CHL shooting test TOO EASY?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar
jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Post by jimlongley »

I don't think we, on this forum, are likely to represent a true cross section f those who have taken the test. We are more likely to be a little more proficient just from our mental perspective.

Having said that, I have not had a lot of experience with the CHL course, I have passed it and the TCPS course with very high scores, and I have seen people fail it each time. My wife changed guns and fired a perfect score, which may be a clue too, as someone noted before.

When we took the test the first time another student had just taken her test and the instructors conferred before deciding that she had not passed (we were not allowed to see our scores) and told to practice and retest. I would have bet money that she had scored well enough, but having observed her handling of the gun and the fact that it looked like she did not hit the blue at all with her last ten shots, I think I would agree with their decision. I don't know if the instructors are supposed to have that lattitude, but I think they should.

I can't think of any change that I would make, besides the obvious one of establishing Vermont style carry.

I was told that the reason a draw from concealment was not included was that it was too dangerous.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
BrassMonkey
Senior Member
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:49 pm
Location: North of Mckinney

Post by BrassMonkey »

I THINK instructors have to score it by the book. But they can also send a letter to DPS advising against issuance of a license.
BrassMonkey, that funky monkey....
===========================
Springfield TRP
Glock 22
Glock 21
Walther P22
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Post by stevie_d_64 »

I would say its a good gauge to see where you are in "basic" firearms proficiency...Nothing more...

I also believe it should encourage those who have not shot much before the test, to get additional range time and or instruction to get you more comfortable with the whole concept of self-defense with a handgun...

I believe the "test" is fine the way it is...

If those of us who have shot for years and qualified many times over for the CHL think its too easy...

Then I challenge you to make it harder on yourself...personally...

Shoot your next qualifier, weak-handed...Put your renewal in a slight jeopardy...I bet you switch back to your strong hand by the time the ten shots you have to get at 15 yards comes around... ;-)
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
Crossfire
Moderator
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:27 am
Location: DFW
Contact:

Post by Crossfire »

BrassMonkey wrote:I THINK instructors have to score it by the book. But they can also send a letter to DPS advising against issuance of a license.
You might shoot a passing score, but if you a danger to yourself or others on the range, you still won't pass. More than likely, you won't even have an opportunity to finish. And, yes, I HAVE kicked more than one student off the range.

Hint: never, never, never, ever point a gun, loaded or not, in the direction of the instructor.
Texas LTC Instructor, FFL, IdentoGO Fingerprinting Partner
http://www.Crossfire-Training.com
BrassMonkey
Senior Member
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:49 pm
Location: North of Mckinney

Post by BrassMonkey »

OMG, are you serious? They would have had to do a complete 180 to point it at you. You don;t come anywhere near the sides of people...

llwatson wrote:
BrassMonkey wrote:I THINK instructors have to score it by the book. But they can also send a letter to DPS advising against issuance of a license.
You might shoot a passing score, but if you a danger to yourself or others on the range, you still won't pass. More than likely, you won't even have an opportunity to finish. And, yes, I HAVE kicked more than one student off the range.

Hint: never, never, never, ever point a gun, loaded or not, in the direction of the instructor.
BrassMonkey, that funky monkey....
===========================
Springfield TRP
Glock 22
Glock 21
Walther P22
User avatar
flintknapper
Banned
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Deep East Texas

Post by flintknapper »

longtooth wrote: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


The above is an excellent example of why I think the proficiency test is good the way it is.

And yes, I remember Ms. Jeanie like it was yesterday. You don't forget a personality like her. I was so proud of her that day.
Spartans ask not how many, but where!
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

TEX wrote: 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 : )
At the risk of more flames, I like it. There could even be room for a special test (easier) administered to people on account of age or disability.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
shootthesheet
Senior Member
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:58 pm

OPINION

Post by shootthesheet »

I personally don't think there should be a test. I don't think we should have to have permission from the government to carry protection either. So, it is my opinion that the test and class and everything are to hard and cost to much. So, from my point of view, anybody that passes is more than qualified. Not just because they were able to shoot but because they took the responsibility and spent the time and money to pursue it.
User avatar
GlockenHammer
Senior Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:17 pm

Post by GlockenHammer »

Reading this thread has caused me to change my thoughts on the topic that I've held ever since I first qualified. I used to think the test was too easy. But I've read here some really good reasons why a non-marksman should still be issued a license to carry.

In return for an easy test (or no test, really), I would like to see training in firearms proficiency. The four safety rules could then be drilled. The basics of marksmanship could be taught (for those who've never had any instruction on using the bumps on top of their gun). Perhaps those 50 rounds from the test could be better put to use teaching a person how to fire accurately instead of measuring their current status. Yes, I'm thinking of something like the NRA basic pistol course.

