The manual safety - yet again.

[onibaba]

Not every hammer fired gun is a 1911.

Tell us what you think about guns with safety levers on the slide that "go the wrong way". Or hammer fired SA/DA decocker only guns. Or hammer fired DAO guns with no safety levers or decockers.

Why? Does my opinion of them matter to you?

 

[chicharrones]

Why? Does my opinion of them matter to you?

I was interested in the point of view of a 1911 aficionado.

I have a 1911 with ambi-safety levers, but at this point in my life it's solely a range gun.

Speaking of non-1911s, I'm not a fan of slide mounted safety levers even though I've had them and still have a gun with one. I have never been able to reliably poke them forward (off) in a hurry. Call it a personal thumb problem.

I'm a huge fan of decocker only hammer fired "belt" guns for defense purposes.

My progression started with DA/SA revolvers and pistols with safety levers 30 years ago. Due to pocket carry in the 2000s, I moved into spurless hammer DAO pocket guns (revolvers, NAA Guardian, RM380), or semi-cocked hammer fired guns such as the KelTec based actions like a Ruger LCP. I also like striker fired guns, but have none for pocket duty.

 

[Elkins45]

I was interested in the point of view of a 1911 aficionado.

I have a 1911 with ambi-safety levers, but at this point in my life it's solely a range gun.

Speaking of non-1911s, I'm not a fan of slide mounted safety levers even though I've had them and still have a gun with one. I have never been able to reliably poke them forward (off) in a hurry. Call it a personal thumb problem.

I'm a huge fan of decocker only hammer fired "belt" guns for defense purposes.

My progression started with DA/SA revolvers and pistols with safety levers 30 years ago. Due to pocket carry in the 2000s, I moved into spurless hammer DAO pocket guns (revolvers, NAA Guardian, RM380), or semi-cocked hammer fired guns such as the KelTec based actions like a Ruger LCP. I also like striker fired guns, but have none for pocket duty.

I love the S&W 3rd generation autos but I have the same problem with their particular safety configuration. When I carry one I solve that problem by leaving it disengaged. The long DA first shot trigger is a pretty good safety by itself.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Not every hammer fired gun is a 1911.

Tell us what you think about guns with safety levers on the slide that "go the wrong way". Or hammer fired SA/DA decocker only guns. Or hammer fired DAO guns with no safety levers or decockers.

I keep a Radom Pistole 64 in 9Mak as a room defense gun in the back laundry area, hammer down, safety on, and a round in the chamber. I keep a 1938-made Colt’s DS in .38Spl in my desk drawer for a room defense gun in my office. Neither the Radom’s slide-mounted, hammer-drop safety nor the DS’s short sighting radius and long butt interfere with my handling and enjoyment of either weapon. The Radom’s long, heavy DA trigger is annoying under range conditions but when I practice shooting rolling melons with, “drawing” from the table top, I don’t even notice it. I have just learned to lead the trigger finger on the first shot. That’s how I compensate for “pushing off” with a heavy DA trigger.
But that’s just me. I really don’t expect what works for me to work for anyone else.

 

[onibaba]

I love the S&W 3rd generation autos but I have the same problem with their particular safety configuration. When I carry one I solve that problem by leaving it disengaged. The long DA first shot trigger is a pretty good safety by itself.

I don't like anything that has a different manual of arms from the 1911 type gun.

That said, any gun can be mastered, unless you believe the author of the posted article.

I think people err when they have various guns with differing manual or arms.

So owning a 1911 and a Beretta 92 is detrimental toward building muscle memory. Whereas owning a 1911 and a browning hi power, not so much.

I don't have to worry about it. I can only afford one gun. They all happen to be 1911s.

 

[JohnKSa]

I love the S&W 3rd generation autos but I have the same problem with their particular safety configuration. When I carry one I solve that problem by leaving it disengaged.

The problem with that strategy is that it is possible to engage slide mounted safeties accidentally. I've done it during clearance drills and heard of it being done on holstered pistols. I won't carry a gun with a manual safety unless I've trained to use it to the point that I'm confident I will operate it properly if the time comes.

That said, any gun can be mastered, unless you believe the author of the posted article.

I don't think that's what the article says. It is true that he says he will recommend only certain guns with manual safeties, but he never says that it's impossible to master others. He does state that training should be done "until you can't get it wrong" which is a standard I believe that most don't meet. I suppose you could say that for the people who won't put in the necessary training time to master a particular design, he's saying they shouldn't use it. But then, that's true of any design--any gun.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

...I watched multiple people, of all ages, fail to safely lower the hammer on a lever action rifle. This included members of the military...

