By Larry J. Nichols
Too often, law enforcement firearms training is built around passing a test instead of surviving a violent encounter.
Protection means shielding yourself from injury, danger or loss. For many people, that means buying a firearm, installing cameras or reinforcing a home. Those measures may create a sense of security, but they require limited skill. Defense is different. Defense is active. It means responding to a real attack and fighting through a violent encounter. To survive that kind of situation, a person needs realistic instruction from a qualified experienced trainer.
Most people think about protection. Far fewer think seriously about what defense requires. In my experience, defense has two sides: physical and psychological. The body must be trained, but so must the mind. Anyone who may be forced to fight, or even take a life to save one, has to confront the emotional and moral weight of that reality. Some people simply could never do it.
Over the past four decades, I have trained thousands of law enforcement officers, military personnel, military police, and legally armed citizens. Officers are required to complete a basic firearms course and qualify before they can carry a service handgun on duty. After that, they must continue to qualify, usually at least once a year, to keep carrying that weapon. What has always puzzled me is how many officers (roughly 90%) only go to the range when policy requires it. They treat lifesaving skills as an obligation instead of a priority. In my view, part of the problem is the gap between qualification and realistic training.
Qualification
A qualification course is a standardized test. Its purpose is to measure basic marksmanship and safe firearms handling with issued or approved weapons. The conditions are controlled. Targets are unobstructed, directly in front of the shooter and usually presented under ideal lighting.
A typical law enforcement qualification still resembles the old FBI Practical Pistol Course developed in the 1950s. That course involved 60 rounds fired at silhouette targets from seven, 25, 50, and 60 yards with a double-action revolver. Shooters fired from positions which included one-handed hip shooting, two-handed standing, kneeling, sitting, prone, and barricade work on both sides. At the time, it was advanced training. Today, stripped-down versions of that same structure are still used annually, biannually or quarterly, depending on the agency. But, qualification remains a repetitive marksmanship exercise. It has little to do with deploying a firearm effectively in a fast, chaotic, life-or-death encounter.
For many officers, tests create stress. That stress gets worse when they struggle with the material. Officers who have trouble qualifying often put it off or avoid it because they fear embarrassment and possibly losing their jobs. What they need is not repeated attempts until they barely pass. They need added instruction from a capable instructor who can build confidence, improve skill and replace fear with competence.
Most qualification courses have almost nothing to do with an actual gunfight. If someone is trying to kill you and you respond with a firearm to protect yourself or another person, that is a gunfight. Qualification mainly serves an administrative purpose. Agencies want documentation that an officer passed, usually with a minimum score of 70 percent. That score sheet often matters more to administrators and attorneys than whether the course actually prepared the officer for a real-world shooting. In court, shooting scores are among the first records attorneys ask to review after an officer-involved shooting.
During qualification, officers operate in what I call range mode. They follow commands from range staff step-by-step, with very little thinking required. They are told when to fire, how many rounds to fire, from what position, and when to stop. Decision-making is almost entirely removed from the process. But, on the street, there is no instructor standing beside the officer giving calm directions when a sudden, violent attack unfolds.
A score means very little in a real gunfight. Traditional qualification measures whether an officer can hit a large paper silhouette from certain distances and positions within a time limit. That is only a small part of real defense. Modern instructors and rangemasters need to build programs which balance officer safety with the threats officers are likely to face.
Competitive shooting sports such as IPSC, IDPA and Steel Challenge can help officers improve gun handling and shot placement. Those sports build useful physical skills, but they are still games. Shooters know the course in advance, can watch others run it and often get to practice it beforehand. Real-world gunfights offer none of those advantages.
Realistic Training
Law enforcement is one of the few professions which trains people to protect life through a use-of-force continuum which begins with presence and can end with deadly force. It is also a profession in which the instructor’s competence can directly affect whether officers and civilians live or die. Today’s instructors must not only teach well, but also document exactly what was taught and why because those records may later be examined in court.
