A comparison of two law enforcement marksmanship assessments

Abstract

Background:

Law enforcement officers (LEO) must be confident in their ability to employ their firearm and be accurate in its application in high stress, life threatening, situations. To assess officer firearm marksmanship and training needs, police officers are assessed annually on their firearm handling and shooting accuracy. The unknown is whether different marksmanship assessments may yield different results in officer qualification rates, and measures of officer firearm comfort, confidence, and safety.

Objective:

This study aimed to identify differences in officer firearm qualification rates and perceptions of comfort, confidence, and safety in the handling of their firearms between their current Traditional Pistol Assessment (TPA) and an Alternate Pistol Assessment (APA).

Methods:

Australian LEO (male n = 8; female n = 6) consented and participated in a cross sectional, within-subjects, randomised, repeated measures study. Subjective data (e.g. perceived confidence), objective data (e.g. heart rate and breathing rate), and marksmanship qualification results were collected for both assessments.

Results:

Four (29%) officers passed the TPA, while seven (50%) passed the APA. While more complex, officers had greater confidence in their sidearm handling and marksmanship ability following the APA. There were no significant differences in physiological demands between the two assessments.

Conclusions:

Officer firearm qualification rates are influenced by the nature of the marksmanship assessment undertaken as are their perceptions of firearm comfort, confidence, and safety when handling and firing their firearm. A firearms qualification assessment should include a variety of occupationally relevant situations (e.g. moving, shooting from behind cover, vocalisation, etc.), and consider impacts on officer firearms confidence.