking a punch, etc..

One thing that’s a bit of a bummer about both tests? Scoring is “anywhere on the target”. Take a look at the targets. While they are fairly correct in their shaping, it’s an acceptable hit to get it anywhere within the main outline. Now while I can understand that from a procedural and regulatory side, it’s not really an ideal thing from a personal-defense side. I mean, if you have to pull your gun, it’s because your life or the life of someone you are responsible for is in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury; thus you need to get the attacker to stop as quickly as possible, and a marginal hit through the belly fat doesn’t do it. So make the test harder on yourself: use that QIT-99 but only count as acceptable those hits within the inner rectangle.

I like the new test. I think it presents a better representation of modern reality. Try it out and see how you do. Be honest with yourself. If you can clean it, awesome; you obviously know what to do to achieve a high level of skill, so keep moving forward. If you cannot clean it, analyze where you need work (25 yards!!), seek instruction, and get to work.

2019 FBI Test

In January 2019, the FBI released another update to their qualification course. Tom Givens had direct input into this update of the qual, and some good improvements were made.

Target: QIT-99 silhouette
Ammunition: 50 rounds
Scoring: 2 points per hit
Qualification: > 90 for instructors (45 acceptable hits)

STAGE I

Starting Point: 3 yards, One handed

  1. Draw, 3 rds SHO, switch, 3 rds WHO, in 6 seconds

STAGE II

Starting Point: 5 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 3 rds in 3 sec
  2. Ready, 3 rds in 2 sec
  3. Ready, 6 rds in 4 sec

STAGE III

Starting Point: 7 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 5 rds in 5 sec
  2. Ready, 4 rds, empty gun reload, 4 more rds, all in 8 sec (start with only 4 rnds in gun)
  3. Ready, 5 rds in 4 sec

STAGE IV

Starting Point: 15 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 3 rds in 6 sec
  2. Ready, 3 rds in 5 sec

Stage V

Starting Point: 25 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 4 rds standing, drop to kneeling, 4rds, 20 sec

Commentary (comparing 2013 vs 2019)

When you look at 2013 vs 2019, the differences are not as stark as vs. the 1997 version. What I’m going to say here is my review of the differences (not Tom’s, the FBI’s, or anyone else’s reasoning for why the changes).

The first thing that jumps out is the qual is now 50 rounds, which helps administration since ammo commonly comes in boxes of 50 rounds.

One-handed shooting changed a good bit. It went from 3 strings to 1, and the 1 string in 2019 is akin to a string in 2013 but with a tighter par time.

At 5 yards, the round count is the same, but the strings vary. Instead of 4 of the same, it varies up each string. I think this is good because it tests different skills and provides opportunity to see where something might break down so it can be fixed. For example, maybe someone can’t make draw and 3 in 3 but can make ready and 3 in 2 – that would expose slowness on the draw.

I also like how at both 5 and 7 yards you get a longer string, akin to Bill Drills, which can better help assess recoil control issues, eyesight, and other things that Bill Drills are good for.

The loss of cover at 25 I reckon may be to facilitate administration.

Also, notice how some strings are “draw and shoot X in Y”, followed by “from the ready, shoot X in Y-1”? That’s not quite a 1-second draw, but it is a 1-second get the gun out and into ready – because from there both strings are the same (going from ready). That’s still peppy.

If you like the 2013 version, nothing stopping you from using it. It’s still a good qual. I’ll probably continue to use the 2019 version because of ease of administration and being part of my training to date.

Why don’t you have a backup?

In our modern world, we seem to accept that things break.

Things break because anything mechanical sooner or later does (parts wear and age). Maybe it’s because things are more cheaply manufactured and they just don’t make them like they used to. Maybe sometimes the unexpected comes up, like a nail in the tire. Regardless of why, we accept things will break. Sometimes we’ll have a spare on hand, like another tire in the trunk; we change the tire, and get back on the road. Sometimes we don’t, and we have to go get a replacement before we can keep going. Often not having a backup on hand isn’t a big deal because it’s not critical – if my lawn mower breaks, I don’t need a second because it’s just not that critical. I can wait on the repair, or I can borrow from a neighbor. That tends to be how we look at things is by how important recovering from failure is. Recovering from failing to mow my lawn? Not that big a deal. Recovering from a flat tire? Bigger deal (and harder to go get a spare when you’re 50 miles from nowhere and your means of travel has a flat).

Consider computers. How important is it to have a back-up of your vital data? It was really neat when Apple came out with Time Machine because that was “back-up for the rest of us”. Back-ups used to be a very convoluted thing, and while Time Machine isn’t a complete back-up solution, it suffices for most needs and gets most people back up and running when that important file is deleted or their computer fails. And boy, aren’t we happy for it when that paper we’ve worked on all night can be salvaged? Or we don’t wind up looking stupid because we lost the PowerPoint files for tomorrow’s presentation? Back-ups save our butts.

So yeah, we seem to understand the importance of a backup.

With that in mind, Greg Ellifritz asks “Do you carry a backup gun?”  I’d rather ask the question: “Why aren’t you carrying a backup gun?”.

Guns are mechanical. They can and will fail. If you’ve shot guns enough, I’m sure you’ve seen a failure in some regard. Most of the time it was no big deal, because you were doing something non-critical. If you’re just practicing at the range, it wasn’t critical. If you missed that deer, it really sucks but isn’t necessarily critical.

But if your life was on the line when the failure occurred? That’s very critical. And what does Murphy’s Law state?

And it’s not like you can put the attack on hold while you go fetch another gun. If you need it, you need it right here, right now.

Here’s a few points to consider.

First, simple failure. Your primary gun could just fail for whatever reason. It doesn’t matter the reason, and “now” is not the time to care or figure out why. You may have reaction to “tap, rack, resume”, and that’s good, but what if that doesn’t solve it? The clock is ticking, what to do?

If you do want to get into specifics of failures, consider that a failure like a double-feed? Sure you can fix that in the field, but even in the best hands it takes a LONG time to accomplish. It’s a lot faster to drop the gun and draw a backup.

If your primary is a revolver, yes, revolvers can fail. When a revolver does fail, most failures are going to require a gunsmith to correct thus you will not recover from the failure in the field. So what’s the solution? Back up. If nothing else, consider how slow it takes to reload a revolver; it’s faster to draw a second gun.

People get shot in the hand. You see it all the time in Force-on-Force training. Why does this happen? Numerous reasons. First, when shooting, a good shooting platform puts the gun in front of your chest, and where do you think they are aiming? your chest. So if your hands are in the way, your hands will get hit. Second, often times when there’s a threat people focus on the threat. So if the threat is a gun, people focus on the gun, chances are they may shoot at the gun, which is held by hands. So if you get shot in the hand, the bullet is unlikely to be stopped by your hands, thus the gun will also receive the bullet. That may well render the gun inoperable, cause you to drop the gun, etc..  Now what do you do?

What if you’ve got a friend that needs a gun? Now you can give them one.

Consider as well how a second can make up for shortcomings. If you carry on your strong-side hip, it’s probably difficult for you to draw while remaining seated. What if you had a BUG on your ankle? Perhaps easier to draw. It may not be that your primary is inoperable, just inaccessible.

I know some would consider it “more paranoid” or “crazy” to carry a second gun. Are we paranoid for having a spare tire? Are we paranoid for running Time Machine? Label it however you wish, but the reasons are the same: we accept failure can occur, and we have a plan to contend with it.

(aside: for those in the Central Texas area that wish to learn more about and train with the concept of a BUG, KR Training will be offering it’s DPS-BUG class again this summer, July 20, 2013).