Info on FBI study regarding trigger weight versus length of pull....

[jthhapkido]

In a separate thread, awhile back...

Clobbersaurus wrote:
"Weight isn't the real safety advantage of the DA trigger, it's the length. Trigger length is quite noticeably more pronounced with a DA gun and it does give you options that an SA or striker trigger does not. "

Tamara said:
"During one episode of this ongoing conversation, ToddG mentioned a study that some of the Feds (I wanna say FBI?) had done, complete with strain gauges on triggers and shit, that did indeed conclude that length of trigger pull was a more important factor than weight if you wanted to cut down on discharges from startle responses, woobie-checking, and the like. I'll be damned if I can find a link to it now. "

And TiroFijo said:
"I remember well the studies mentioned by Tamara (one by an US agency, other european), I'll post them if I can find them. "

I'd REALLY like to read those studies, if anyone has any links (or even just citations) to them. I've been looking for them since the first time I saw Todd comment on them, and I haven't been able to find them.

Anyone able to help with info?

[Tuesday]

There are none explicitly regarding trigger travel as far as I've been able to find over the last month or so of looking off and on.

A German study on involuntary muscle contraction was cited the last time this came up here, but that seems to suggest that any trigger regardless of weight or length is subject to negligent discharge because the index finger is responsible for about 50% of grip strength and ~20% of people involuntarily touch the trigger even when trained not to.

https://www.policeone.com/archive/articles/1208969-Involuntary-Firearms-Discharge-Does-the-finger-obey-the-brain/

Might be a case for external safeties on pistols for the ~20%, if they can avoid clicking the safety off involuntarily as well, but it doesn't seem to support the "longer travel is safer" idea.

There's also the Tempe Police Study on reaction times that suggests that unintentionally shooting people in the back is going to happen because people can turn around faster than they can stop pulling the trigger.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/3.html

But it doesn't test trigger travel explicitly and TDA/LEM/DAO shooting techniques often involve overcoming the long trigger travel anyway, such as taking up the slack during pressout.

More studies about shooting that don't have anything in particular to do with trigger travel:

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/docs/classes/Firearms_Patrol_Rifle_Instructor_2014/Section%2015%20Resources.pdf

[HCM]

What Todd was referring to were German studies which lead to the current German federal police requirements on trigger travel length.

[jthhapkido]

What Todd was referring to were German studies which lead to the current German federal police requirements on trigger travel length.

What German studies? (Not the link from above, correct? Since those didn't discuss trigger travel length. And I've read Enoka's paper on the subject, and it is...interesting. But not what I'm looking for.)

And....are you sure? Because Todd specifically said "FBI study" when I asked him about it.

As for the other comments, he said (more than once, if I recall correctly) that the study showed that trigger weight was not the fix for (or able to reduce) negligent discharges without making the trigger weight absolutely huge, but the amount of travel specifically did make a difference.

[HCM]

What German studies? (Not the link from above, correct? Since those didn't discuss trigger travel length. And I've read Enoka's paper on the subject, and it is...interesting. But not what I'm looking for.)

And....are you sure? Because Todd specifically said "FBI study" when I asked him about it.

As for the other comments, he said (more than once, if I recall correctly) that the study showed that trigger weight was not the fix for (or able to reduce) negligent discharges without making the trigger weight absolutely huge, but the amount of travel specifically did make a difference.

I've heard about them but I don't know of English translations. This comes from the German Federal Police handgun testing / requirements. It's why so many of the German designs like the LEM, P99, PPQ etc have long nut light trigger pulls.

There is a member over on M4C who goes by Montralia, he is a Polish action / tactical competition shooter and gun blogger with close ties to HK and the European tactical gun world. He would likely be able to get you some more info on this. his blog: http://montrala.blogspot.com/

[YVK]

Tamara said:
"During one episode of this ongoing conversation, ToddG mentioned a study that some of the Feds (I wanna say FBI?) had done, complete with strain gauges on triggers and shit, that did indeed conclude that length of trigger pull was a more important factor than weight if you wanted to cut down on discharges from startle responses, woobie-checking, and the like. I'll be damned if I can find a link to it now. "



Todd also said at one point that the above piece disappeared from a written form when the FBI went to Glock.
I was very interested in this data too and never found a single bit of any objective info. I believe it but solely on a basis of my personal experience.
Maybe SLG can shed some light.

