Study: Why Police Firearms Training Sucks

By the time an average police recruit completes typical academy firearms training, how much more skilled in shooting is he than a person who has never shot or even held a handgun before?
Not much, according to a first-of-its-kind study by the Force Science Institute that is set for publication in an international law enforcement journal . . .

“[T]his study’s results indicate an alarming need for improved firearms training for officers,” writes lead researcher Dr. Bill Lewinski, FSI’s executive director. After finishing academy
instruction and practice, new officers “were a mere 13%” more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur.

“What these statistics appear to imply,” Lewinski states, “is that officer firearms training is not extensive enough and occurs too sparsely for officers to gain, and maintain, the expert
level of accuracy with their service weapons that is expected of them.” This training deficiency “may result in injury, death, or other severe consequences.”

Also revealed in the study: At close quarters, untrained shooters often aim for the head, the most vulnerable and critical part of an officer’s body in a gun attack. And they hit accurately
with disturbing frequency.

Generally, the Experts scored the most hits. But the edge they enjoyed often proved, at best, surprisingly narrow. Notably:

• At most distances, there was “no significant difference” in percentage of hits between Expert and Intermediate groups.

• Against targets 18 to 45 feet away, Intermediates actually registered a higher hit ratio than academy trained shooters–about 41% vs. 38%.

• At three to 15 feet, where most officer fatalities occur, Expert shooters hit one of the major-damage zones on the target “with eight out of nine bullets they fired,” the researchers found,
while Novices hit “with seven of the nine bullets they fired”–a scant advantage for the trained recruits of just a single round.

Considering the high volume of shootings that occur “at such close ranges, officers need to have a better advantage over threatening suspects,” Lewinski writes.

If CCW permit holders are not as "well trained" as police, I can see why the anti-2A crowd is so terrified of armed civilians!!      

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/study-why-police-firearms-training-sucks/

I have some reservations about the article comparing LE to novices.  Such the opinion of hitting 8 out of 9 versus 7 out of 9.  Not much of a comparison in that an expert olympic shooter getting 9 out of 9 is only 12% better than a LE shooter, or 25% better than a novice.  Also don't know if they tested them under stress and time pressure and other police rules of force requirements in which a LE would be way ahead.

Shooting firearms is just a small portion of what a LE needs to learn.  I think the problem is in followup and routine training.  LE's have the opportunity to train year round, but majority only do their once a year retraining and qual.  Same like most military.  For civilians, most only shoot their guns a couple times and that's it, even for CCW holders.

I have some reservations about the article comparing LE to novices.  Such the opinion of hitting 8 out of 9 versus 7 out of 9.  Not much of a comparison in that an expert olympic shooter getting 9 out of 9 is only 12% better than a LE shooter, or 25% better than a novice.  Also don't know if they tested them under stress and time pressure and other police rules of force requirements in which a LE would be way ahead.

Shooting firearms is just a small portion of what a LE needs to learn.  I think the problem is in followup and routine training.  LE's have the opportunity to train year round, but majority only do their once a year retraining and qual.  Same like most military.  For civilians, most only shoot their guns a couple times and that's it, even for CCW holders.

An Olympic target is tiny the police target is man sized. That is not a fair comparison. I think this article is believable. It reminds me of my experience in the NAVY. We had some firearms training in basic and have to qualify once a year. Needless to say, the only guys that could shoot were the ones that already knew how. Thing is we didn't need to use our firearms very often on a submarine.

I'd take this with a grain of salt since the FSI also offers training to LE agencies, so the study seems to be a bit self-serving: Your training isn't adequate, you need our services."

"The Force Science Training Division makes training available that will educate administrators, trainers, investigators, attorneys, officers and other legal professionals on Force Science findings and will help facilitate the application of Force Science concepts during their investigations, training and work in the field.
 
Force Science training classes are available for agencies to purchase. Generally, our two-day program is recommended, but in instances where that is not possible, we do offer a one-day option. There are no restrictions relative to more than one agency working together to purchase and fill a Force Science class. In fact, many agencies work in tandem to bring the program to their area. For details on pricing and the program, visit the Training Information page." - Force Science Institute website

My opinion might have been different had this come from a more "neutral" organization, or confirmed through and peer review and/or other groups conducting the same experiment and getting the same reults.