Does this meet your safety standard?

[BJJ]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/daniel-zimmerman/fns-40-video-contest-entry-four-self-defense-techniques/#comments

I was having a disagreement with a friend over the way the firearm was used in this video. I don't think it's appropriate even with the safety checks, especially given the availability of inert training guns. He said he thought it was ok since they had taking several precautions. I am curious to know what people on this board think.

[ToddG]

Absolute no-go. How many times have we seen checked, even verified by a 2nd person, "unloaded" guns go off?

Remember the infamous DEA guy? After he "cleared" his pistol he showed it to someone else who also confirmed it was empty. Then the DEA promptly shot himself with that safe, double-checked, "unloaded" gun.

Get an Ring's Blue gun, ASP red gun, SIRT, or pick up a toy cowboy revolver at your local KidsRGreedy.

[BJJ]

It made me think of the DEA guy as well. Thanks for your input. I was wondering if I was being too much of a hard ass.

[TGS]

Absolute no-go.

I wouldn't go as far to say absolute no-go.

In the military, you point real guns at each other all the time. Before such, the weapon is checked by multiple people, and everyone is "lined out"....meaning you ensure you have zero live ammunition anywhere on yourself, gear, ect. You're then inspected by the guy next to you, and then by the instructor, PSO, or a member of the CoC. After such, it's been deemed appropriate to conduct training.

I would say that using a real firearm in this circumstance is unnecessary, however. They could instead use a blue gun, since they don't need an actual firearm to shoot blanks or whatever.

[ToddG]

In the military, you point real guns at each other all the time.

So your argument seems to be that the military has no unsafe, unwise, inappropriate, or incorrect training practices. :cool:

There is at least one instructor in the industry -- now deceased, unrelated to this issue -- who had I believe multiple students get shot doing H2H/disarm drills with "checked by the instructor and both students" quote-unquote UNLOADED firearms.

It's simply unnecessary and penny-wise/pound-foolish. Dedicated nonfiring training guns cost money. But they don't cost as much as a student's life.

[TGS]

So your argument seems to be that the military has no unsafe, unwise, inappropriate, or incorrect training practices. :cool:

No, not that, just that the objective is risk mitigation.....not risk elimination.

Like I said, it's wiser to just use a blue gun if the situation allows...and in this situation, it'd be wiser to do such. However, that isn't always feasible and so I disagree with it being an "absolute no-go."

[Byron]

In the context/setting of the video, it makes absolutely no sense to me. They're in a dedicated training environment, wearing dedicated training attire. There's no reason not to have a dedicated training pistol.

I would bet they spent more money on any given piece of their attire (whether those finger shoes, gi pants, or rash guard) than it would cost to get one plastic training gun.

[ToddG]

No, not that, just that the objective is risk mitigation.....not risk elimination.

Why?

If there is an easy, low-cost, equally effective solution that utterly eliminates the risk why not opt for that?

[Tamara]

I wouldn't go as far to say absolute no-go.

In the military, you point real guns at each other all the time. Before such, the weapon is checked by multiple people, and everyone is "lined out"....meaning you ensure you have zero live ammunition anywhere on yourself, gear, ect. You're then inspected by the guy next to you, and then by the instructor, PSO, or a member of the CoC. After such, it's been deemed appropriate to conduct training.

I would say that using a real firearm in this circumstance is unnecessary, however. They could instead use a blue gun, since they don't need an actual firearm to shoot blanks or whatever.

True.

Also remember that in the military, you're on the clock and working for a boss who could tell you that you can't take a lunch break until after you charge that machine gun nest, so the whole risk/reward calculus is probably a little skewed. ;)

[Wayne Dobbs]

Given the easy availability of SIRT guns, Blue Guns, etc. I would say it's an ABSOLUTE NO-GO to use a real firearm in scenario based training or demonstration. I'd even say that past describing it as unwise, foolish, stupid, etc. I would say it's IMMORAL to do so and when a live gun is used in this manner and somebody gets shot, it should also be ILLEGAL.

[TGS]

Why?

Because you cannot always eliminate risk while trying to accomplish the goal.

The military uses your issue rifle, carbine, LMG, MMG, and HMG to shoot blanks at each-other. Is it inherently dangerous? Yes. That does not mean it's an unacceptable practice, however, and so I disagree with the statement that using real firearms for force-on-force is an absolute no-go.