People assume too much with military service members. (Police, too, for that matter.) When I was at Shepard AFB, I stored my bolt action rifle in the SF (Air Force version of MPs) arms room. (No guns allowed in on-base housing.) When I went to sign it out, to go shoot it, the airman police officer brought me the rifle with the bolt closed and asked me to clear the rifle (open bolt and inspect chamber for empty/make safe) because he didn't know how the gun worked. I though, but didn't say: "Have you never seen a WWII movie?"

Not every soldier or police officer was a door kicker. I fired a rifle exactly twice in six years in the military. Who remembers the youtube video of the DEA agent giving a presentation in a classroom who, a few seconds after saying "I'm the only one in this room qualified to handle this gun" (Glock) shoots himself in the foot. I bet he wished his Glock had a safety. Or the break-dancing FBI agent who dropped his gun at the club and shot a bystander in the leg just by picking it up? I bet the guy who took the bullet wishes that gun had had a safety. I'm not one for government regulation, but stuff like this lends weight to the idea that, like all cars be required to have seat belts, all guns should have safeties. I can't tell you how many police and military I've seen being careless on the range.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Not every hammer fired gun is a 1911.

Tell us what you think about guns with safety levers on the slide that "go the wrong way".

*cough* Beretta *cough*

 

[onibaba]

The problem with that strategy is that it is possible to engage slide mounted safeties accidentally. I've done it during clearance drills and heard of it being done on holstered pistols. I won't carry a gun with a manual safety unless I've trained to use it to the point that I'm confident I will operate it properly if the time comes.

I don't think that's what the article says. It is true that he says he will recommend only certain guns with manual safeties, but he never says that it's impossible to master others. He does state that training should be done "until you can't get it wrong" which is a standard I believe that most don't meet. I suppose you could say that for the people who won't put in the necessary training time to master a particular design, he's saying they shouldn't use it. But then, that's true of any design--any gun.

Its also true for any technical piece of equipment. If you drive a car for a day or a week, have you mastered driving?

We don't even expect video game players to master video games in one sitting.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes, it certainly is true of operating any piece of equipment.

Your driving analogy is quite apt. Anyone who drives can see that there are a huge number of people who apparently consider themselves to be proficient but who are actually miserably incompetent behind the wheel. Moreover, in spite of the craziness that can be viewed on the roads, and the rules of simple math, at least one study showed that over 90% of American drivers believe they have better than average driving skill.

It also demonstrates that merely engaging in an activity does not constitute training. Just driving a lot doesn't necessarily make a person a better driver--they may be ingraining bad habits or becoming more and more complacent. To actually gain or maintain skills, one needs to pay attention to what's going on to recognize issues, think about how to correct them and actively work to make them better.

Excellent arguments for the author's point of view.

 

[Jeff White]

The reality is that there are very few people in our society who train with their weapons enough to gain the same proficiency that even poor drivers have with their cars. Most of us drive every day and not on a "closed course" like the small print disclaimers on the auto manufacturers commercials. Even poor drivers face life threatening situations with somewhat regularity. That's how millions of Americans can drive hundreds of millions of miles a year without there being complete carnage on the roads. Yes, one can argue that the roads and highways are terribly dangerous but realistically if you look at the number of drivers of varying skill levels and experience and the number of miles driven in all kinds of conditions I think we do pretty good. Why, because we drive every day and every drive we take is a learning experience. This is why we don't have to consciously think to take our foot off of the gas and move it over the brake when a ball bounces into the street in front of us. We do that without thinking. It's also why new drivers have higher accident rates.

The number of people who use their defensive tools that much is tiny. Members of certain tier one military units and maybe a couple of tier one special police units. You might add some high level competition shooters in some disciplines to that list but they aren't training to fight. The rest of us handle our weapons very little compared to how we often we drive. And a lot of that weapons handling, even for professionals is what we would classify as administrative handling. Loading, unloading, strapping on the weapon, taking it off at the end of the day. Doing things that are tactically unsound in order to comply with range safety rules. Unless you are training with an instructor who has arranged for it in advance or you train on your own property training on a HOT RANGE is not going to happen. Shooters post here all of the time that they can't shoot from the draw on the range they shoot at.