[StraitR]

Was definitely the FBI, and Todd mentions the study being "pre-glock".

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?8719-Is-HK-the-only-sure-(or-at-least-more-sure)-bet-out-there-these-days&p=158243&viewfull=1#post158243

[StraitR]

From HERE (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2515-Travis-Haley-SKIMMER-Glock-Trigger-(Just-Released)&p=41090&viewfull=1#post41090)


Against a poorly timed purposeful or subconscious trigger pull, sure. But against any of the myriad other things that might result in something, anything, touching my trigger when I'm not expecting it to go off, having 2x the weight and 3x the trigger travel for a warning or simply a safety margin is a good thing.

The more time I spend around "good" and "experienced" shooters and see how often they trigger check under stress, the more I'm convinced that length of pull is more important than weight to a certain point. The FBI used to say the same thing based on a study they conducted... right up until they adopted the Glock. Then that page went missing from their instructor manuals. True story.

[jthhapkido]

StraitR, those quotes from Todd are _exactly_ the study I'm looking for, and his commentary on their conclusions (why length may make a difference where weight might not) agrees with my personal opinion about it...

Thank you for finding those specific quotes from him. First time I discussed this with him was in a comment thread on one of his posts on the P-T.com page, and I've been looking for that study ever since. People periodically post that they've read it, and every time I'm like "PLEASE give me a link to it!"

...I wish we could find that study!

[John Hearne]

I still have my FBI Firearms Instructor manual from around 2005ish. Would this be in the right time frame?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[HCM]

I still have my FBI Firearms Instructor manual from around 2005ish. Would this be in the right time frame?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

They adopted Glocks in 1996 so unlikely.

[StraitR]

StraitR, those quotes from Todd are _exactly_ the study I'm looking for, and his commentary on their conclusions (why length may make a difference where weight might not) agrees with my personal opinion about it...

Thank you for finding those specific quotes from him. First time I discussed this with him was in a comment thread on one of his posts on the P-T.com page, and I've been looking for that study ever since. People periodically post that they've read it, and every time I'm like "PLEASE give me a link to it!"

...I wish we could find that study!

I'd really like to read it too. I've tried to find it, no luck so far, but I'll keep looking.

[M2CattleCo]

Ha! The same thing happens in construction. Everyone from upper management to the little foreman is all "We do everything as safe as possible!!", right up until it costs 'em money, then they change whatever they need to get it done however they want.

[StraitR]

I have to confess, I was pretty confident that I would find this study inside of a half hour. As it turns out, it's actually pretty difficult to find. I'm not saying it can't be found, but it's certainly going to be challenging, and here's why...

Best I can tell, the study we're looking for appears to be testing done by the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit in 1988. It was done on a wide variety of semi-automatic firearms which ultimately condemned Glock by name due to it's short and light trigger pull. For those of us that were alive in 1988, we can tell you whippershappers that believe it or not, there was no internet :eek:. I guess Al Gore hadn't got around to inventing it yet, but we survived thanks to Die Hard, Metallica, and Kelly Bundy.

So, two things are going to pose a challenge if this is the study being referenced. 1) As Todd pointed out, the FBI eventually transitioned to Glocks so materials condemning them for being unsafe were probably buried or redacted. And 2) Predating the internet, it's unlikely that a digital copy exists. If we happen to find it, it will most likely be a scan of a hard copy. Finding someone still taking up space on their server for a scanned FBI study from 1988 may prove difficult.

And thanks to BT91 recommending a pretty good beer, I'm not exactly on my game right now. Alas, the search continues.

[Lon]

I wonder if Tom Givens may have a copy of that manual laying around or know of someone who may have a copy. He's a master of arcane firearm related knowledge/data.

[Tom Givens]

Lon,

I can't check that right now. I'm teaching in Wisconsin and all my reference materials are still boxed up in Florida from our move.

[GJM]

While longer travel makes logical sense, I have been surprised by enough things, that I would really want to see the detailed study to assess the methods and conclusions.

[StraitR]

While longer travel makes logical sense, I have been surprised by enough things, that I would really want to see the detailed study to assess the methods and conclusions.

