CHL shooting test TOO EASY?

[TheYoungGuy]

I'm sure I'll catch all sorts of guff for saying so, but in my humble opinion, the shooting proficiency portion of the Texas CHL course is far too easy. I scored a 249/250, and I had only been shooting pistols for about 6 months prior. Let me assure you, too, that I am by no means the best shot around. Thus, my point. While I think I deserved to pass, along with most others around me, I don't feel the same about a couple of my classmates. They were having trouble keeping them within the 8-ring at three yards, within the 7-ring at seven yards, and within the whole darn silhouette at fifteen yards. As a citizen that could one day be near a BG being fired upon, I am not excited about my chances of avoiding injury. These are just thoughts... It might stem from my dad being anal about safety. He said if I shot less than a 230 he didn't want me carrying until I improved. So, no disrespect intended to anyone who did poorly on their shooting test... My pop's just a stickler!

[txinvestigator]

I'm sure I'll catch all sorts of guff for saying so, but in my humble opinion, the shooting proficiency portion of the Texas CHL course is far too easy. I scored a 249/250, and I had only been shooting pistols for about 6 months prior. Let me assure you, too, that I am by no means the best shot around. Thus, my point. While I think I deserved to pass, along with most others around me, I don't feel the same about a couple of my classmates. They were having trouble keeping them within the 8-ring at three yards, within the 7-ring at seven yards, and within the whole darn silhouette at fifteen yards. As a citizen that could one day be near a BG being fired upon, I am not excited about my chances of avoiding injury. These are just thoughts... It might stem from my dad being anal about safety. He said if I shot less than a 230 he didn't want me carrying until I improved. So, no disrespect intended to anyone who did poorly on their shooting test... My pop's just a stickler!

That is an interesting and fair observation.

When DPS originally designed the shooting course, the CHL legislators were shown it. They told DPS it was TOO difficult and to re-do it. They wanted people to only have to demonstrate proficiency, not tactical or combat mastery.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I agree. The test is too easy, and should involve drawing from a holster instead of shooting from "low ready" with the safety off (on single action autos).

I've been shooting quite a while, including competition, and I had no problem "cleaning" the course with 250/250 when I took the refresher course recently. If scoring directly from the rings, I would have had a 484/500, which I considered a bit disappointing but not too bad.

I'm not sure of the passing standard (190/250?), but my instructor said "if you keep it in the blue you will definitely pass."

Then, if you think TX is bad, check out the idiotic test they give in my previous home state of RI. You shoot 30 rounds in 30 MINUTES at an Army L type target at 25 yards. For those not familiar, this target is about the size of an elephant. Passing is 195/300.

As an NRA Instructor, I personally administered the test to a few dozen people over the years. Amazingly, two of them could not pass despite repeated tries. So of course, I would not certify their application forms.

But think of this. They are using a slow fire test at 25 yards as a standard of proficiency for a person to carry a gun in public for self defense. This, when well over 95% of all lawful defensive shootings are less than 10 to 15 yards max.

In most situations, if someone is 25 yards away from you, they do not pose an "imminent threat", unless they themselves are shooting at you (or threatening to do so). If they are threatening you with a weapon OTHER THAN A GUN, the threat is not imminent, as no other personal weapons in common use would pose a threat from that distance. (How many times do you read about someone being attacked by having a grenade thrown at them?)

So yes, the TX test could be improved. But at least it isn't totally stupid like the RI test.

And PLEASE, I know there are those out there who feel there should be no test at all. To them, it's like forcing people to pass a spelling test before they are allowed to have a letter to the editor published.

All I can say is that if someone writes an illiterate letter to the editor, none of the misused words or letters are likely to strike me by accident and kill me.

[seamusTX]

I dunno.

More than 90% of CHL holders will never draw their weapon. Half of those that do won't fire. Most of the rest will fire two or three shots inside of five yards.

The test has to take into account the relatively large number of shots, which is fatiguing for people who don't practice much.