When we drive we are exposed to situations that cause the flight or fight adrenaline dump and require us to react. Sometimes we fail that test but it doesn't take a lot of hours behind the wheel before you you experience a situation where you have to take some action to avoid a collision that could result in death or great bodily harm. There are very few people in our society who take that same test with their defensive firearm with any regularity. Training for that with your firearm is even harder to come by than training on a hot range. Force on force training is not readily available to the private citizen. It takes special training to learn to conduct it properly and the best simulators are expensive and maybe even unavailable to the private citizen. If it's not properly conducted it can teach the wrong lessons.

How many people in this thread only own one firearm? I would wager there aren't many. Most of us enjoy firearms and shooting and own more than one and when we go to the range we take more then one to shoot. So we are taking our limited range time, that may be restricted to what you can train on and shooting multiple platforms that probably have different manuals of arms. Not many of us have a motor pool of different type vehicles that we drive and if we did, the controls are pretty much the same, the big exception being manual v. automatic transmissions. We still develop muscle memory based on the vehicle we normally drive. For example, I drive an F150 and my wife drives a Mercury Milan. both vehicles have an automatic transmission but the gear shift lever in my F150 is on the steering column and it's on the console in my wife's Milan. When we go somewhere together in the Milan and I drive I sometimes reach towards the steering column for a gear shift lever that isn't there when we stop and I want to put the transmission in park. She sometimes laughs when I do it. We tend to develop the same habits when we shoot multiple firearms, we are going to default to the controls of the firearm we shoot the most. This is why when I was working I always carried the same type of firearm off duty as I carried on duty. When I started we were issued S&W Model 65 and 66 .357 Magnum revolvers and I carried a Colt Agent off duty, When we adopted the S&W 5906 I carried a S&W 3914, when we went to Glock 21s I bought a Glock 36. When I was authorized to carry a 1911, I thought about carrying my Colt Series 80 Officer's ACP but I discovered I could conceal my full size 1911 just as easily.

Not everyone who carries a gun professionally takes this outlook. I worked with plenty of police officers who viewed carrying a firearm as just part of the job that they thought they would never need. Guns didn't leave holsters between qualification shoots. When I took over the jail I discovered I had two corrections officers who wouldn't carry a round in the chamber of their department issued Glock 21 because they didn't think it was safe.

I'm not at all surprised at the shooter in the article but I don't think eliminating manual safeties is the answer to anything. I will say that if you are unable or unwilling to train with your chosen weapon you should choose the simplest one to operate despite what the gun press tells you is the latest thing.

 

[PistoleroWadcutterGANG]

Simplified version: those that don't want to learn their tools and use them properly. AND those that do. If you choose it, learn it and move on. Why are we still discussing this?

 

[Kleanbore]

Simplified version: those that don't want to learn their tools and use them properly. AND those that do.

Those are not sentences, nor do they contribute to the discussion..

 

[PistoleroWadcutterGANG]

Those are not sentences, nor do they contribute to the discussion..

Doesn't really matter the point is made. Verbal dancing isn't fixing the problem either.

 

[Kleanbore]

Doesn't really matter the point is made.

What is it that you are trying to say?

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Anyone who drives can see that there are a huge number of people who apparently consider themselves to be proficient but who are actually miserably incompetent behind the wheel.

Present company included?

The problem with these discussions is they inevitably boil down to, “ME and MY posse of head nodders are the only ones who know what we’re doing. The rest of you ignorant cretins need to shut up and stop disagreeing with us experts.”
Sorry for holding up the mirror for y’all. The fact is, people are people and trying to pigeon hole based on sweeping generalizations is just an exercise in ego-stroking. Some of us can manage safeties, no safeties, backwards safeties with and without decockers, revolvers and break open single shots. Some of us can’t even manage walking while chewing gum. I think it’s foolish to deprive people of their rights or lament such freedoms because they don’t meet some statistical standard of perfection.

 

[sgt127]

“Real world experience has driven me to the opposite side of that equation for everything except 1911-style pistols when it comes to manual safeties.”

That made me giggle. We now have striker fired guns, boasting short light triggers. Often, less than a factory 1911.

Remarkably, those are deemed safe to carry without a manual safety.

Perhaps I will write an article explaining that the 1911, should always be carried with the safety off. As it has the same trigger pull weight of many striker fired guns. Plus, it even has a grip safety.

If you are carrying a 1911 with the safety on. You will die in a firefight. Just carry it in a properly fitted holster, keep your booger hook off the bang switch etc.

 

[JohnKSa]

Present company included?

Of course not. Since you asked me, my driving skills are above average, just like 90% of drivers would say if you asked them.