Based on Todd's comments, we can ascertain the following... The study predates the FBI's adoption of Glocks in 1998. They found longer trigger travel had a factor in safety. Turned around and issued Glocks to their SA's some years later. With that said, could there be more recent data to refute the study and support their decision to use SFA? I'd like to read it either way, but I'm curious if people think the study still relevant given the FBI's current/future sidearm choice?

I tend to subscribe to the longer trigger = increased safety generalization, just so my position is clear.

[GJM]

Based on Todd's comments, we can ascertain the following... The study predates the FBI's adoption of Glocks in 1998. They found longer trigger travel had a factor in safety. Turned around and issued Glocks to their SA's some years later. With that said, could there be more recent data to refute the study and support their decision to use SFA? I'd like to read it either way, but I'm curious if people think the study still relevant given the FBI's current/future sidearm choice?

I tend to subscribe to the longer trigger = increased safety generalization, just so my position is clear.

As I said previously, common sense says longer = safer. However, FBI issues
DA/SA pistols and reports they are safer, issues Glocks and study is gone, is almost worthless without seeing the study.

[nycnoob]

I do remember that Todd said that the startle response initiates a very strong muscle contraction (25 lbs?)
which was much more than even heavy triggers. This was why heavy triggers did not help.

[jthhapkido]

I do remember that Todd said that the startle response initiates a very strong muscle contraction (25 lbs?)
which was much more than even heavy triggers. This was why heavy triggers did not help.

....noting that one conclusion from the original study may be valid but the other not. (I.e., heavy trigger doesn't help, but longer triggers don't either, and perhaps they found this with more research. Or may Glock gave them a deal and they said "Hey, training can fix this!")

Or, as is my personal feeling:

Heavy triggers don't help much particularly for people with low training levels, but longer travel length CAN help but only in limited circumstances, related to:

1) the skill level of the person shooting (higher skill, more likely to be able to stop mid-pull),
2) length itself meaning that VERY LONG triggers seem to be able to help, but most that are shorter than "very long" don't make much difference, with #1 above being the determining factor in the length necessary.

....in addition, stopping negligent discharges given startle responses, tripping, etc while trigger-checking is a different thing than negligent discharges when "going to pull the trigger and decide not to do so" or "finger on the trigger and sights on targets but not going to shoot at this very moment."

(I realize that training should either mitigate or remove the errors types above, but again, #1 above is important...)

I have NO data to support my opinions there, those literally are just my opinion, but it is one of the reasons I want to see the FBI study. I'm REALLY curious how they came to their conclusions regarding "length of trigger pull" and what set of circumstances they thought it would help.


Anyone happen to know what the negligent discharge rates were for the FBI before and after they switched to Glocks? That might be...instructive.

[LSP552]

I have to confess, I was pretty confident that I would find this study inside of a half hour. As it turns out, it's actually pretty difficult to find. I'm not saying it can't be found, but it's certainly going to be challenging, and here's why...

Best I can tell, the study we're looking for appears to be testing done by the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit in 1988. It was done on a wide variety of semi-automatic firearms which ultimately condemned Glock by name due to it's short and light trigger pull. For those of us that were alive in 1988, we can tell you whippershappers that believe it or not, there was no internet :eek:. I guess Al Gore hadn't got around to inventing it yet, but we survived thanks to Die Hard, Metallica, and Kelly Bundy.

So, two things are going to pose a challenge if this is the study being referenced. 1) As Todd pointed out, the FBI eventually transitioned to Glocks so materials condemning them for being unsafe were probably buried or redacted. And 2) Predating the internet, it's unlikely that a digital copy exists. If we happen to find it, it will most likely be a scan of a hard copy. Finding someone still taking up space on their server for a scanned FBI study from 1988 may prove difficult.

And thanks to BT91 recommending a pretty good beer, I'm not exactly on my game right now. Alas, the search continues.

I remember reading this at the time, but I've looked back through some of my old instructor stuff and can't find a copy. LSP972 is a pack rat so I'm hoping he may have a copy stashed and/or remembers more details on the when and where.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Can anyone hit up Mas Ayoob? I recall him writing about FBI's reasons for preferring DA/SA, which he had gotten from the head of their firearms unit (John Hall?) at the time.

[Lon]

Can anyone hit up Mas Ayoob? I recall him writing about FBI's reasons for preferring DA/SA, which he had gotten from the head of their firearms unit (John Hall?) at the time.