If anything, I would check drawing and holstering skills; but I don't think there's a problem now. CHL holders are simply not getting in trouble.

P.S.: Most of the shall-issue states have no range test. It doesn't seem to be a problem there, either.

- Jim

[Venus Pax]

I think the test is fine. Yes, it's easy. However, I'm glad the course has a large segment on de-scalation. IMO, this is just as, or more important, than accuracy. If you can avoid the fight, you won't end up shooting an innocent bystander.

[txinvestigator]

70% is required for CHL holders to pass the handgun qualification. That is 175 out of possible 250. I see few CHLers who cannot do much better, But I have seen armed guards fail the same course of fire.

Instructors must pass with 90%, or 225 or better.

[Skiprr]

I agree with Jim that there is no real problem, but it's also difficult for me not to chime in and say that the TX range test is awfully easy. Maybe too easy.

I guess I'd use the analogy of a driver's license. It's a "will issue" license, the majority of the population is expected to be able to take the test and pass, and it's a license open to folks under 21. But the driving test--written and practical--is more difficult, IMHO, than the CHL.

In hindsight, though, I don't know if it's the range portion of the test that I'd change. You don't have to parallel park (e.g., timed draw from concealment and hit mutiple targets) very often in real life; I may parallel park only a couple of times each year. And now, if you're parallel challenged, you can buy a Lexus and have it park itself. No, I think I'd make two different changes in the qualification.

First, I'd beef up the written portion of the test. We can't all be lawyers, but you see from this Forum alone how often basic information from the penal code pops up as a point of confusion. A couple of subsections of GC 411 are must-knows, but beyond that you have only about a dozen pages of the penal code that all CHLers should be really really familiar with. Studying fewer than 20 pages of material in advance of a test isn't too much to ask, IMHO. I'd like to see the written test tightened up.

Second, as with most types of professional certifications out there, I'd like to see some sort of continuing education requirement for CHL. The license runs four to five years, so I don't think it would be too onerous on us to have to take one additional handgun course of our choosing during each license period...and the instructors could keep more classes going. The administrative stuff on DPS is where the nightmare would come in, so this will likely never be practical. But as soon as I took my CHL class last year, what struck me was that even though the state considered me competent to carry (250/250 and no misses on the written), I understood it to be a bigger responsibility than I'd initially thought. It set in after the classroom part of the course. I committed myself then and there to ongoing instruction and practice. I think a lot of us here do the same.

But not everyone does. In my class were at least two renewals who admitted they hadn't fired their guns since their initial CHL class four years before.

I can't comment on how it might work administratively, but I wouldn't mind it being part of my CHL requirement to take at least one additional, accredited handgun course during the four years of my license period. Extending the analogy, it's kind of like a defensive driving course to help lower auto insurance premiums. The NRA Personal Protection courses come to mind as excellent examples.

Just my two Lincolns...

(Edited to recast one really squirrelly run-on sentence. )

[tomneal]

I think the TX CHL Range Test is too hard.

I shoot nearly every weekend and would not have a problem passing the test from a holster at 15 yards.

BUT
Not every CHL holder loves to shoot.

1)
Several States do not require a shooting test.

2)
Every month in the NRA newsletter, some old person that hasn't shot since I was born, uses a gun to stop a bad guy from doing a bad thing.

3)
When Texas was writing the CHL legislation, someone figured out that if you didn't want any CHL holders, you just had to make the test too hard to pass. They changed the legislation to require that the test be no harder than the annual test required for Law Enforcement.


I am not sure there is a good reason to have the shooting test for renewals.

[txinvestigator]

I think the TX CHL Range Test is too hard.

I shoot nearly every weekend and would not have a problem passing the test from a holster at 15 yards.

BUT
Not every CHL holder loves to shoot.

1)
Several States do not require a shooting test.

2)
Every month in the NRA newsletter, some old person that hasn't shot since I was born, uses a gun to stop a bad guy from doing a bad thing.

