Why your firearms training MUST include stress inoculation drills

The FBI has decided to switch back to the 9mm Luger/Parabellum cartridge after using the more powerful .40 S&W cartridge for many years. Their move away from the 9mm was prompted by the 1986 Miami shootout between FBI agents armed with 9mm handguns and two armed robbers where the rounds fired by the FBI agents proved to be woefully lacking in stopping power. The FBI began experimenting with more powerful rounds such as the .45 ACP and 10mm, but settled on the slightly less powerful .40 S&W as the best compromise between power, ammunition capacity, and controllability (i.e. recoil management). Most U.S. police agencies followed suit and also adopted the .40 S&W as their standard duty ammunition.

So what has prompted the FBI to change to a less powerful cartridge? Improvements in the ballistic performance of 9mm ammunition is a major reason, but another one cited is improved recoil management. In their justification for the switch, FBI officials stated that “LEOs [Law Enforcement Officers] miss between 70 – 80 percent of the shots fired during a shooting incident”. Several other studies show similar results. For instance, a RAND Corporation study on the New York City Police Department’s firearms training program showed that between 1998 and 2006, the average number of “hits” during officer-involved gunfights was just 18 percent—rising to 30 percent if the suspect did not return fire at the pursuing police officer(s).

I find the “hit ratio” particularly concerning for FBI agents. They have to successfully qualify with their handguns three times each year. I have fired the “FBI Qualification Course” (in 2014 when I took Tom Given’s Rangemaster Instructor Development Course). This particular course of fire requires 60 rounds to be fired at a “QIT-99” target (see image below) measuring 26 inches by 12 inches—the smaller zones on the target measure 3 inches by 3 inches (head area) and 4 inches by 6.5 inches (chest area) —from distances ranging from 3 yards to 25 yards. Forty of those rounds are fired at the closer (3-7 yard) distances. Any “hit” within the bottle-shaped target counts. Time limits range from 3 seconds to 15 seconds for multiple shots, with the time limit increasing as the distance to the target increases. While most shooting is done from the standing position using a two-handed grip, you also must be able to shoot with one hand and to shoot from a kneeling position.

To pass this test, FBI agents must score at least 80 percent (48 hits out of 60 shots fired). FBI instructors (and students in the Rangemaster course) must score at least 90 percent (54 out of 60) to pass. (Later in the course I had to pass the “Rangemaster Qualification” which was basically the same course of fire except that only hits within the smaller “head” and “chest” areas counted. Again a 90 percent hit rate was required to pass. And yes, I passed both qualifications.)

Unfortunately, the majority of law enforcement agencies have far lower shooting proficiency standards than the FBI does and the low “hit ratio” statistics cited by the FBI is not limited to just FBI agent-involved shootings. As Chad Baus points out in his article, “One of the reasons for the FBI’s move to 9mm ammo just might surprise you," the ammunition shortage in recent years, coupled with budget constraints, has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of rounds law enforcement officers must fire annually to maintain their firearms qualification. In Ohio, the qualification requirement is as low as 25 rounds per year, with most officers only firing an average of 100 rounds per year for practice! (SWAT and similar special team officers undoubtedly fire more rounds in training and practice to maintain their proficiency.)

By passing their qualification course, we know FBI agents are capable of shooting accurately, but why don’t they seem to be able to duplicate this performance during “real world” shootouts? FBI officials seem to be implying that the greater recoil produced by the .40 S&W cartridge is partially responsible for the lower “hit ratio”. This position is supported by other studies that show the size and power of the bullet is less important in stopping a threat than shot placement is—i.e. less recoil means better shot placement. Greg Ellifritz made this point in his article “An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power." Dave Spaulding agreed in his more recent post—“A 9mm Journey: Hard to believe I have been wrong!." (Greg and Dave both have extensive law enforcement experience and are well-respected firearms instructors.)

