If that method is better....Why not change policy that if trained in method the deputy is allowed to use that method. Furthermore, from this point on start training all new hires in this method and phase out the old method with time.
Couple of issues. First, it would have to change on a state-wide level. Recruits are taught in an academy, in a regional training center. The outline is one that is approved by the state's L.E. standards and training. By statute and state policy certain things have to be taught the same for standardization purposes. That way Officer so-in-so in a small rural dept. has the same mandated firearms and DT training as Deputy so-in-so in a large dept. At least that is the theory. It often ends at the academy level unfortunately. Only then are the recruits sent to the agency that hired and/or sponsored them for orientation and field training.
Now imagine a dept. like mine that has 2K+ sworn. You'd have to retrain each new hire to the new methodology that in part differs from the methodology they just learned and qualified in to graduate. In addition you'd have to implement a program to retrain veteran officers/Deputies otherwise you'd have a mix-match of training which is unsound in a tactical situation. All of this while you are still having state mandated training in all the other areas a Deputy is required to be re-certified in i.e. DT, CPR, AED, Baton, ASR, less-than-lethal, bean bag, long gun, driving, CIT, ethics, law, blood borne pathogens and the list goes on and on and on. I can't speak for any other state or their departments but we are always being updated in training or recertifying or learning new stuff. For example, Taser just changed procedures so everyone department wide gets updated.
All of that with a training staff already obligated in fifty other projects as well. It just isn't feasible or physically possible even if the training staff were increased substantially. And then this goes into the fiscal aspect. We already go through who knows how many rounds in a year for normal training. That costs money, both for the FMJ training rounds (to include .380, .38, 9mm and .45) but also the GD hollowpoints issued. Duty round is .45acp but off-duty the other calibers are authorized which means $ has to be spent in all those other calibers for training and qualification.
The state isn't about to change their standards. First because there are those that don't understand the methodology or what the system offers as a whole. Secondly, again the budget. All the instructors statewide would have to be retrained into the methodology. Just isn't going to happen.
However, the method is valid on an individual basis for those (CCW holders) that would like to learn. That's why I teach it if it is desired. At the very least, all the stuff I mentioned in my first post should be incorporated into training regardless of actual carry method.
