The manual safety - yet again.

[Gun-Reck]

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.

Another point problem.

Have several lady-friends who ended up with the Bersa FireStorm .380 ACP for a home defense pistol, for ergonomic reasons. (and, let's face it, the $300 acquisition cost)

Wonderfully adequate (with 95 gr. PDX1), an eminently shoot-able pistol, with the safety on the slide.

Their only pistol.

So we train, dry-fire and range, that the safety is the "clutch," on a manual transmission.

The first thing you activate before you put it into gear to go, or take it out of gear to park, as if the pistol won't work without it.

Initial training was very slow and cartoon-ish, but they have improved as a group.

Getting on the trigger, the "accelerator pedal," is an entirely different operation and training evolution.

It has been an amusing and rewarding experience.

And while they will not win any gunfights, they will draw and make ready their weapon, and then defend themselves in their homes.

No question.

 

[Jeff White]

Absolutely meaningless as applied to the general population.

I spent 40 years using firearms professionally and 30 of that instructing people to use them. My observations are relevant across the general population. Guess what group of the general population is the easiest to teach? People who have never fired a gun before, particularly women. Why women? Because they don’t have to unlearn several years lessons they learned in the movies and on TV.

The general population doesn’t know what they don’t know.

I don’t know a lot about many, many things in this world. But I do know more than a little about this subject.

 

[Gun-Reck]

And another thing noticed from, "swiping the Safety" on a Glock, especially the G36, because it is narrower in the grip that the double-stacks, is that the thumb activity translates into a much more positive wrapping purchase by both the thumb as well as the palm pad underneath it.

A real "constrictor" grip, naturally, that controls torque and straightens out a lot of the otherwise grip-related shooting problems, especially one-handed, which is the preferred method for a CCW that will generally be close range, and likely require some sort of off-hand activity, be it blocking, controlling, or illumination.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I spent 40 years using firearms professionally and 30 of that instructing people to use them. My observations are relevant across the general population. Guess what group of the general population is the easiest to teach? People who have never fired a gun before, particularly women. Why women? Because they don’t have to unlearn several years lessons they learned in the movies and on TV.

The general population doesn’t know what they don’t know.

I don’t know a lot about many, many things in this world. But I do know more than a little about this subject.

That was an interesting deliberate out of context misquote. I address the issue of faulty statistics and the fallacy of the unbiased study based on a selected sample population and the response is, “I know what I know.”
Have fun and be well.

 

[MikeInOr]

The most important thing is to have a gun on you when you need it. After that it comes down to what ever works best for you.

I concurred my fear of carrying without a safety about 25 years ago when I bought my first plastic striker fired carry gun.

 

[Jeff White]

That was an interesting deliberate out of context misquote. I address the issue of faulty statistics and the fallacy of the unbiased study based on a selected sample population and the response is, “I know what I know.”
Have fun and be well.

Where do you think the military, LE and private citizens I taught came from…..the general population. The students in my classes that were open to the public were not representative of the shooting community because they chose to train. Which is not representative of the shooting community in general. Most people in the shooting community were taught by a friend or relative who like as not had no experience teaching or were self taught.

Its simply ludicrous to think that the general population possesses the same skill level as those who spend years training to attain it. Yes there are people with a natural ability just like every endeavor. But those with great natural abilities in other things like professional sports have to spend years training before they reach the big leagues and they spend those years training so they can stay there. Just like in shooting they go back to the basics. Baseball hitters perfect their swing by hitting the ball off the tee just like 5 year olds. I don’t know why you insist that shooting is somehow different.

 

[JohnKSa]

...by requiring a citizen to train...

Nobody has said anything about "requiring" anyone to train.

But anytiiime there is a discussion of training, there is always an assumption that said training will be mandated

If someone really does assume that, they shouldn't.

...how do those advocating for training get anyone to actually do it.

By pointing out issues that can and have arisen from lack of training and hoping that people can draw the correct conclusion.

Absolutely meaningless as applied to the general population.

That's why the best approach is for people to take the lead in their own training. There are all kinds of classes available, training materials, and different ways to objectively assess competence and work in the areas needed. No need to argue about applying anything to the whole population--this is really an issue of individual responsibility.

I address the issue of faulty statistics and the fallacy of the unbiased study based on a selected sample population...

Right. So forget all that and encourage people to take charge of their own training using the cornucopia of resources available to them.

 

[MarshallDodge]

Edit/Delete

@Gun-Reck

I am not understanding your post. Please elaborate.

 

[Old Dog]

Nobody has said anything about "requiring" anyone to train.