In this way, poor marksmen that just have lacked any instruction can get better and those with handicaps (or plain poor marksmen) won't have their right denied. And as a bonus, our CHL holders might just become better shooters for having gone through the process. I think that would be an improvement over a super-easy qualification test.
Mike from Texas
Senior Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:57 am
Location: D/FW Texas

Post by Mike from Texas »

I think the range portion of the test is fine as is, or as someone else mentioned maybe even shortened to 12 yards. Most deadly force confrontations are going to be 20' (yes feet) or less so 12 yards is more than long enough for the shooting portion.

I think the classroom portion is a bit long with the curriculum as it currently stands. I believe the Penal code is rightly pounded into your head, but there should be more safety and formal handgun training included in the class. As was stated earlier, there are people who take the class that may have never even fired a handgun and are not familiar with the safety aspect of it.

I also STRONGLY agree that there should be some continuing education required especially in regards to any changes or updates to the PC, such as SB378 that goes into effect this fall (Sept 1, 2007). All other regulated licenses (except for driver's license, but that's another discussion) require so many hours of CEs so I really feel that is should be required of CHLs as well.
A few Glocks, a few Kahrs, Dan Wesson CBOB 10mm, Dan Wesson CBOB 45ACP, Springer Champion Operator

****************************************************************************************************
lrb111
Senior Member
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: Odessa

Post by lrb111 »

GlockenHammer wrote:Reading this thread has caused me to change my thoughts on the topic that I've held ever since I first qualified. I used to think the test was too easy. But I've read here some really good reasons why a non-marksman should still be issued a license to carry.

In return for an easy test (or no test, really), I would like to see training in firearms proficiency. The four safety rules could then be drilled. The basics of marksmanship could be taught (for those who've never had any instruction on using the bumps on top of their gun). Perhaps those 50 rounds from the test could be better put to use teaching a person how to fire accurately instead of measuring their current status. Yes, I'm thinking of something like the NRA basic pistol course.

In this way, poor marksmen that just have lacked any instruction can get better and those with handicaps (or plain poor marksmen) won't have their right denied. And as a bonus, our CHL holders might just become better shooters for having gone through the process. I think that would be an improvement over a super-easy qualification test.
I think you have reasonable plan there. I think the bulk of the licensees would come away feeling better about themselves and skills, too.
There really are a great many that try to qualify that may have never had any instruction.

As far as the test being too easy... My wife shot a better score than the man next to her. He's a leo.

Since training is from 10 to 15 hours, maybe we should use the extra 5 hours on firearms handlng, drills etc.
Ø resist

Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.

NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor
User avatar
Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Post by Liberty »

Any other requirements would result in fewer people getting and maintaining their CHL. It is a fact that as we get more CHLers Texas becomes a safer place to live. It is difficult for many of us to find the time and/or money as the current rules exist. I know personally that it would be dificult for me to do continuing ed classes. and I certainly won't give any money to the NRA or TSRA for classes.

One of the driving forces for me to get my CHL was, having it would allow me to get some range time. I knew I could shoot well and safely enough, to pass the CHL easily, but getting to the range legally presented a problem because I work in Harris County. and my car doesn't lock up well.

Its been my observation that marskmanship has very little to do with safety, and good judgement has nothing to do with marksmanship.

At any rate think this whole thread is about a solution looking for a problem. Us CHLers aren't going around shooting up good guys and property because we are missing the bad guys. In fact statistical studys have shown that we are much more likely to hit the bad guys when we shoot than the cops.
User avatar
Smokewagon
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:49 am
Location: West Texas

Post by Smokewagon »

BrassMonkey wrote: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...

I totally agree. Ability to handle your firearm safely. :txflag:
Texas friendly, spoken here.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 17788
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

CHL/LEO wrote: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.
:iagree: There is no problem to fix.

As an aside, I can't count the hours I've spent on the range with police officers trying to qualify. While a CHL can only shoot the course twice, I've had officers shoot their course 8 or 10 times to pass. If you can't do it on command, what good is a qualification?

Chas.
User avatar
flintknapper
Banned
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Deep East Texas

Post by flintknapper »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
CHL/LEO wrote: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.
:iagree: There is no problem to fix.

As an aside, I can't count the hours I've spent on the range with police officers trying to qualify. While a CHL can only shoot the course twice, I've had officers shoot their course 8 or 10 times to pass. If you can't do it on command, what good is a qualification?
Chas.

'Tis an excellent question!
Spartans ask not how many, but where!
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”