Isn't Mas a member here? Thought I saw him post here a couple times.

[John Hearne]

I do remember that Todd said that the startle response initiates a very strong muscle contraction (25 lbs?)
which was much more than even heavy triggers. This was why heavy triggers did not help.

I've seen as high as 50 lbs. Remember, there is no single monolithic startle response. The degree of stimulus (22 LR v. 5.56) controls the degree of startle as done the sensory input. You can get startle response from a loud noise, postural instability, flashing lights, etc.

[HCM]

Isn't Mas a member here? Thought I saw him post here a couple times.

He is, as is SSA (Ret) Buford Boone.

[LSP972]

Best I can tell, the study we're looking for appears to be testing done by the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit in 1988. It was done on a wide variety of semi-automatic firearms which ultimately condemned Glock by name due to it's short and light trigger pull... For those of us that were alive in 1988, there was no internet...

So, two things are going to pose a challenge if this is the study being referenced. 1) As Todd pointed out, the FBI eventually transitioned to Glocks so materials condemning them for being unsafe were probably buried or redacted. And 2) Predating the internet, it's unlikely that a digital copy exists. If we happen to find it, it will most likely be a scan of a hard copy. Finding someone still taking up space on their server for a scanned FBI study from 1988 may prove difficult.



Excellent probe, and the second paragraph is 100% on the points. I remember it quite well; back then (1988), just about all well-experienced LE staff instructors that I knew across the country were not familiar with the Glock at all, pretty much had a total amount of suspicion about the "plastic extra". Like you said, no internet/digital/etc. information back then... we saw hard copy information on note books/books or personal or professional letters. We had ONE hard copy information from FB-1, received personally in the unit, and none of us got to take it anywhere, at any time. Basically, the information was telling us that the Glock was a bad thing, had plenty of bad issues, stay away, etc., etc.

I got to read that booklet completely, because I was at the Sig Armorer class for a week and read it carefully until I was done. Ken, were you there as well? I simply don't remember some of that stuff anymore; cannot remember who all was at that Sig Armorer course. I think we had at least one more of those Sig detailed P226 classes; I know you were at one. Anyway, the hard print Glock info from Quantico went back to the LSP staff course leader at the end of each day; after I read it, I never recalled seeing that again. Dunno where it went, never asked, because we were totally not interested and didn't care at all who said what about it, once we had read the FB-1 gospel.

I ended up in Quantico in 1993 for the second version discussion of the 1986 disaster; lots of things had changed, the Bureau was working overtime at it and trying to do as well as they could... and still hated the Glocks as problems. We (LSP) ended up allowing G17s and G19s to be adopted by personal LSP commissioned owners in 1994. Not my idea, I didn't want them, somebody above me made the decision, that's all I'll talk about it. Period.

I wasn't keeping up with FB-1 stuff by that time (after learning some stuff about the ... interesting... HRT unit from Quantico; when they showed up at a small sheriff's prison a week after we- LSP SWAT- had been handling it,; again, will not further that discussion), so when we heard they suddenly had adopted Glocks in 1996, on a HUGE basis... hmmm. Some folks were interested; I was pretty much NOT interested and paid no attention to them.

Most folks don't even want to hear any of this, so I won't bother anyone. But if Ken got to to read any of that FB-1 document after (or at the same time) I did, I never knew any more about it.

.

You're on the correct situation, StraitR. Finding that document, 28 years later... lotsa luck, my man.

[BehindBlueI's]

Can anyone hit up Mas Ayoob? I recall him writing about FBI's reasons for preferring DA/SA, which he had gotten from the head of their firearms unit (John Hall?) at the time.


Isn't Mas a member here? Thought I saw him post here a couple times.

He is, but I don't know how active. I can shoot him an email and ask if he has time to swing by and respond.

[GJM]

I remember this story from last year or so:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-guns-20150614-story.html

Gist of the article is the ND rate skyrocketed after switching from the Beretta to M&P. Lots of questions about the FBI study, if it surfaces.

[Drang]

Can anyone hit up Mas Ayoob? I recall him writing about FBI's reasons for preferring DA/SA, which he had gotten from the head of their firearms unit (John Hall?) at the time.

What is the specific question for him? Why did the FBI prefer DA/SA?

I'll see him (and Pax) tomorrow.