Some of us can manage safeties, no safeties, backwards safeties with and without decockers, revolvers and break open single shots.

It's certainly possible to do all that but it's important to understand that the training required to be truly proficient (train until you can't get it wrong) is going to require a significant expenditure of time and effort.

And it's important to understand that a simple mental self-assessment probably isn't going to be very effective in terms of accurately evaluating a person's competence levels. It takes some kind of objective evaluation--people are notoriously bad at subjective self-assessment.

I think it’s foolish to deprive people of their rights or lament such freedoms because they don’t meet some statistical standard of perfection.

This is a strawman. Neither the author, nor anyone on this thread is suggesting that people should be deprived of their rights for choosing not to train adequately. For the most part, they are only hurting themselves if they choose to be under-trained.

 

[Jeff White]

I think it’s foolish to deprive people of their rights or lament such freedoms because they don’t meet some statistical standard of perfection.

Please point out where anyone has suggested that people are deprived of their rights. I don't know what you are reading into this thread but it's totally about training and how people react under stress. As for people who can handle it all and switching between platforms under stress, there might be someone who was born that way but that person would be the equivalent of a unicorn. Reaching the level of unconscious competence with every type of firearm action is not possible. It's not possible with the vehicles either. We all learn things about the handling characteristics of our daily drivers and those same characteristics do not completely carry over to other vehicles, even a different one of the same make and model. Take an emergency and evasive driving course sometime. The first thing they teach is know your vehicle and how it handles.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Please point out where anyone has suggested that people are deprived of their rights. I don't know what you are reading into this thread but it's totally about training and how people react under stress.

I'm going to take a stab at this and suggest that, by requiring a citizen to train in the use of his or her firearm, you are, by default, infringing upon their rights. Nowhere in the Constitution is any right predicated upon knowledge, skill, training, etc. In fact, requiring training to exercise one's 2nd amendment right is analogous to a literacy test to vote.

Come on, guys, this is like basic level RKBA advocacy stuff, here.

 

[Jeff White]

I'm going to take a stab at this and suggest that, by requiring a citizen to train in the use of his or her firearm, you are, by default, infringing upon their rights. Nowhere in the Constitution is any right predicated upon knowledge, skill, training, etc. In fact, requiring training to exercise one's 2nd amendment right is analogous to a literacy test to vote.

Come on, guys, this is like basic level RKBA advocacy stuff, here.

The only comment like that was dismissing the idea because of RKBA. If there was a post advocating mandated training quote it here. There was that I saw.

You are reading things into this thread that aren’t there.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

The only comment like that was dismissing the idea because of RKBA. If there was a post advocating mandated training quote it here. There was that I saw.

You are reading things into this thread that aren’t there.

Perhaps. But anytiiime there is a discussion of training, there is always an assumption that said training will be mandated, otherwise, how do those advocating for training get anyone to actually do it. People here are lamenting the lack of training or the lack of competency. That can only be overcome by training, and, as we've already agreed to, the vast majority of gun owners are not getting training, er go the assumption that training will have to be made compulsory. But yeah, I'm reading this into and between the lines.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Please point out where anyone has suggested that people are deprived of their rights. I don't know what you are reading into this thread but it's totally about training and how people react under stress. As for people who can handle it all and switching between platforms under stress, there might be someone who was born that way but that person would be the equivalent of a unicorn. Reaching the level of unconscious competence with every type of firearm action is not possible. It's not possible with the vehicles either. We all learn things about the handling characteristics of our daily drivers and those same characteristics do not completely carry over to other vehicles, even a different one of the same make and model. Take an emergency and evasive driving course sometime. The first thing they teach is know your vehicle and how it handles.

Just my opinion based on observation of the conversation - if opinions are still allowed?

The entire discussion is predicated on a claim in an area of research where there is no hard reality, just assumptions and opinions. Gathering any legitimate data would require an unbiased survey of a significant sample nationally about shooting habits - an area of life in which the population is notoriously closed-mouth. Then there is the question of an unbiased criteria for determining the value of any level of training. Is 100 hours a week of mag-dumping at a closed range of any real value? What about two hours a year with a NRA instructor? What about ten hours a week of playing a FPS video game more valuable than all of the above? Those are all judgement calls.
Statistics are a great way to beat up people you don’t like. That’s why they were created (HINT: look up the etymology of the word “statistic”).

Karl Rehn found that over 90% of concealed carry types never had any training beyond a state mandated course.