If there is an easy, low-cost, equally effective solution that utterly eliminates the risk why not opt for that?

I already addressed this twice:


I would say that using a real firearm in this circumstance is unnecessary, however. They could instead use a blue gun, since they don't need an actual firearm to shoot blanks or whatever.


Like I said, it's wiser to just use a blue gun if the situation allows...and in this situation, it'd be wiser to do such.

[ST911]

Early in my career, it was standard practice to clear duty guns and use them in DT training. I believe it was solely by the grace of God that no one was killed. I had only been on a few years when the Nebraska State Patrol trooper was killed when they were doing the same thing.

Inert training guns are plentiful, and there's really no excuse to use otherwise.

[Joseph B.]

Hmmm. Pointing real guns at people in the training environment is how people get accidentally shot. There are too many police officers and soldiers who have died as a result of it, a lot more that were lucky enough not to die, but still got shot.

As for the video: I think trying to make a video for instructional purposes, requires the proper equipment. I've yet to be in a fight house that did not have rubber guns/knives to facilitate weapons orientated combatives training. Stupid is as stupid does.

My $.02

[nycnoob]

I am a abit of a safety nazi and own multiple blue guns and other replicas so that I can do most of my practice with such things. I fret over the actual interpretation/meaning of the four rules but I always assumed that some portion of the h2h training should be done with real weapons (perhaps with training barrels and chamber flags) both to get a feel of the weight (shape, buttons etc) of the real gun and also because I would not want to develop a phobia about such things. It always seems to me that if you do not occasionally test your actual emergency equipment then it is doubtful that it would work in an emergency. There is always something unexpected about the "real mccoy". I have done some classes which involved "striking with pistol" (real guns with chamber flags) and the weight and impact were quite unexpected and I doubt could be replicated with a plastic trainer.

Is using a real weapon really much more dangerous then dryfire? So many people that I know use a "safe direction" for the first shot but then point at the TV or fiberboard wall for the rest of their practice. I know some people who believe that you can handle a gun "which has been cleared" in an unsafe manner, untill you place it down.

Don't the people in our missile silo's actually turn the keys? I have no idea what sort of safety precautions they take to prevent starting WWIII but it seem to me if they use the real equipment as part of their practice (do they even know if its a drill or not?) the perhaps a small portion of my practice should likewise involve the actual weapon.

[john556]

I'm of the belief more lives would be saved by including a blue gun with every firearm purchase instead of the now mandatory gun locks.

otoh, tgs brings up an interesting point in regards to simunitions training.

[ToddG]

Because you cannot always eliminate risk while trying to accomplish the goal.

That's demonstrably untrue.

It took me one quick try to come up with examples of military personnel killed due to mistakes in training with real weapons. The first one that came up involved a Force Recon Marine (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/795506/posts).

What you're really arguing is that for the military the risk is less expensive than the reward. I wouldn't even begin to guess what the cost would be to outfit the service with adequate means to perform all FOF training of any kind with suitable replica weapons. That doesn't make the practice safe or even appropriate. It makes it, at best, a necessity. But it doesn't make it safe.

[SeriousStudent]

I have stopped purchasing weapons, unless I can also get a inert training version of it as well. That goes for blades, pistols or long guns.

[TGS]

That's demonstrably untrue.

It's demonstrably untrue that risk cannot always be eliminated? So you're saying that risk can always be completely eliminated?


It took me one quick try to come up with examples of military personnel killed due to mistakes in training with real weapons. The first one that came up involved a Force Recon Marine (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/795506/posts).

And your point? I never said accidents didn't happen, if that's what you're implying. I even said it's inherently dangerous.

BTW, that accident was a big talking point when I was in about the importance of needing to conduct line-outs.....because they didn't do any, which if you remember my post is something I went over in detail as being a condition for safe training.



But it doesn't make it safe.

Safe enough. Very few things are black and white.

Besides, it's absolutely a no-go to carry appendix. You can shoot yourself by doing such! It's so utterly ridiculous and unsafe because you have the chance of shooting yourself, and it's immoral, and should be illegal.

[ToddG]

It's demonstrably untrue that risk cannot always be eliminated? So you're saying that risk can always be completely eliminated?

What? Dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? Or at least reading what I'm writing. I didn't say all risk can always be completely eliminated. What I said, to which you objected, and about which you now seem to be spinning around rather than discussing directly, is that it is unacceptable to use live weapons in FOF training..