[LSP552]

Excellent probe, and the second paragraph is 100% on the points. I remember it quite well; back then (1988), just about all well-experienced LE staff instructors that I knew across the country were not familiar with the Glock at all, pretty much had a total amount of suspicion about the "plastic extra". Like you said, no internet/digital/etc. information back then... we saw hard copy information on note books/books or personal or professional letters. We had ONE hard copy information from FB-1, received personally in the unit, and none of us got to take it anywhere, at any time. Basically, the information was telling us that the Glock was a bad thing, had plenty of bad issues, stay away, etc., etc.

I got to read that booklet completely, because I was at the Sig Armorer class for a week and read it carefully until I was done. Ken, were you there as well? I simply don't remember some of that stuff anymore; cannot remember who all was at that Sig Armorer course. I think we had at least one more of those Sig detailed P226 classes; I know you were at one. Anyway, the hard print Glock info from Quantico went back to the LSP staff course leader at the end of each day; after I read it, I never recalled seeing that again. Dunno where it went, never asked, because we were totally not interested and didn't care at all who said what about it, once we had read the FB-1 gospel.

Most folks don't even want to hear any of this, so I won't bother anyone. But if Ken got to to read any of that FB-1 document after (or at the same time) I did, I never knew any more about it.

You're on the correct situation, StraitR. Finding that document, 28 years later... lotsa luck, my man.

The copy I read came from Rick. And it's been so long ago that I don't remember if we were in the same SIG class or not........

[HCM]

What is the specific question for him? Why did the FBI prefer DA/SA?

I'll see him (and Pax) tomorrow.

The question was documentation / study supporting the assertion the length / distance of a trigger pull is more significant than the weight of pull in mitigating ND's.

Todd had referenced an FBI study and I've heard repeated references to a German federal police study.

[Mas]

Can anyone hit up Mas Ayoob? I recall him writing about FBI's reasons for preferring DA/SA, which he had gotten from the head of their firearms unit (John Hall?) at the time.

Wow, that was like a quarter century ago.

As I recall the discussion, John Hall told me the rationale of adopting TDA at that time was that most unintentional discharges occurred on the first shot, and a longer, heavier trigger pull would be more resistant to that. After the first shot had been intentionally fired, the assumption was that the agent was in a gunfight and shorter, lighter subsequent trigger pulls would be easier to manage. Makes sense, frankly.

On my own end, we also discovered that startle response would be exerting 20 pounds plus on the trigger. While firmer resistance and longer pulls would help, they would not be enough in and of themselves.

I believe at the time the Bureau was down on Glocks, "prepping" the trigger as the gun came up was in vogue, and the shorter, lighter first shot pull on a striker fired gun would be less forgiving of a premature shot.

Buford Boone should have a much better handle on that than me, and I'll be interested to hear what he might remember about Bureau doctrine of the period. If he or another member could persuade John Hall to join in here at P-F, I think John would be a wonderful resource for this forum.

[jthhapkido]

I remember this story from last year or so:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-guns-20150614-story.html

Gist of the article is the ND rate skyrocketed after switching from the Beretta to M&P. Lots of questions about the FBI study, if it surfaces.

Note that they said they expected it to fall again. (Which is interesting...why would they expect that? The people who shot themselves probably wouldn't do it again?)

That was back in 2014. Any data on whether or not it continued to 2016? Or fell like they suspected?

[BehindBlueI's]

Note that they said they expected it to fall again. (Which is interesting...why would they expect that? The people who shot themselves probably wouldn't do it again?)


Probably a combination of improved training, experience, and vicarious experience. Improved training is self explanatory. Experience...yeah, those guys who did have an AD will be more careful. Vicarious experience is if your buddy shoots himself accidentally doing "X" and tells you about it or you witness it, you're also less likely to do "X".

[oldtexan]

Note that they said they expected it to fall again. (Which is interesting...why would they expect that? The people who shot themselves probably wouldn't do it again?)

That was back in 2014. Any data on whether or not it continued to 2016? Or fell like they suspected?

From the LA Times article, "L.A. County sheriff's deputies learning to shoot the Beretta were taught to rest a finger on the trigger as soon as they took aim. The mantra was "on target, on trigger."" Mas mentions "prepping the trigger" in his post. These likely explain, to a large degree, why the ND rate went up in the aftermath of the switch from the 92 to the M&P. There still would have been lots of folks trained to put their finger on the trigger before they had made the decision to fire, who now had a gun with a less forgiving trigger.