I find the “recoil management” argument to be suspect. Again, FBI agents are able to successfully pass their qualification course using their duty handguns and ammunition. So what other factors might be contributing to the low “hit ratio”?

I think stress is probably a better reason for the low “hit ratios” being experienced in shootouts. Violent encounters tend to happen with little or no warning, they are chaotic, and they are over within seconds. While law enforcement officers do get involved in sudden violent encounters, quite often they are responding to a reported crime scene and thus they have time to mentally prepare themselves for the encounter they are about to become part of—if they arrive while the encounter is still in progress. Thus factors other than being caught by surprise seem to be contributing to the problem as well.

One factor that not a lot of data is available on is whether the shootout occurs in diminished light conditions. The less light there is, the harder it is to accurately place shots on target. The limited studies that have been done seem to indicate that law enforcement officers seem to be reluctant to use their flashlights during diminished light situations, fearing that using a flashlight will draw the attention of the bad guys to their location.

Another factor seems to be the number of law enforcement officers that are involved in the shootout. The data seems to show that the greater the number of officers involved, the lower the “hit ratio” becomes, all other factors being the same. A phenomenon known as “emotional contagion” may be at play as once the shooting starts every one starts shooting whether they have a clear target to shoot at or not. An example of this occurred on January 1, 2011 near Enon, Ohio following the fatal shooting of Clark County Sheriff’s Deputy Suzanne Hopper. Local law enforcement officers surrounded the suspected shooter in his trailer. In an ensuing gunfight, which occurred in broad daylight, the suspect was killed and his trailer was riddled with bullet holes. It seems the “trailer” became the target for dozens of the responding officers rather than the individual inside the trailer as the entire duration of shooting lasted but a few seconds and many of the officers that open fire simply kept firing until their guns ran out of ammunition.

Trigger pull weights might also contribute to the poor accuracy experienced in law enforcement shootouts. A majority of agencies/departments equip their officers with Glock pistols. The standard trigger pull weight on these pistols is 5.5 pounds. However, New York officials, concerned about liability and accidental discharges, mandated that the trigger pull weights on their issued firearms be increased to about 10-12 pounds. Using the standard trigger, Los Angeles police officers are able to hit their targets about 51 percent of the time, while for New York officers it is only about 15 percent of the time. Heavy trigger pull weights make it more difficult to fire accurate shots.

So, what does all of this mean for the average armed citizen? First of all it should demonstrate that your ability to place accurate shots on target on the practice range does not directly translate to a similar ability to accurately shoot during a violent encounter where your life is at stake. When confronted with a life-and-death situation, you will undergo physiological and psychological changes that will greatly affect your shooting ability—you will likely focus on “the threat” rather than your handgun’s front sight as you were trained to do. Exposure to these physiological and psychological changes is not part of the typical basic handgun course required to obtain your concealed carry license. For that you will need to seek out advanced handgun training where you will be exposed to increased stress levels while engaged in shooting exercises. This is important in inoculating you from the stresses of combat. Using time constraints during the various courses of fire does increase the stress you will experience. Having to complete the drills under time constraints and in front of an audience (i.e. your fellow students) will further increase your stress level. However, none of these will approach the levels of stress you will experience in a real gunfight. The closest thing that I’ve found is undergoing a Tueller Drill during training where the target is rushing at you from just 21 feet away and you have to draw your handgun and fire multiple shots at it before it reaches you. Many firearms instructors do use the Tueller Drill as part of their advanced handgun training programs.

Stress inoculation is not something you can do by yourself on the practice range. It requires others to impose the stressors on you while you go through the various shooting drills.

Now it is up to you to do the responsible thing and get additional training in stress inoculation and the use of your handgun for self-defense. It will improve your confidence in your shooting abilities and it will help you avoid hitting innocent bystanders should you become involved in a shootout. Remember, there is a “lawyer” attached to every bullet that you fire!

Gary Evens is a NRA-Certified Instructor and Range Safety Officer.