Florida Concealed Carry banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,629 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
The pass/fail qual was initiated by the Comm of Ma. after several cases were adjudicated where the leo's high score on qual was used against them in courts when they missed [ particularly injuring an innocent party ]. The pass/fail resolved that nonsense.
Hmmm, guess that leaves the Class G guys in Florida vulnerable in a court case after a shoot. :dunno
The head of our agency says he would never want to score 240. He said "if you ever shoot and kill someone they are going to say 'well you always shoot a 240 on your qualification, why didn't you just shoot the gun out of his hand?'". :)

Regarding missing on the street despite high qualification scores, my argument would be:

As you have found from your records request I always shoot a 240 on my requals. This starkly demonstrates the fact that a defensive shooting bears no resemblance to shooting static paper, on a range, under controlled circumstances. On the range that target isn't trying to kill me, and I have 45 seconds to do the drill. In the instant case the "target" was trying to kill me (or my protectee) and I had about 3/4 of a second. You, and the populace at large, should be thankful that a person who scores 240 on their requals was the one doing the defending in this case or the outcome would have likely been much worse.​

To their credit, some agencies (CIS for example) will only hire you for armed work if your G-qual score is at or above 90% (216/240) instead of the state-minimum of 70% (168/240). So in that regard having the actual score on the report serves a purpose. That said, I think it would be ideal if the copy that the officer retains had the numeric score, but on the copies retained by the Class K instructor and that go to the state, the numeric score area was blacked out and only the pass/fail result visible.

I would say if it is appropriate and beneficial for LE to report their qualifications as pass/fail then it should be seen as equally appropriate and beneficial for private armed professionals.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,297 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
How does this compare to what retired LEOs have to shoot? HR 218

How does this compare to what active LEOs have to shoot? Per FDLE?
I don't see a response to your question, which I would like to know also. I am scheduled to qualify with the Saint Johns Sheriffs Office in a couple of weeks. I was told by their training coordinator that they use the "40 round FDLE course." I found what I believe to be this course here, but it doesn't match any of the courses that Brian provided.

It would be great if I could find someone within an hour or so drive from St. Augustine who could run me through the "40 round FDLE" course for practice before I go to the sheriff's range.

edit: I found the 40 round course in another thread. Link to FDLE document.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
The link that ravendriver added to his post is the required qualification for active and retired LEOs for HR 218 (LEOSA) and the state mandated qualification for active LEOs.

Sadly, the G License qual is harder than the LEO qual...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,629 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
I don't see a response to your question, which I would like to know also. I am scheduled to qualify with the Saint Johns Sheriffs Office in a couple of weeks. I was told by their training coordinator that they use the "40 round FDLE course." I found what I believe to be this course here, but it doesn't match any of the courses that Brian provided.

It would be great if I could find someone within an hour or so drive from St. Augustine who could run me through the "40 round FDLE" course for practice before I go to the sheriff's range.

edit: I found the 40 round course in another thread. Link to FDLE document.
I checked the F.A.C. and that form/course-of-fire is indeed still the current one for LE - which seems to place them a little behind the new Class G criteria in terms of "modernity". Honestly they should make it the same for both private armed professionals (security and PI) and LE. I can't see any reason why you'd want either group of people to be less qualified than the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
I checked the F.A.C. and that form/course-of-fire is indeed still the current one for LE - which seems to place them a little behind the new Class G criteria in terms of "modernity". Honestly they should make it the same for both private armed professionals (security and PI) and LE. I can't see any reason why you'd want either group of people to be less qualified than the other.
That would make sense. Who knows what politics are behind the scenes. I did my HR218 qualification today for the first time. My old California agency will accept this qualification to renew my LEO retiree credentials. The only reason to renew my Calif. credentials is that my LDF insurance requires it, though I have a second policy that has better coverage and doesn't require this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,629 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
This is a followup to my original post in this topic about the new Class G qualification criteria. While I think the post gave pretty thorough coverage to the new criteria - there is an extra detail you should be aware of if you haven't shot the new course of fire yet.

In the OP I mentioned that the target changed from the B-27 to the B-34. When you compare the appearance of the B-27 and the B-34 - they look pretty much the same. In fact they are pretty much the same target, except for the size of the target. The scoring portion of the B-34 is 50% the size of the scoring portion of the B-27. In other words, the targets are half the size of what they were before (or twice as small depending upon how you like to look at it).

Put in more practical terms, with the old B-27 targets the oval you had to keep your shots inside to not lose any points was around 12" x 17.8". Now the oval you have to stay within is 6" x 8.9".

The good news is now the furthest distance you have to shoot from is 15 yards (45 feet) whereas before the furthest distance was 25 yards.

I did my requalification this past weekend (9mm and .40 S&W) using the new course of fire. It was the first time doing the new course of fire "for real", and it was still no problem - 240/240 for both calibers.

Getting rid of the hip shooting was nice. For anybody fretting about the new course of fire or the smaller targets, the best advice I can give is "take your time, break the shot when it's ready, and not before". Most of these drills have insanely long time allowances. It's silly to finish any given exercise with a score you're not happy with and time left on the clock. That and "you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight".
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,297 Posts
:thumsup
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top