LAPD combat qualification simulation results

Barron put in dozens of hours in producing the video and has the details here.


The short version is that I created some stages that simulated the LAPD pistol combat qualification course as close as I could and still comply with USPSA rules. The stage descriptions and diagrams are here. I reported on the results here but I made an error. I reported the pass rate if the course was run in low light conditions. With normal light it should be a score of 70% or greater. The end result is that the pass rate was 79% instead of the originally reported 90.9%. Again, keep in mind the morphing of the course into a USPSA stage made the course more difficult than what the actual course is.


Here is the video:



At the end you will see some brief clips of another stage we shot on the same day. A recreation of the Empire State Building shooting.

4 thoughts on “LAPD combat qualification simulation results

  1. A very good job! Well done. Normally I do not watch internet videos finding the noise to signal ratio far too high to waste my time and the production values far too bad. Made an exception for yours and was glad I did.

    NukemJim

  2. Well done. Great stages!

    We may very well, with your permission, use these stages for a steel challenge. (We like to mix it up and use non-standard stages from time to time to maintain interest. It also works, at least to some extent, to keep things from getting to the point where guys develop special pistols solely for steel challenge.)

  3. @Weer’d, She’s “here”. She commented on another post just yesterday.

    Interesting? Yes. But what is there for her to say? She never said we wouldn’t do well. She said it would be fun to see the video of it. And she was critical of our courses of fire representing an active shooting situation.

    Of course we can see the bias in that she wasn’t critical of the LAPD qualification course for similar (and valid) reasons. But I don’t really see that she would be compelled to comment one way or the other on the results because she didn’t express an opinion on how she thought we would do when this all came up. We might be able to “read between the line” with some accuracy but she didn’t commit to a prediction on how well we would do.

Comments are closed.