# New MPTC Firearms Qualifications



## sgt128-13 (May 6, 2005)

Just went to FI recertification on Tuesday where they laid out the new firearms qualifications for the state. I think it was not well received. The new qual incorporates shooting and moving, escalation of force, and verbal commands. 

The theory behind it is sound, to implement some basic fundamentals of tactical pistol training into qualifications. A good idea for departments who don't train and only qualify once a year... but IMHO, firearms qualifications and firearms training are two different subjects that are now being rolled into one.

My department qualifies and trains with firearms 4 times a year, so doing the new qual, which is time-consuming, along with the original qual, just takes away from the time we can spend training.

Any other FI's have any thoughts?


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2007)

<--------- NOT a FI, however I will say that even though the MPTC never placed it into the program, FIs like Sgt Mike Grady(EPD) included those things into the course he taught for the MPTC. I think it is important for the student officers who were never in the military and who will never have that training with their PD. Just being introduced to those principals/techniques might save a life some day so I am all for it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2007)

Under stress we're supposed to fall back on our training, which is going to be tough considering they change the firearms course of fire every damn year.


----------



## MCPHS401 (Feb 13, 2007)

I did this new training with my department this past Wednesday, I enjoyed it, but it was also my first qualification ever, so I never experienced the other ways. I thought it was good, except for us all standing in line with the weapons in the low ready position facing each other, hoping that no one arcs up as they spin towards the target and starts popping off rounds to soon. I liked it though, it gave me a new perspective on shooting, and the Instructors on our department let us do it dry first to get use to it.


----------



## sgt128-13 (May 6, 2005)

JakeDodge said:


> I thought it was good, except for us all standing in line with the weapons in the low ready position facing each other, hoping that no one arcs up as they spin towards the target and starts popping off rounds to soon.


:ermm: The way they showed us at FI recert was to pivot and then draw from the holster once you were facing the target.

I understand the need to make these sort of things practical, but the MPTC and all PD's should understand the difference between qualifications (the measure of a minimum performance standard) and firearms training, which by multiple case laws should be realistic, dynamic, and in the environment the officers work.

FI's should be making a stink about getting training time beyond recruit level for their department. If the brass opposes it, then document away to CYA.

The 14%'ers out there who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn will be weeded out.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> Just went to FI recertification on Tuesday where they laid out the new firearms qualifications for the state. I think it was not well received. The new qual incorporates shooting and moving, escalation of force, and verbal commands.


Sounds like they're just trying to give you better training. Case law (Popov V. Margate) has already been established that "qualifying" does not equal "realistic training" and that departments are responsible for providing their officers with "realistic training" or they could be found negligent and end up paying the piper. Departments that go out and staple up some targets at the local sand pit, have the officers fire a few dozens rounds, then send you home are playing with fire, liability wise. If one of their officers is involved in a questionable shooting, a savvy lawyer will hang the administration out to dry.

Firearms training is a tricky thing, for one thing, most officers hate it and would like nothing better if the administration told them they would never have to qualify again for the rest of their career. Of course one way I put to disgruntled officers is firearms training is the only course where the final exam is a gunfight. If you don't want to practice, chew on that. Would you trust an officer who only drove once a year in a pursuit?

Administration hates paying for it because, if done properly, cost money and time, and there is no tangible product. If the administration spends $50,000 on new equipment they get shiny new cruisers, radars, etc. If the administration spends $50,000 on training, they get well-prepared officers, which is hard to quantify to the bean-counters. But this is a pay now, or pay later situation, poorly trained officers lead to bad shooting, bad driving or bad use of force situations. You spend a little to continually train them or roll the dice and spend a lot later in eventual lawsuits.



> Under stress we're supposed to fall back on our training, which is going to be tough considering they change the firearms course of fire every damn year.


A wise man once said "there is no _advanced_ firearms training, only a mastery of the basics"...that was Carlos Hathcock, legendary Marine sniper. As long as you have a good grasp of the fundamentals of shooting, the qualification course should be irrelevant. Of course, many officers' firearms skills are so poor, they have not "mastered the basics" and every year is like starting from square one with them.


----------



## extremesgs (Aug 24, 2002)

I'm on board with the "Re-certs do NOT equal training" for DT, firearms, etc. 

Quals will never cover everything that we need to know on the street. Hell, training won't even get them all. 

Quals are just the "formal" standard by which we're measured. I do, however, feel that increasing the demands of that "standard" are in order. High stress, high speed. Do that, then we can allow a percentage of hits below 100%. Until that "realistic" stress and pucker-factor get implimented into a "qualification", then everyone should be getting 100% on their quals, no excuses. 

Qualifying under controlled conditions like we do, we should be doing very well, since those nice cushy conditions are out the window when it hits the fan. You need as much margin for error in the shit as you can get. If you're barely passing your quals, and not training on your own, you and others will be in a world of hurt when the day comes. 

Train at the speed of life, and do it often.


----------



## kamaaina (Aug 5, 2005)

I have completed the supposedly first firearms instructor course with the "new" standards in April of this year, and can tell you that the course that the instructors proposed to the council was sound and made sense (to a point), but the council in their extreme intelligence changed the course to what it is now. 

It was stated by many of us that someone will get hurt during this qual at departments with individuals who pull their firearm out of the holster only during quals. Hopefully this does not happen, but I foresee the quals changing again in a few years


----------



## pablo (Apr 15, 2005)

The new MPTC course is only a recomendation, currently there is no state standard. Our agency is not going to shot the course, Lots of people think the MPTC is gospel on Firearms training. Boston has its own course, the state has its own version and there are a few others. If there was a State standard, everybody would be shooting the same couse, regardless of the agency.


----------



## extremesgs (Aug 24, 2002)

I know of a few depts that use S&W's 20-round qual! Less than half the rounds of the MPTC.... 

State standard would be nice...


----------



## BB-59 (Oct 19, 2005)

I have read the threads to date on this issue and here is my observations.

The MPTC will not mandate. Why? Then they will have to pay for what they mandate.

The new courses are there to _begin_ the transformation of the program to cover both the _legal_ and _practical_ needs that have been segmented between DT and firearms.

The new coordinator, William Leones is attempting to listen to as many people as he can and implement their suggestions in a way that it is an attainable, practical, and job relevant program.

What instructors have to keep in mind is that any changes or modifications have to be approved by the _MPTC Trainin Committe_, and they to add that to their plate with many, many, other items in other areas.

And we all have to have patience, understanding, and above all remember that we all have great ideas and suggestions, but what may work for one may not work for all. Sounds easy, but harder to put in practice.


----------