The rest of your post is just silly.

[TGS]

What? Dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? Or at least reading what I'm writing. I didn't say all risk can always be completely eliminated. What I said, to which you objected, and about which you now seem to be spinning around rather than discussing directly, is that it is unacceptable to use live weapons in FOF training..

The rest of your post is just silly.

Really?

I wrote:


Because you cannot always eliminate risk while trying to accomplish the goal.

You replied:


That's demonstrably untrue.

So....okay, whatever. I guess I don't do that English language thing so well.

Then you write that I'm refusing to discuss it directly, even though I've described multiple times how it is acceptable to use firearms in FOF. That's pretty direct.

Whatever, dude. Do your little usual spiel of devolving into calling people silly and whatnot. You're like the gun toting version of Piers Morgan. I can't even read some of your posts sometimes without imagining a British accent.

[Dagga Boy]

Did they do a good job in the video of showing a means of turning a live weapon into a training tool-yes. Is it still a live weapon-yes. Is there still potential for someone to get injured or killed with it-yes. Are there readily available tools available to remove the risk entirely-yes.

There was a time in my career when we used to "make" training tools out of live firearms by a variety of means. I still do it with demo weapons at shows. Are there much better means available today-absolutely, which is why Wayne and I no longer use live guns in a classroom-because we don't have to. There is no reason for the folks in that video to not have training weapons available for what they do.

[SouthNarc]

......which is why Wayne and I no longer use live guns in a classroom-because we don't have to.


I honestly think that's the better practice at this point. As "interactive" as I tend to be with people (and especially considering what I teach) I generally wear a gun only to do specific live fire demos and then take it right back off.

[Dagga Boy]

I honestly think that's the better practice at this point. As "interactive" as I tend to be with people (and especially considering what I teach) I generally wear a gun only to do specific live fire demos and then take it right back off.

Instructors are the ones most likely to screw up due to a high level of familiarity that can lead to bad mistakes, so we do what we can to remove the live firearm variable unless we are on the range and doing a live fire demo. We are hoping that this will be the standard and normal at some point. Unfortunately, it requires checking your ego enough to admit that you are quite capable of screwing up.

[Byron]

Reading discussion of the military's institutional comfort using live weapons for FOF reminded me of some course photos I saw back in 2012. At the time, I was very surprised to see photos of live weapons being used in demos/drills. Given background, I wonder whether past military training/culture played some influence?

These are from a RB1 Advanced Combat/Carbine course that took place in July 2012:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580811_473646745978937_382277381_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/622633_473648435978768_212381021_o.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/413289_473648545978757_529467959_o.jpg

[Tamara]

There was a time in my career when we used to "make" training tools out of live firearms by a variety of means.

Ugh, yes. :o


"Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. I have taken instruction in house-clearing using a Glock with a piece of yarn dangling from the muzzle and out the ejection port. I have sat in a class while an instructor pointed cleared weapons out into the class and allowed cleared weapons to be pointed at himself, and even though uncomfortable, I didn't say anything because he was a well-known somebody and I was not. These are things I have done in the past that I will not do in the future."

[Josh Runkle]

Reading discussion of the military's institutional comfort using live weapons for FOF reminded me of some course photos I saw back in 2012. At the time, I was very surprised to see photos of live weapons being used in demos/drills. Given background, I wonder whether past military training/culture played some influence?

These are from a RB1 Advanced Combat/Carbine course that took place in July 2012:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580811_473646745978937_382277381_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/622633_473648435978768_212381021_o.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/413289_473648545978757_529467959_o.jpg

Dang, dude! You're right. At minimum, that AR is definitely loaded! I wish Jason were here to participate in this discussion.

[Joseph B.]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/622633_473648435978768_212381021_o.jpg


This is totally unacceptable and unsafe, even in the military training setting, at least IMO. this picture shows a student with a loaded carbine, saftey selector on fire and his trigger finger relaxed towards the trigger guard. I would have shut this class down if I saw this being done on a military range (as i have done in the past). You should never demo BS like this on a live range, you shouldn't do it with real guns "loaded or not" and I can't believe anyone would find it acceptable on a live range to have a real gun, regardless how many times it was cleared, pointed at their person.

This is exactly how people get shot on live ranges and invthe training environment.