The quality of a department’s training is only as strong as the people delivering it. It is rare to find one instructor who is truly competent across every discipline, but any instructor responsible for teaching weapon systems should have a deep mastery of each one. That means more than familiarity; it means being able to explain details, teach safe and effective deployment and understand each system well enough to prepare officers for actual use. Dedicated firearms instructors should constantly seek out the best training available and bring that knowledge back to their departments.
Any program which claims to be realistic and progressive must include psychological preparation. Defenders cannot be conditioned to stand still and fire on command. They must be trained to think. The mind is the most important weapon a person has.
I believe a serious firearms program should apply one standard to all sworn personnel, without exception. Officers should train with handguns, shotguns and rifles as they actually carry them on duty. Realistic training builds the mindset and control needed to manage both less-lethal and lethal encounters with discipline and competence. Survival-oriented courses which introduce physical and psychological stress should be central, not optional. Officers need training which forces movement to cover, demands realistic choices and builds the mindset needed to survive.
There are many real-world topics which should be covered and supported by relevant case law and liability standards. Law enforcement officers are expected to make reasonable decisions and agencies are expected to create policies and practices which protect the public as safely as possible. Departments are also expected to anticipate recurring risks and take reasonable steps to reduce harm. When a certain type of officer-citizen encounter can be reasonably foreseen, failing to train officers for it may be viewed as deliberate indifference. Well-trained officers are one of the strongest defenses an agency has against liability.
Documentation Matters
Whenever a firearms training course is created, several elements must be included in writing for legal reasons. If training is not documented, it may as well not have happened. The nature, scope and quality of the instruction must be recorded and its connection to job performance must be clear. Budget limitations usually do not hold up as a valid excuse for failing to train. Proper documentation shows not only that instruction took place, but that the program was relevant and appropriate for the work officers actually do.
A sound training record should include the date the course was presented, the equipment used, the purpose of the training, the objective, the performance standards, and a course narrative explaining how the training was conducted. For example, if the course teaches officers to draw safely while seated, the documentation should show the duty gear used, the expected outcome, the performance standard, and the exact scenario under which the officer performed the drill.
Psychological Effects of Elevated Heart Rate
Realistic, street-relevant training must also address how stress affects the human body. There is typically a performance zone between 115 and 145 beats per minute in which survival and combat effectiveness are at their peak. Within that range, visual reaction time, psychological response and many performance functions tend to work best.
This applies to fear- or hormone-induced increases in heart rate caused by sympathetic nervous system arousal. A heart rate elevated by physical exercise does not affect the body in exactly the same way.
Training should include instruction on the physical and psychological effects of stress and elevated heart rate. The Inverted U Model explains that increased arousal improves performance only up to a point. After that point, especially as tasks become more difficult, added stress causes performance to deteriorate rapidly.
At 60 to 80 beats per minute, heart rate is generally normal and at rest. At 115 to 145 beats per minute, survival and combat performance tend to be optimal. At around 115, fine motor skills begin to decline. By 145, complex motor skills begin to decline. At around 175, mental processing deteriorates and tunnel vision, reduced depth perception, loss of near vision, and auditory exclusion can occur. Above 175, flight, freeze, submissive behavior, involuntary voiding, and heavy reliance on gross motor skills may occur.
How strongly these effects are felt depends largely on two things: the defender’s physical condition and the quality of the training received. Mere qualification does little to prepare a person for a real fight. The most effective response to a personal attack is usually an immediate, aggressive counterattack.
Skillset Groups
The categories below are only a sample of what law enforcement officers need, but they focus on situations officers are especially likely to face during a normal tour of duty. Any technique taught should promote economy of motion and reduce wasted time in dangerous moments.
Vehicle Ambush: Officers must learn how to fight in and around patrol vehicles. Shooting through vehicle glass from the inside out requires advanced study, careful planning and strong instructor oversight. Drawing a handgun while seated and belted inside a police vehicle presents safety concerns which must be addressed before training begins. Using a vehicle as cover also raises tactical issues. A dedicated training vehicle on the range is essential.
Up Close and Personal: When an officer is attacked by someone armed with a gun or knife from within seven yards, the response has to be immediate and decisive. Officers need to master quick draws, lateral movement and accurate close-range hits.