No, John. But an unspoken assertion on most -- and yes, this one also -- firearms forums, is that firearms owners who do not avail themselves of (typically expensive) commercial (i.e., Gunsite, MAG, Thunder Ranch, etc.) training or have not received quality military/law enforcement training on a regular basis are simply not as competent firearms owners/shooters as the rest of us privileged few. And there's no denial that there's a lot of snob effect here as well. One only has to read through about half the posts on any internet forum -- including THR -- to understand that the "cognoscenti" look down upon those who don't seek out regular firearms training.

Yes, we'll all spout the company line: requiring training is an infringement on our 2A rights! But deep down inside, it seems as though most of us here -- who've spent much more time than the average gun owner considering the aftermath of actually using our gun(s) in a lethal force encounther -- probably view gun owners icensed to carry concealed handguns, and do so, but who do not acquire any training beyond what is required to obtain their license, as inferior and not on our level with regard to competency in shooting or in potential deadly force encounters.

 

[JohnKSa]

But an unspoken assertion on most -- and yes, this one also -- firearms forums, is that firearms owners who do not avail themselves of (typically expensive) commercial (i.e., Gunsite, MAG, Thunder Ranch, etc.) training or have not received quality military/law enforcement training on a regular basis are simply not as competent firearms owners/shooters as the rest of us privileged few.

Whether that's true or not, it's got nothing to do with assuming that advocating/recommending training is the same as requiring/mandating it. For whatever it's worth, even commercial training doesn't have to be expensive and no one on this thread has said that commercial training is the only way to train effectively.

As far as the level of proficiency, someone who makes an effort to get quality training on a regular basis is going to be more competent than someone who doesn't. That doesn't mean commercial training is the only way to go, but there's definitely a benefit to being able to draw on the experiences and knowledge of an organization/instructor as opposed to having to do it all yourself. But it is absolutely possible to work out an effective training program on your own and get very good results. Particularly these days with so many resources available to anyone with a computer and internet access.

There's certainly no one here saying that if you can't go to Gunsite or "Super-Gunfighting-Ranchapalooza" you can't be competent with your self-defense firearms. There are lots of counterexamples out there.

...the "cognoscenti" look down upon those who don't seek out regular firearms training.

Maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but again, that doesn't have anything to do with mandating/requiring training. And one can train regularly without having to put a lot of money into it. There's a ton of resources out there these days, and a lot of it is free.

...requiring training is an infringement on our 2A rights! ...probably view gun owners ... who do not acquire any training beyond what is required to obtain their license, as inferior and not on our level with regard to competency in shooting or in potential deadly force encounters.

Again, this is a strawman. No one is advocating mandated or requiring training. People are definitely advocating/encouraging training because it's very important to achieve and maintain a level of competence with the tools one expects to use to save life. But, it is absolutely possible to do that while still being opposed to mandated training.

As far as people who don't get any training other than what they absolutely have to in order to carry (in my state that's NO training at all), there's no question that they won't be as competent as someone who understands the value of training and expends time and effort to set up and pursue a constructive training regimen. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. A person who trains constructively is certainly going to demonstrate superior performance compared to someone who doesn't. That's why training exists. That's why people train.

• NO. Nobody on this thread is saying training should be mandated/required. I certainly am not and have not. Not on this thread and not on any other thread on THR.
• YES. Not training will definitely result in inferior performance compared to pursuing a constructive training program. If it didn't, there wouldn't be training programs.
• YES. Getting back to the original point of the thread, if you want to use a system that requires multiple steps to make it ready for use, it will almost certainly require more training to achieve a given competence level when compared to a system that can be made ready to use with fewer steps. Not to say that it's impossible to do, but it is harder.
• YES. If someone wants to be competent on a number of differently operating firearms, then they will have to train even more than they would to become competent on just one single operating system. Not just to achieve competence on each platform, but also to be able to differentiate and switch between platforms seamlessly and without hitches or stumbles. At some point, adding more systems will require enough additional training that achieving unconscious competence will require a level of training that is impractical. For some that point might come when adding a second system. Some might be able to add a couple of systems before they reach that level--especially if the differences between the different systems are not too critical.

 

[Old Dog]

Again, this is a strawman. No one is advocating mandated or requiring training.

Dude! I agreed with your post.

I was simply expounding on my belief vis a vis how most of us really feel about those who do not train.

I believe in training. I at no point disagreed with anything that you previously stated.

I was simply addressing an attitude that I believe many of us feel.

 

[Jeff White]

But an unspoken assertion on most -- and yes, this one also -- firearms forums, is that firearms owners who do not avail themselves of (typically expensive) commercial (i.e., Gunsite, MAG, Thunder Ranch, etc.) training or have not received quality military/law enforcement training on a regular basis are simply not as competent firearms owners/shooters as the rest of us privileged few.

And just why do us “privileged few” train? Because it’s a job requirement? You and I both know there are a lot of people who only train because it’s required to keep the paycheck coming.