[Tamara]

...this picture shows a student with a loaded carbine...

Looking more closely at the picture, I think the "brass" in the mag window is actually the sunlit dirt behind him visible between the spring coils. Not that that makes it a whole lot better.

I mean, I'm not ninja enough to own a stitch of multicam, but I do have a dummy carbine.

[ToddG]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/622633_473648435978768_212381021_o.jpg

Without discussing any other aspects of this, as I wasn't there:

1. I'm with Tam, that carbine doesn't appear loaded to me. The fact that the gun is off-safe makes this even more likely in my opinion. I've taken a week long class from Falla and he was not lax about safety.

2. The angle of the cameraman doesn't necessarily indicate the angle of the student body as a whole. I've stood in places while taking photos -- for known, trusted shooters with their prior permission -- that wouldn't be appropriate for an entire class as a viewing angle for techniques with a live gun.

[Joseph B.]

Looks like brass to me. But regardless, why has the dude got a mag in the carbine if it is unloaded, why is it not on safe, and why is he not being strict on his trigger finger placement.

[ToddG]

But regardless, why has the dude got a mag in the carbine if it is unloaded, why is it not on safe, and why is he not being strict on his trigger finger placement.

Having an empty mag in a training gun isn't unusual, especially if the drill/demo might make a difference one way vs the other.

I'm guessing it's off-safe because it's hammer down. I know it's been forever since I picked up my AR but if it's hammer down on an empty mag, the safety can't be engaged, can it? The embarrassment I will suffer if I'm wrong about this will be epic. :cool:

As for the trigger finger thing, again, devil's advocate, it's very dangerous to judge things like that too harshly from a snapshot. His finger could have been moving into or out of a proper position, for example, as the photo was being taken.

[peterb]

There was a time in my career when we used to "make" training tools out of live firearms by a variety of means. I still do it with demo weapons at shows. Are there much better means available today-absolutely, which is why Wayne and I no longer use live guns in a classroom-because we don't have to. There is no reason for the folks in that video to not have training weapons available for what they do.

Is using an inert plastic "training barrel" generally considered to be a safe way to use a live firearm as a training/demonstration tool?
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/810432/blade-tech-training-barrel-glock-19-23-kydex-yellow

[ToddG]

Is using an inert plastic "training barrel" generally considered to be a safe way to use a live firearm as a training/demonstration tool?
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/810432/blade-tech-training-barrel-glock-19-23-kydex-yellow

If you follow the appropriate safety protocols, yes.

For folks who want to start doing "pointing guns at real people" training, I'd highly recommend Training at the Speed of Life by Ken Murray (http://www.armiger.net). Among its long list of great information is a long and detailed discussion of safety protocols for force-on-force training.

Even better (or in addition), for those who are able, I'd recommend Simunitions's instructor school. It was a great program back when I took it... Murray was the instructor back then, in fact.

[Joseph B.]

Yeah safety can't be engaged if the hammer is down.

I guess its the soldier in me, but in my experience, this is a no-go. But you are correct context is everything (although I doubt any explanation would justify it IMO).

[ToddG]

JB -- Believe me, I'm with you, at first glance it definitely looks questionable and I've already made my opinion known about using live weapons as point-at-people demo/training tools. As I said, I was just addressing those specific aspects of that one photo.

[Dagga Boy]

I use the Bladetech training barrels and the training bolt extensively when doing shows to demo Aimpont stuff. So, yes I think it is a good, cheap means of turning a live weapon into a training tool.

[nycnoob]

I use the Bladetech training barrels and the training bolt extensively when doing shows to demo Aimpont stuff. So, yes I think it is a good, cheap means of turning a live weapon into a training tool.

I have some of these, but I am disappointed that I can not do one handed malf clearing (need to chamber a dummy round and extract it) or other drills that require chambering/extraction. I really liked that inert red glock gun that Gomez demoed on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ciRU8u593Y). I wonder why these are not more common (glock treats these as live guns and they go through FFL's) . but it is only the slide which is modified. I would buy a red slide without a hole for a firing pin, but it does not seem these are widely available by either Glock or Lone Wolfe or other suppliers.

[Chuck Haggard]

Glock won't sell the red or blue guns to anyone, agency only.

An incredibly stupid policy.


And one has to be VERY careful to not get too used to the red guns being not real.