3)
When Texas was writing the CHL legislation, someone figured out that if you didn't want any CHL holders, you just had to make the test too hard to pass. They changed the legislation to require that the test be no harder than the annual test required for Law Enforcement.


I am not sure there is a good reason to have the shooting test for renewals.

Actually the test is significantly easier than the one for Texas LEO's.

The original was CLOSER to the LEO test, but still not as difficult.

[TEX]

Years ago, at the beginning of the program I taught the CHL course for a couple of years. I also think the test is too easy, but I do not think it should be made too hard either. As things stand now, you can make 8-ring shots at 3 and 7 yards and then put all shots at 15 yards into the dirt and still pass. I do worry about innocent bystanders with some of the marginal CHL holders. I think if any rounds fail to hit the torso, it should be an automatic failure, but I would like to see the 15-yards distance reduced to 12-yards. I agree with some that the likelihood is that should a CHL actually have to discharge their sidearm to solve the problem, it will be in close (5 yards or less) and that only a few rounds will be fired, but still I worry. Many of the people who take the CHL course, have had no formal handgun training – ever, and are lacking in basic handgun safety also. I once had a lady pull a (upholstered) loaded and cock auto out of her purse that had been bouncing around in there for a month or better and at some point the safety had been swept off. I almost break into a cold sweat even now while writing about it. I would like to see the law changed to require a basic NRA pistol course or equivalent before taking the CHL course. I would also like to see the DPS or perhaps the TCHIA develop a list of qualified instructors that can teach more advanced 2-day courses, and if an applicant fails the practical twice, they have to take a more advanced course before coming back and trying the practical again – at no charge. IMHO the four basic safety rules need to be drilled in HARD and these people need to be taught how to shoot and how to hit their target. There is not really time to do this in the CHL course. Either that or change the course to require 40 hours and include all of this. If current CHL holders are shooting 20-inch groups at only 7 yards with the present practical test, they will likely shoot 45-inch groups under real stress. I also think the new target stinks as it leads people to shoot too low into the torso. The old target was better, but I don’t see why we can’t go to a standard IPSC or IDPA cardboard or paper target.

A-zone = 5 points, B-zone = 4 points C-zone = 3 points

I also think we could use a two-tier CHL license system, where with additional schooling and training, coupled with a much tougher practical test a CHL holder could obtain an advanced license that would allow him/her to carry in places otherwise prohibited – with very few exceptions. Perhaps even add a mental evaluation by a competent professional as part of the requirement. I am thinking just one step below a reserve officer and a practical test about 75% as hard as the old Air Marshal test. This would all be paid for by the CHL holder of course and present no additional burden to the DPS. I know many of you might think this is elitist or just nuts, but I think it is a workable idea that many would apply for.

I would also like to see all CHL holders exempt from state sales tax on ammo, as this might give a small incentive to practice : )

[txinvestigator]

Years ago, at the beginning of the program I taught the CHL course for a couple of years. I also think the test is too easy, but I do not think it should be made too hard either. As things stand now, you can make 8-ring shots at 3 and 7 yards and then put all shots at 15 yards into the dirt and still pass. I do worry about innocent bystanders with some of the marginal CHL holders. I think if any rounds fail to hit the torso, it should be an automatic failure, but I would like to see the 15-yards distance reduced to 12-yards. I agree with some that the likelihood is that should a CHL actually have to discharge their sidearm to solve the problem, it will be in close (5 yards or less) and that only a few rounds will be fired, but still I worry. Many of the people who take the CHL course, have had no formal handgun training – ever, and are lacking in basic handgun safety also. I once had a lady pull a (upholstered) loaded and cock auto out of her purse that had been bouncing around in there for a month or better and at some point the safety had been swept off. I almost break into a cold sweat even now while writing about it. I would like to see the law changed to require a basic NRA pistol course or equivalent before taking the CHL course. I would also like to see the DPS or perhaps the TCHIA develop a list of qualified instructors that can teach more advanced 2-day courses, and if an applicant fails the practical twice, they have to take a more advanced course before coming back and trying the practical again – at no charge. IMHO the four basic safety rules need to be drilled in HARD and these people need to be taught how to shoot and how to hit their target. There is not really time to do this in the CHL course. Either that or change the course to require 40 hours and include all of this. If current CHL holders are shooting 20-inch groups at only 7 yards with the present practical test, they will likely shoot 45-inch groups under real stress. I also think the new target stinks as it leads people to shoot too low into the torso. The old target was better, but I don’t see why we can’t go to a standard IPSC or IDPA cardboard or paper target.