Would it be a job requirement if there wasn’t a need for people in those professions to be that competent? Do you think that it would be less snobbish to just say; 99.9 percent of civilian gun owners will never be in a position to need those skills so there is no reason to acquire them?

I personally think that it’s better for the shooting community to make good training available to anyone who wants to receive it and to encourage everyone to avail themselves of it. I’m well aware of how much good training costs in time, travel and ammunition.

I don’t think it’s snobbish to point out the work involved to acquire and maintain those skills.

Would we be less snobbish if we went back to the old gun forum model of members just virtually thumping their chests about how bad they are, you remember, an online version of the 400 pound guy in BDU pants and a black “Kill ‘em all, let God sort em out” t-shirt standing at a table full of Chinese knock off tactical gear telling every passer by about his career as a Navy Seal Ranger and how he was the only corporal to command a battalion in Vietnam?

I fail to see how talking about training, how to train, how to acquire training is snobbish.

 

[citizenconn]

If you carry multiple different guns, you are setting yourself up for failure.

I think it depends on the individual and how familiar they are with their firearms. Taking one mostly anecdotal article and extrapolating an overarching philosophy from it seems asinine to me (not saying that about you personally.)

After trying a number of handguns through the years I have settled on ones that all have virtually the same manual of arms (I say virtually because some of my pistols are not 1911s and therefore do not have the grip safety.)

 

[GEM]

The focus of the OP article was: The core argument is that under stress even supposedly well ingrained motor responses fail and nonstandard positions will lead to failing to disengage the safety.

I fail to see how the argument about training ego negates an analysis of the risk proposed and solutions for it. Even with training, some mechanisms are prone to failure due to stress related human factors. Thus training up is to be valued and having a mechanism that mitigates possible errors is even better.

As far as being put down by snobs - oh, whatever. Have more ego strength. Jeff and JohnSka have it down well.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Honestly, we're our own worst enemies on so many issues of firearms. Everybody's got an opinion, everybody's positive their opinion is the be-all, and everybody points to some asinine perspective that justifies their own position. Anybody else must therefore be some kind of retard.

Now granted, there ARE quite a bit of black and white issues, such as the four rules of gun safety. But even then, how many here have seen even THAT argued to death over trivial matters?

The response should be "That's (not) for me and I accept the responsibility for my choice."


I choose to carry a firearm with a 1911 style safety. In addition to the normal cadre of people vehemently against a manual safety at all, I've run across a significant number of others who likewise prefer a manual safety but then have argued with me on exactly WHEN the manual safety should be disengaged.

My position is the the manual safety comes off as I draw my weapon. The perspective here is that once I've reached the point where I believe it's time to draw my weapon in defense, my trigger finger is the ONLY thing that should be the deciding factor in which the weapon is to be discharged afterwards. Why? Because I've decided it's literally a matter of life and death for me, or I would not have drawn in the first place.

Yet others will argue ad infinitum that the safety should ONLY be disengaged the instant before you actually decide to shoot because (reasons). Reasons like "what if you really don't need to shoot?" (Why am I drawing then?) "What if you accidentally shoot when you didn't mean to?" (Why am I drawing a firearm for defense if I don't mean to use it?)

Well, what about all those other people who carry WITHOUT a manual safety at all, then? (Of course, the argument here is that those people must be certifiably insane as the most unsafe people in the history of ever.)

It's almost as if people have some ingrained compulsion to argue and force their own opinions on others.

Drawing a weapon on someone (or something) else IS NOT A TRIVIAL MATTER, manual safety or not. People who think it is ought to rethink this in light of all the jurisdictional laws on this very subject.


Shut. Up. And. TRAIN.


If you choose to carry without a manual safety on your weapon, then TRAIN ACCORDINGLY.

If you choose to carry WITH a manual safety, THEN TRAIN ACCORDINGLY.

Both have pros and cons. Both change the dynamics of any potential encounter. Both can have potentially deadly consequences.

FIREARMS ARE DANGEROUS TOOLS WHETHER THE HAVE A MANUAL SAFETY OR NOT! ACCEPT THIS AND LEARN HOW TO USE THE TOOL YOU CHOSE PROPERLY AND LET OTHERS DO THIS WITH THEIR OWN CHOICES!

 

[wayneinFL]

*cough* Beretta *cough*

They made a couple of models without the safety, one double action only, the other DA/SA.

I started out shooting/carrying a Glock, then Beretta, because I didn't want a safety. I didn't like the 92 FS safety. Later moved on to single actions.

A thumb down stroke with a safety works on everything else. Even Glocks and revolvers, because it's okay to swipe a safety that isn't there, but it's not okay to miss a safety that is there.

 

[jmorris]

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

That was a close one. Almost answered but realized I was on Thehighroad….

