I guessed it was Tom that said it.troglodyte wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 6:38 pmIt was Tom Givens that made the comment. His reasoning for including it in his instructor's training was to allow us to say as instructors, and have documented, that we had passed the same test as the "premier" law enforcement agency.Paladin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:17 amIf that's true, why does Tom Givens make it part of his instructor qualification course? It's not a perfect test, but I would say better than a lot of them (Texas DPS qualification being one elephant in the room)troglodyte wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:06 pm A well known trainer told us in a class one time that the FBI test was little more than a sobriety test. We took it so we could say we passed it.
I don't disagree that it is better than a lot but the scoring is too lenient. A grazing hip shot shouldn't count the same as a COM or head shot. Theoretically you could have 45 "grazing" hits and still pass at the instructor's level. I scored a 96 shooting cold and could've should've done better. I missed an off-hand shot and rushed the first shot after kneeling. Several folks on the line cleaned it. I rarely practice one-hand shooting, much less one-handed off-hand (something I need to change).
Tom's instructor qualification test is much better. It is more challenging and has realistic scoring.
Having worked with a variety of students and I would say Tom's comments are bravado. I've witnessed Law Enforcement fail a lot lower standards and less relevant qualifications. Won't say which one specifically. But take the FBI Carbine Qualification for example. It looks like a joke. Tom's pistol instructor qual does look much more challenging than the FBI pistol qual. I'd like to try it. I have no doubt Tom's qualification is better.
I like to train and put my students through a variety of qualifications, as HR Funk's extensive testing has shown that different qualifications tend to test very different things. To my knowledge there is no single qualification that does a great job of testing a broad range of critical skills. The best you can hope for in a single qualification is to make sure you are testing the most-important/most-likely things.
I like Paul Howe's and Karl Rehn's shooting qualifications as they tend to break down a lot of the individual skills in a very relevant way. Ben Stoeger's "Practical Shooting Standards" are actually remarkably similar to Paul Howe's standards. Ben's standards lay the foundation for developing world class pistol skills. Paul Howe's are a bit more geared to the real world.
As far as rifle qualifications go, MAJ Ehrhart's research shows that the best US Army rifle qualification was from 1949. The 1949 qualification took into account all the lessons learned from WW2 and required a high round count and a top notch shooting range with shooting at distances of 15 to 500 yards, sometimes from exotic positions like a roof top or rubble pile. Knowing the military, the 1949 qualification was probably more difficult/costly/time-consuming than what some of the generals wanted or found practical. Automated pop-up target ranges are much easier and quicker to cycle soldiers through. That leaves more DOD money for gender reassignment surgeries.
