Why is LEM so confusing and mysterious to people?

[DannyZRC]

your third paragraph does illuminate the situation somewhat.

If the operator forgets to decock (that does happen even during non-stressful encounters) and tries to reholster, it is even less safe than a SFA

LEM and DA/SA add more "ifs". If you forget to decock, you must also forget to place the thumb to the hammer because if you place the thumb to the hammer, you will feel a cocked hammer, which will then likely prompt you to decock. Even if it doesn't, and you holster a cocked pistol, there has to be more coincidences. Also, you don't really have to "feel" the hammer, you push the pistol into the holster via the hammer, the whole gun will 'jam' and not go into the holster if something tries to pull the trigger but is blocked because the trigger is being pushed forward into the holster by the hammer, which the trigger is trying to pull back if it is fouled.

Striker:
#1, there has to be something to foul the trigger. (including, say, your finger)
#2, you have to fail to notice it (if there's nothing there and you fail to notice, no bad result).

So, striker has a double coincidence to net a failure.

LEM:
#1, there has to be something to foul the trigger.
#2, you have to fail to notice it
#3, you have to fail to control the hammer (the first two both have to met in order for failing at #3 to cause an incident).

DA/SA:
#1, foul the blahblah
#2, miss said blahblah
#3, you have to fail to decock the pistol
#4, you have to fail to control the hammer

3 and 4 have some interaction here as well.

you have to multiply the individual chance of each failure, the more layers you stack on the less chance there is for them to all happen together. I heard it referred to elsewhere on this board as the swiss cheese model, each layer has holes but the more layers you have the less likely they all are to line up.

As you alluded to, the gunsite data really can't say anything without knowing the sample before the accidents were selected out.

[YVK]

but also remember to put their thumb on the hammer

This is a lot easier to do if one developed a technique a direct hammer pressure is a part of reholstering.

[Crow Hunter]

This is a lot easier to do if one developed a technique a direct hammer pressure is a part of reholstering.

No doubt.

But will you notice that the hammer is moving or is cocked before reholstering in a stressful encounter or will you, by default of training want to focus on the threat without the need to focus on reholstering because of this "preprogramming" fail to notice the hammer moving and jamb the gun into the holster and "BOOM"? Kind of like I have made a sharp left turn and put on my turn signal even though I was just following the highway because my wife and I were having a "discussion".

Most humans don't multitask well in ideal conditions situations much less high stress fight or flight "Oh Kitten I just shot somebody" conditions that are WAY outside of their normal "operating parameters".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a bad thing to have a hammer or gadget or striker indicator and train around that at all. I just don't know that it is a panacea for shooting oneself with a ND.

I was just bringing up a point that has always bothered me. There always seems to be people who will not AIWB a Glock but will a 640/642/442/LCR/etc. There is no hammer for feedback on Centennial style revolvers either. I guess you could keep your index finger on the cylinder though but that goes back to will you actually notice?

If it is the trigger weight, the why do people spend so much time and money to reduce the trigger weight down to a more manageable 8-10 lbs? Which is easy to achieve with a NY-1 Glock trigger (or even more) and it might be possible with other designs by changing springs/engagement angles (like VP9).

It is to bad we can't design a "safety holster" that would disable a hanguns firing mechanism upon holstering. Maybe like pushing it out of battery far enough that it can't fire via drag on the slide or something. Maybe a spring loaded "stand off" that pushes back on the slide as it is being reholstered. Of course then someone would speed reholster and eject their live cartridge so maybe that isn't such a good idea.

[DannyZRC]

"notice the hammer"

If you're pushing the gun into the holster via the thumb on the hammer, there is nothing to notice. That's not how the process works. The hammer is not a trigger-fouling indicator.

Thumb pushes hammer, object obstructs trigger, the thumb is the source of energy in the whole game, thumb tries to push hammer down, hammer pushes against gun, gun tries to move forward, object fouls trigger, trigger can't move without pivoting hammer back (which moves hammer back in space, not just relative to gun), hammer can't move back because thumb is pressing on it, whole gun/hammer/trigger assembly cannot move because trigger is blocked, force goes into trying to stretch the trigger bar.

pushing the gun in via your palm and using your thumb as a feeler for hammer motion is different than pushing the gun in via your thumb on the hammer.

[Mr_White]

I think there are a number of ways to create a 'safe enough' AIWB situation for a given user.

Factors reliant on the user during holstering:

Keeping finger straight
Bowing the pelvis forward
'Hard break'/holstering slowly and deliberately
Looking for holster obstruction
Thumb on the hammer/Gadget/etc.
Thumb forcing a manual safety on

Factors not reliant on the user during holstering:

Longer/heavier trigger
Holster that doesn't allow the muzzle to cover the body
'Slick' gear that minimizes foreign matter available to obstruct the holster

I get that people want to be satisfied that they can avoid shooting themselves, then factually avoid it. That's what I want too. We all ultimately choose one or more factors from the above lists and drive on (I don't think I forgot any...)

For me personally, I am most reliant on: keeping finger straight, 'hard break'/holstering slowly and deliberately, a holster that doesn't allow the muzzle to cover the body, and running 'slick' gear that minimizes foreign matter available to obstruct the holster.

Credit to Mike Brown of TPI for what I think is a profoundly simple, elegant, and correct observation about the factors reliant on the user during holstering: if we think we can be conscientious enough to (insert safety measure here - thumb on hammer, etc.), why can't we be conscientious enough to keep our finger straight?