Use of Cover and Concealment: Officers need a clear understanding of what cover and concealment are and how to use both effectively. I teach officers to move to cover whenever possible and to move laterally when it is not. Standing exposed in a direct exchange with an armed attacker is a losing choice. My standard for cover is simple: It should stop the caliber being used against me. Concealment is not the same thing, but it can still be valuable when used correctly.
Rifles and Shotguns: Long guns are often neglected because they are stored in patrol vehicles and not routinely deployed. Realistic training requires officers to practice retrieving those weapons from locked mounts and using them under realistic conditions. They also need training on what to do if the weapon malfunctions or runs dry during an incident.
Low Light Tactics: Much of police work happens in poor lighting. Yet low light training is too often ignored, despite being an obvious operational need.
One-handed Gunfighting: Officers need training in one-handed drawing, shooting, reloading, and malfunction clearing with both the dominant and support hand.
Off Duty and Backup Carry: Many agencies provide little or no off duty firearms training which is a serious gap. Officers need guidance on suitable handguns; holsters; carry methods; caliber selection; and safe, efficient draw techniques. The same principles apply to backup weapons.
Physical Condition: Agencies have a responsibility to ensure officers remain physically fit and to provide ways for them to maintain that condition.
How Often Should We Train?
Case law makes clear that firearms training for law enforcement must be continuous, relevant to job performance and properly documented. Annual, biannual or quarterly qualification is only a marksmanship test. It is not true training. For training to be considered continuous, it must be ongoing, uninterrupted and tied directly to the job.
During my 31 years as a law enforcement rangemaster, instructor and armorer, I spoke with judges in both lower and higher courts about what they considered continuous firearms training. Their view was consistent: annual, biannual and quarterly qualification did not meet that standard.
Advantages of Realistic Firearms Training
The biggest advantage of realistic firearms training is that it builds skill instead of merely measuring it. These courses are not tests. They improve officer proficiency and strengthen confidence in both the officer and the weapon carried. Over time, they can also reduce the need for remedial training, qualification days, overtime costs, and unnecessary ammunition spending which helps stretch the training budget.
In the medium-sized Southern California police department where I managed range training, along with three outside agencies, every sworn member trained monthly, from the chief of police to the newest recruit. Each year, I wrote 11 distinct firearms training courses following the documented structure described earlier. In the 12th month, I conducted an armorer’s inspection of every personally owned and department-issued firearm used on or off duty.
Street real training does not require excessive ammunition or large blocks of time. Monthly courses were also run at night for officers assigned to night shifts. Our outdoor range operated two nights per week and every sworn officer had to complete a nighttime course twice a year. Each session usually required only six to 20 rounds and about 15 minutes per officer. Once a year, officers fired their old duty ammunition on an emotionally charged course, after which I issued fresh duty ammunition.
Officers typically attended these monthly sessions while on duty which made the training more realistic. They were in body armor, carrying the same weapons and gear they used on the street, and training under duty conditions.
For a street real program to work and last, two things are essential. First, command staff must support it and take part in it. Their participation gives the training credibility and shows the entire department that firearms instruction matters. It also allows leaders to see the program’s value firsthand. The standards must apply equally to all sworn personnel. Second, the rangemaster and instructors must be competent and committed. The quality of a department’s training will never exceed the quality of the people delivering it.
The greatest liability for any law enforcement agency is the improper use of physical force by its officers. Yet despite that reality, agencies often devote too little time to use-of-force training. Too often, training is the first thing cut when budgets tighten. Law enforcement has relied on qualification, with only modest results, for decades. I believe it is time to move beyond that model and embrace truly street real firearms training.
Larry J. Nichols retired in 2011 after 27 years of honorable service as Senior Rangemaster and Armorer for the Burbank, California, Police Department. Before that, he spent five years with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in California as a Firearms Instructor and Armorer.
He brings more than 40 years of experience as a professional firearms instructor, including over 31 years as a law enforcement instructor in lethal, less-lethal and less-than-lethal force. He is widely recognized internationally for his innovative and pioneering work in designing, developing and implementing realistic firearms training programs for law enforcement.