A-zone = 5 points, B-zone = 4 points C-zone = 3 points

I also think we could use a two-tier CHL license system, where with additional schooling and training, coupled with a much tougher practical test a CHL holder could obtain an advanced license that would allow him/her to carry in places otherwise prohibited – with very few exceptions. Perhaps even add a mental evaluation by a competent professional as part of the requirement. I am thinking just one step below a reserve officer and a practical test about 75% as hard as the old Air Marshal test. This would all be paid for by the CHL holder of course and present no additional burden to the DPS. I know many of you might think this is elitist or just nuts, but I think it is a workable idea that many would apply for.

I would also like to see all CHL holders exempt from state sales tax on ammo, as this might give a small incentive to practice : )

Thats all well and good, but you seek to add requirements to those we already have in order to exercise a right already guaranteed under the constitution.

No thanks.

[CHL/LEO]

Without getting into whether the test is too hard, too easy, or just right let me pose the following question.

Have there been any documented incidents where a TX CHL holder discharged their weapon while protecting a life, and an innocent bystander was struck? Or perhaps an incident where a round missed and did property damage? I can't recall hearing or reading about something like this happening in my area but it very well could have happened somewhere else in the state.

[longtooth]

One of the ladies I trained a couple of yrs ago is a good example as to why the present proficiency test is as it should be. That is if there is to be a test at all & that is another discussion.
For the reason I am about to give, I think it should be even easier & will explain.

She had degenerative bone desease. Her hands were very weak. Age Mid 60's. She could not pull the trigger on any revolver I had. Only one we had between us that she could pull double action was Moms Sig 232.
She could not rack the slide at all.
I struggled w/ many Qs about teaching her to shoot due to possibility of hurting herself. I kept coming back to the fact that she was much more of a victim than I am & should at least have the opportunity to try to fight back since she wanted to.

When I talked to the instructor & asked him about help for her to qualify he said I could load for her but she had to charge her own gun. We worked on the for a while. She could do it a couple of times but not near enough to go through the whole 50 rd coarse of fire. That is charging it 10 times.
I talked to him again. She can do it once to get a gun ready. She can even set for 10 minutes & load her own Mags. When she has 2 Mags ready & the gun loaded, she will never have a fire fight that requires her to load & charge a weapon 10 times. She should have the right to defend herself to the extent she is able despite her condition.
He thought for a moment & said yep you are right.
I loaded for her & charged her weapon, handing it to her single action, & she shot in the low 230's after several sessions of practice. (Flint you remember her!!)
If they require much more than the Texas proficiency test there could easily be many frail, weak, or old folks that could not pass.
These folks have the same right to self defense that we who can shoot a 250 w/ our weak hand.
Whether the Legislature thought of this or not it is valid.
They cannot have several tests for different physical abilities.
Let the test remain easy.
Let all of us who are relatively healthy get our hard training on the range & have great fun there.
LT

[Crossfire]

I'm with LT on this one. If we make the proficiency test harder, then the ones who will fail will be the ones who already are least able to defend themselves.

[BrassMonkey]

I think the test is ok the way it is. The test gives the instructor a general idea as to whether the person understands how to handle a firearm in a safe manner. They are also aware at this point in the class that they are responsible for their accuracy, or lack thereof...