That doesn't account for foreign matter obstruction, but I think is otherwise quite correct when it comes to safety measures that are reliant on the user during holstering.

I prefer to use an internally-stock Glock 34. I've settled on that gun and like using it for AIWB carry, too. That gun's trigger is at the lighter end of my comfort zone, but is within my comfort zone. It is not going to be very tolerant of trigger finger errors. I must run my finger the right way, period.

I also strongly prefer that there be at least one safety measure that is NOT reliant on me behaving correctly, so that if I screw up, it does not lead to serious injury or death. The huge foam pads on the Keeper prevent the muzzle from intersecting with my body most of the time, and certainly during holstering while standing, which is how I am holstering the overwhelming majority of the time.

People draw the line for themselves at different points on the gun/trigger continuum, and cobble 'safety' together from various factors that make them feel comfortable enough. I understand if some people aren't comfortable with certain combinations of guns, triggers, and safety measures. I personally would need to spend some time with it to be sure, but I tend to think that the VP9's trigger (like the PPQ's) might not be acceptable for me AIWB. Or possibly in any mode of carry. But I would have to spend some time with the gun to know.

[Josh Runkle]

But will you notice that the hammer is moving or is cocked before reholstering in a stressful encounter or will you, by default of training want to focus on the threat without the need to focus on reholstering because of this "preprogramming" fail to notice the hammer moving and jamb the gun into the holster and "BOOM"? Kind of like I have made a sharp left turn and put on my turn signal even though I was just following the highway because my wife and I were having a "discussion".

Most humans don't multitask well in ideal conditions situations much less high stress fight or flight "Oh Kitten I just shot somebody" conditions that are WAY outside of their normal "operating parameters".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a bad thing to have a hammer or gadget or striker indicator and train around that at all. I just don't know that it is a panacea for shooting oneself with a ND.

Yes. Thank you.

[Josh Runkle]

"notice the hammer"

If you're pushing the gun into the holster via the thumb on the hammer, there is nothing to notice. That's not how the process works. The hammer is not a trigger-fouling indicator.

Thumb pushes hammer, object obstructs trigger, the thumb is the source of energy in the whole game, thumb tries to push hammer down, hammer pushes against gun, gun tries to move forward, object fouls trigger, trigger can't move without pivoting hammer back (which moves hammer back in space, not just relative to gun), hammer can't move back because thumb is pressing on it, whole gun/hammer/trigger assembly cannot move because trigger is blocked, force goes into trying to stretch the trigger bar.

pushing the gun in via your palm and using your thumb as a feeler for hammer motion is different than pushing the gun in via your thumb on the hammer.

However, I believe that the practice of slow and deliberate re-holstering is much more valuable than the ability to block the hammer. If you can do all three, great. But if I had one or the other, I'd pick slow and deliberate re-holstering.

Here's why:

If you reholster at varying speeds when you practice and are "in control of yourself" but your reholstering "safety" function is to ride the hammer, your new instinct that you have built in says that all will be well as long as the hammer is covered, which is not true. If you have something in the holster that can pull the trigger, covering the hammer only works as long as the force you apply to the hammer is more than you apply to forcing the gun into the holster. You notice movement of the hammer as long as you reholster slow enough to feel it. If you speed reholster while all "amped up" after an emotionally or psychologically charged event, blocking out the hammer may not work if you suddenly reholster faster or harder than normal. Practicing to reholster slowly and deliberately is a much more valuable skill. Blocking out the hammer is an added bonus.

[JodyH]

However, I believe that the practice of slow and deliberate re-holstering is much more valuable than the ability to block the hammer. If you can do all three, great. But if I had one or the other, I'd pick slow and deliberate re-holstering.

Here's why:

If you reholster at varying speeds when you practice and are "in control of yourself" but your reholstering "safety" function is to ride the hammer, your new instinct that you have built in says that all will be well as long as the hammer is covered, which is not true. If you have something in the holster that can pull the trigger, covering the hammer only works as long as the force you apply to the hammer is more than you apply to forcing the gun into the holster. You notice movement of the hammer as long as you reholster slow enough to feel it. If you speed reholster while all "amped up" after an emotionally or psychologically charged event, blocking out the hammer may not work if you suddenly reholster faster or harder than normal. Practicing to reholster slowly and deliberately is a much more valuable skill. Blocking out the hammer is an added bonus.

Because everything is either/or zero sum...
If you have to invent strawman scenarios to justify your position... you're doing it wrong.

This thread has officially entered Fonzi sheepdog jumping status.

[psalms144.1]

Because everything is either/or zero sum...
If you have to invent strawman scenarios to justify your position... you're doing it wrong.

This thread has officially entered Fonzi sheepdog jumping status.

So, have we gone FULL retard on this, or are we just getting started? Because we could bring the "New York Reload" into this somehow and get it really sideways!

[Josh Runkle]

Because everything is either/or zero sum...
If you have to invent strawman scenarios to justify your position... you're doing it wrong.
This thread has entered Fonzi shark jumping status.

In the sense that many people perceive one safety factor, like the ability to block a hammer, and then make statements like "I don't have to look when I reholster my gun" (which happened earlier in this thread), then yes, we are discussing a zero sum game. If you are constantly aware of the whole, then rock on and more power to you, you will have long-term success