[Dagga Boy]

The dummy rounds are a training tool to be used with live weapons. MAlfunction drills should be conducted in a manner where all of the basic safety rules are being enforced. As tpd223 stated, some of these training tools can lead to some bad habits. What I like are using highly dedicated training guns that cannot cycle ammunition of ANY kind that are for training or use that would have rule violations with any kind of functional weapon. Stuff that uses sims, blanks, dummy ammunition, airsoft, etc. all have a need for some safety protocols of some sort.

[Chuck Whitlock]

If you follow the appropriate safety protocols, yes.

For folks who want to start doing "pointing guns at real people" training, I'd highly recommend Training at the Speed of Life by Ken Murray (http://www.armiger.net). Among its long list of great information is a long and detailed discussion of safety protocols for force-on-force training.

Even better (or in addition), for those who are able, I'd recommend Simunitions's instructor school. It was a great program back when I took it... Murray was the instructor back then, in fact.

+1.

I recently got certified as a Simunitions scenario instructor. The safety protocols were top priority.

Earlier this year I squashed a proposal to conduct some kind of half-assed 'active shooter' demo/walk-thru/scenario at the school for precisely this reason. Wound up doing a presentation + Q&A session with the staff instead.

[Slavex]

As I mentioned in another post, we recently had an ND at my range with one of renters. Live round mixed in with dummies (people and ammo), resulted in 223 through a wall into our unoccupied office and one computer monitor down. Basic safety protocols completely ignored and pure luck no one was injured. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone puts in a health and safety claim for hearing loss.

[David Armstrong]

It's been a while since I played with the stuff, but for those that are still in the loop can the military MILES stuff be used with non-functioning weapons or do you have to have a "real gun"?

[Joseph B.]

MILES is activated by a sensor on the unit that detects pressure and vibration changes. We use to get aimed in on OPFOR and have another guy bump the sensor with his finger to make "silent shots".

Personally, the military should do away with MILES gear training, its about as effective as airsoft or a water balloon fight. Simmunition is the way to go, hell airsoft, paintball, BB gun war, anything is better than MILES.

[Chuck Haggard]

In defense of MILES, the .mil takes a lot of control of live ammo, one would have to sneak it in for a mix up to happen (in my past experience), and a BFA means it's far less likely for a live round to go downrange.

[Joseph B.]

I don't have the data in front of me to make the argument, but I would be willing to bet that simmunition would be cheaper in comparison to maintaining all of the miles gear and purchasing the blanks. However, I can promise the training value would be ten fold.

MILES, was better than nothing, back in the 80's, but there are better ways to train today.

[Drang]

MILES is activated by a sensor on the unit that detects pressure and vibration changes. We use to get aimed in on OPFOR and have another guy bump the sensor with his finger to make "silent shots".

Personally, the military should do away with MILES gear training, its about as effective as airsoft or a water balloon fight. Simmunition is the way to go, hell airsoft, paintball, BB gun war, anything is better than MILES.

MILES is compatible with tank and aerial gunnery. And what is the max range of simunitions? Not to mention, I'm not sure simunitions/paint ball, etc., is really the way to go when you're talking entire divisions heading out for force-on-force, and you need to get all the REMFS suitably equipped. (Speaking as a retired -- nominal -- REMF.)

Mind you, the MILEs harness and helmet were a pain in the butt when we were still using Alice gear and steel pots, and they never redesigned them for k-pots or newer LBE.

[Joseph B.]

MILES is compatible with tank and aerial gunnery. And what is the max range of simunitions? Not to mention, I'm not sure simunitions/paint ball, etc., is really the way to go when you're talking entire divisions heading out for force-on-force, and you need to get all the REMFS suitably equipped. (Speaking as a retired -- nominal -- REMF.)

Mind you, the MILEs harness and helmet were a pain in the butt when we were still using Alice gear and steel pots, and they never redesigned them for k-pots or newer LBE.

I can see where it would be relevant for tanks, etc. As for division level war games, I spent 10 years and 8 mths in the Army as an Infantryman and never once took part in anything above a Btn operation, in training or in Iraq. I know that stuff was pretty common back in the 80-90s preparing for the WW3 cold war model, but I doubt the Army will be going back to that any time soon. Maybe some of the Mech Divisions, but for the individual force on force training need, sims are more than perfect for the job.

ETA: 5.56 SIMS have a Max range of 140 meters.