TexasCHLforum.com

Unless I am overlooking something, it appears that the course of fire for the SSC course is now using the B-27 target for everything, to the exclusion of all other targets.

Is that correct?

SK

I just got a chance to look at the updated curriculum. You are correct; it's all B-27's now, and no Photo-Realistic Targets.

From a 'standardization' point of view as a course developer, it makes sense that everyone taking the SSC would be using the same targets (whereas the previous version provided examples of what 'should' be used; each instructor could source/use whatever targets they wanted within that scope; & each student might have a different photo-target from the students to their left / right; no actual 'scoring zones'; etc).

I don't 'agree with removing Photo-Realistic targets' from the course; but think what they are striving for w/ the updated course of fire is (1) standardize the targets used across the State, & (2) use the scoring rings + distance + time constraints to allow each student to gauge their ability to shoot accurately under whatever stress the buzzer induces. In my opinion, what is lost by only using B-27's is introducing the Positive ID (PID) of the 'threat', & shifting the gaze from the weapon to somewhere on the target's anatomy (other than the X ring of the B27). Plus, several of the Photo-targets had a mix of Shoot / No Shoot images incorporated on the same target to reinforce the hazards of NOT hitting your intended target, which I view as needed inoculation for those defending in crowded public venues.

Overall, I really like the updated information on the PowerPoint for the non-shooting portions, but the 'Shooting Under Duress' portion is still lacking. Especially irks me that 'Holsters are NOT to be used; I'd like that portion of the First Responder Course to be added to the SSC curriculum.

Interesting development. I think the use of photorealistic targets are an important part of firearms training in general.

Paladin wrote: Sun Mar 01, 2026 8:41 pm Interesting development. I think the use of photorealistic targets are an important part of firearms training in general.

Agreed. Instead of only focusing on hitting a big piece of paper, you have to discriminate between what to hit and what to not hit.
While it isn't a very realistic simulation, it does have some affect on the shooter.

Boxerrider wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2026 8:18 am

Paladin wrote: Sun Mar 01, 2026 8:41 pm Interesting development. I think the use of photorealistic targets are an important part of firearms training in general.

Agreed. Instead of only focusing on hitting a big piece of paper, you have to discriminate between what to hit and what to not hit.
While it isn't a very realistic simulation, it does have some affect on the shooter.

I think the most sobering effect was when the school employee taking the course missed the threat target & hit a non-threat ((usually a profile image of the threat with a student(s) further down a hallway, reinforcing need for situational awareness & shot accountability)). The second-most sobering effect was presenting them with a threat target that's of a student who's the active killer ((It tended to hammer home the classroom discussion of Decisive Action, & being mentally prepared to stop the killing regardless of who's doing it))

Mike S wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2026 10:36 pm

Boxerrider wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2026 8:18 am

Paladin wrote: Sun Mar 01, 2026 8:41 pm Interesting development. I think the use of photorealistic targets are an important part of firearms training in general.

Agreed. Instead of only focusing on hitting a big piece of paper, you have to discriminate between what to hit and what to not hit.
While it isn't a very realistic simulation, it does have some affect on the shooter.

I think the most sobering effect was when the school employee taking the course missed the threat target & hit a non-threat ((usually a profile image of the threat with a student(s) further down a hallway, reinforcing need for situational awareness & shot accountability)). The second-most sobering effect was presenting them with a threat target that's of a student who's the active killer ((It tended to hammer home the classroom discussion of Decisive Action, & being mentally prepared to stop the killing regardless of who's doing it))

+1
I had at least one student in every class that made the same statement.

Both important reasons for continued use of photo-realistic targets.

• Misses are not just misses - they may injure or kill the people you intend to protect.

• The attacker may be a child you have spent months, or years, trying to help.

Many students will have come to terms with these on there own. Others have not, and I think it is important for the training to address them.

So, is there something that says that photo-realistic targets are prohibited altogether? Could an instructor use B-27s to meet all of the course requirements, then use photo targets as an extra range activity? What about using them during yearly qualifications?

While I'm retired from all of this now, I appreciate all of you who are Guardians and/or instructors. I believe in the program, and I want the training to be the best that it can be.