 

[Jeff White]

But anytiiime there is a discussion of training, there is always an assumption that said training will be mandated, otherwise, how do those advocating for training get anyone to actually do it.

Believe it or not, there are many people who train to increase their knowledge and competency. I spent my entire working life in professions that mandated training. I spent a lot of my own time (and in many cases my own money) to exceed the mandated standard. The problem with mandated training is that it’s always a minimum standard that most people can pass. The Illinois Law Enforcement Standards and Training Board did not mandate a standard firearms qualification course for all LE agencies in the state until 2005 or 2006 I don’t remember the year. When it came out it was a much easier standard to meet than most agencies in the state were already requiring on their own.

CCW permit standards in the states that require them are also easy enough that virtually anyone can pass with a minimum amount of instruction.

People here are lamenting the lack of training or the lack of competency. That can only be overcome by training, and, as we've already agreed to, the vast majority of gun owners are not getting training, er go the assumption that training will have to be made compulsory.

The purpose of these discussions is to hopefully motivate people to seek out training. Do you see that as a bad thing or a threat to RKBA?

Discussing what it takes to develop unconscious competency will hopefully make people realize what they don’t know and some will want to learn more. There is a mindset in our country and in my experience is especially prevalent in the shooting community. I call it The American Male Syndrome I think our culture, especially the entertainment industry gives a lot of people the idea that all American men come out of the womb knowing everything there is to know about guns, shooting, gunfights, knife fighting, fist fighting, martial arts, high speed driving and making love.

Hopefully these conversations burst some of the myths about some of those things. Is busting those myths a bad thing?

But yeah, I'm reading this into and between the lines.

Yes you are.

Just my opinion based on observation of the conversation - if opinions are still allowed?

Your opinion is yours and it’s as valid as anyone else’s.

The entire discussion is predicated on a claim in an area of research where there is no hard reality, just assumptions and opinions. Gathering any legitimate data would require an unbiased survey of a significant sample nationally about shooting habits - an area of life in which the population is notoriously closed-mouth. Then there is the question of an unbiased criteria for determining the value of any level of training. Is 100 hours a week of mag-dumping at a closed range of any real value? What about two hours a year with a NRA instructor? What about ten hours a week of playing a FPS video game more valuable than all of the above? Those are all judgement calls.
Statistics are a great way to beat up people you don’t like. That’s why they were created (HINT: look up the etymology of the word “statistic”).

Actually there is quite a lot of data on the type and quantity of training. The military, law enforcement, the competition community and the professional training community has a lot of experience with the type and amount of training that is necessary to bring a new shooter to an established standard. Do you think these organizations just “wing it”?

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Believe it or not, there are many people who train to increase their knowledge and competency. I spent my entire working life in professions that mandated training. I spent a lot of my own time (and in many cases my own money) to exceed the mandated standard. The problem with mandated training is that it’s always a minimum standard that most people can pass. The Illinois Law Enforcement Standards and Training Board did not mandate a standard firearms qualification course for all LE agencies in the state until 2005 or 2006 I don’t remember the year. When it came out it was a much easier standard to meet than most agencies in the state were already requiring on their own.

CCW permit standards in the states that require them are also easy enough that virtually anyone can pass with a minimum amount of instruction.

The purpose of these discussions is to hopefully motivate people to seek out training. Do you see that as a bad thing or a threat to RKBA?

Discussing what it takes to develop unconscious competency will hopefully make people realize what they don’t know and some will want to learn more. There is a mindset in our country and in my experience is especially prevalent in the shooting community. I call it The American Male Syndrome I think our culture, especially the entertainment industry gives a lot of people the idea that all American men come out of the womb knowing everything there is to know about guns, shooting, gunfights, knife fighting, fist fighting, martial arts, high speed driving and making love.

Hopefully these conversations burst some of the myths about some of those things. Is busting those myths a bad thing?



Yes you are.

Your opinion is yours and it’s as valid as anyone else’s.

Actually there is quite a lot of data on the type and quantity of training. The military, law enforcement, the competition community and the professional training community has a lot of experience with the type and amount of training that is necessary to bring a new shooter to an established standard. Do you think these organizations just “wing it”?

I don’t think there’s any value in trying to explain sampling biases or selection bias but every single entity you named is a closed sample specific to a particular group. That’s termed sample selection bias. The results of a biased sample study/selective bias sample are null and void. Absolutely meaningless as applied to the general population.
I’m not going to try to teach a pig to sing. Your beliefs are yours and I’m not going to try to change anybody’s mind. Just be careful about the statistics you put your faith in.