 

[drobs]

There are a lot of absolutely horrible firearms trainers out there.


An example local to me. My county Sheriff's brother runs a tactical training facility in another county. I learned that each deputy takes paid tactical training at the Brother's facility weekly. The county allows them to take their county issued patrol vehicle to this facility once a week and then pays the deputy for their time spent at the facility.

My point of contention with the Sheriff was he got a free MRAP (Armored personnel carrier) from the Federal Government and gave it to his brother to play with, outside of the county. He did this without public knowledge. I think the Deputies get free training in exchange for the Brother getting an MRAP to play with.

Anyways... I shot with a neighbor of mine who is a Deputy and a friend of his who is also a Deputy. We were shooting with a shot timer on steel gongs. The starting position was a loaded holstered pistol with your hands in the surrender position. The plan was shoot 2rds in each of 3 gongs, do a mandatory mag change, and put 2rds in each of 3 gongs again.

1st up was my neighbor and his Sig P320 with red dot sight. He was fast and accurate! I went 2nd and did pretty good - 2nd fastest time. Then the other Deputy stepped up to shoot...

How do I know these Deputies are getting horrible training?

1st off I noted the other Deputy had his magazines facing different directions in his mag pouches.

I then watched the other Deputy swap hands on the gun to change mags and then swap hands on the gun again to keep firing. The guy was juggling his Glock pistol between both hands in this process. I had to interject and ask him why was he swapping hands on his pistol? His response was his off hand is better at releasing the mag then his strong hand.

I'm sorry but no firearms trainer with any experience would let him continue either practice.

Talking to former Deputies, this Training facility has the Deputies playing GI JOE - drive by shooting from cars, repelling from towers, etc. Basically nothing that applies to their day to day job or even basic handgun handling skills.

 

[Balrog]

I think its good to train. There is no downside to training.

But aren't guns used successfully thousands of times each year in self defense?

Although I support training, I would in no way, ever, support a training requirement before someone can exercise a constitutional right. Anyone who would support mandatory training is no friend of freedom or the Constitution.

I wonder if people who support mandatory training would also support mandatory training before they can attend church or speak publicly?

 

[The Night Rider]

Totally irrelevant. Military operations are completely different than carrying for self defense.

I'm not sure I agree with that, an ambush is an ambush.

 

[film495]

this is why I kind of like revolvers for commoner self defense.

 

[The Night Rider]

You simply disengage the safety as part of the draw stroke.

And in all the times you've ever drawn a 1911 you've never failed to disengage the safety?

I would find that very hard to believe. Brain Farts are a thing and so is Major Murphy.

I never actually carried a 1911 as a concealed carry handgun. I took my CHP class with one but by the time I got the card in the mail I had purchased a TDA gun for carry. So I never really put a lot of practice into drawing my 1911 but even on the Range when I was practicing a four-point draw with it I occasionally forgot to disengage the safety.

More importantly when I did forget, it took me a second to figure out why the gun wasn't firing. I would be willing about that one second would be all it would take to lose the fight

 

[MarshallDodge]

And in all the times you've ever drawn a 1911 you've never failed to disengage the safety?

I would find that very hard to believe.

I never actually carried a 1911 as a concealed carry handgun. I took my CHP class with one but by the time I got the card in the mail I had purchased a TDA gun for carry. So I never really put a lot of practice into drawing my 1911 but even on the Range when I was practicing a four-point draw with it I occasionally forgot to disengage the safety.

More importantly when I did forget, it took me a second to figure out why the gun wasn't firing. I would be willing about that one second would be all it would take to lose the fight

I'm not Jeff but I carried and competed with a 1911 for almost 10 years, and not one time did I have an issue with the thumb safety when disengaging on a draw. I did have an issue with the grip safety a few times but made some adjustments to my grip, changed the grips on the pistol, and had some adjustments made to the safety. The combinations of the three fixed the issue for me.

 

[The Night Rider]

I'm not Jeff but I carried and competed with a 1911 for almost 10 years, and not one time did I have an issue with the thumb safety when disengaging on a draw. I did have an issue with the grip safety a few times but made some adjustments to my grip, changed the grips on the pistol, and had some adjustments made to the safety. The combinations of the three fixed the issue for me.

I won't dispute your statement but a perfect record is just mind-boggling to me.

Again, I'm not questioning your statement, I just can't imagine it

 

[D.B. Cooper]

...I carried and competed with a 1911 for almost 10 years, and not one time did I have an issue with the thumb safety when disengaging on a draw...

The 1911 slide mounted thumb safety is pretty much perfection-for a right-handed shooter. Your thumb naturally falls right on to the safety, moving the correct direction to disengage *cough* Beretta *cough* as a natural extension of the draw and presentation.