It would be reasonable to think that, in the future, some of those folks trained on the old way would retire, and that others would be successfully retrained to avoid placing the finger on the trigger until they were ready to fire. That could lead to a conclusion that the ND rate would drop over time.

[LSP972]

The copy I read came from Rick.


Me too... no doubt the same copy.

.

[StraitR]

Wow, that was like a quarter century ago.

As I recall the discussion, John Hall told me the rationale of adopting TDA at that time was that most unintentional discharges occurred on the first shot, and a longer, heavier trigger pull would be more resistant to that. After the first shot had been intentionally fired, the assumption was that the agent was in a gunfight and shorter, lighter subsequent trigger pulls would be easier to manage. Makes sense, frankly.

On my own end, we also discovered that startle response would be exerting 20 pounds plus on the trigger. While firmer resistance and longer pulls would help, they would not be enough in and of themselves.

I believe at the time the Bureau was down on Glocks, "prepping" the trigger as the gun came up was in vogue, and the shorter, lighter first shot pull on a striker fired gun would be less forgiving of a premature shot.

Buford Boone should have a much better handle on that than me, and I'll be interested to hear what he might remember about Bureau doctrine of the period. If he or another member could persuade John Hall to join in here at P-F, I think John would be a wonderful resource for this forum.

Thank you, Mas. As always, your input is greatly appreciated. I couldn't agree more.

[Al T.]

some of those folks trained on the old way

The first formal handgun training I received was on a K frame and prepping the trigger was a huge training scar for me. And I still bowl a bit on my drawstroke.... :o

[El Cid]

When was Bill Rogers a g-man? He might have some insight. I don't know him to ask.

[Tom Givens]

OK, I finally got a chance to do some research on this.

During the time frame in question, John Hall was the Unit Chief of the Firearms Training Unit of the FBI at Quantico. He was an FBI agent for 32 years.

At the same time, Urey Patrick was the Assistant Unit Chief of the FBI FTU. Patrick was with the FBI for 24 years.

After retiring, they co-authored a book, In Defense of Self and Others, “Issues, Facts & Fallacies- The Realities of Law Enforcement‘s Use of Deadly Force”. This is a very thorough 415 page book that deals with the legal, tactical, training and wound ballistic aspects of the use of deadly force. I recommend it. Obviously, I don’t agree with it 100%, but most of the information is very valuable.

Pages 164-169 deal with the question of trigger pull weight and trigger travel length, as it relates to unintentional discharges in the field. The basic position was that a longer, heavier DA trigger, OR a single action auto with a manual safety were preferable to a handgun with a light, short trigger and no manual safety. Glock is not mentioned by name—no need.

Hall and Patrick believed that a long, heavy DA trigger, or the deactivation of a manual safety “mandates a specific intent to pull the trigger and fire the first shot”. They also point out, correctly, that the vast majority of agents or officers are not “gun people”, and will only train or practice when required to by their agency. They believe the DA trigger or the manual safety add a layer of protection against unintentional discharges not enjoyed by other designs.

No specific study is referenced. They simply point to their decades of experience training agents, investigating OIS’s, and in a footnote, mention one conference on the subject: “Weapons Workshop: 5/16-19/1988”, U.S. Department of Justice, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. Participants included weapons experts from a wide variety of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies plus entities of the U.S. military.

I suspect this is the “study” referenced by others.

[Lon]

Once again, Tom comes through. Thanks. I've been meaning to buy that book. I think you mentioned it during the Instructor course. Have to look it up on Amazon.

[GJM]

Tom, thanks for going to the trouble to follow up on this.

Makes me wonder if the "FBI study" we have heard references to for years, may have been less of a formal study than I imagined.

[RJ]

Man. It's threads like this I'm just glad to be able to sit here and listen without anyone throwing me out of the tent.

The amount of knowledge on this forum is literally a priceless resource.

[JCS]

Man. It's threads like this I'm just glad to be able to sit here and listen without anyone throwing me out of the tent.

The amount of knowledge on this forum is literally a priceless resource.

You and me both. Every day I log on I'm blown away by the depth of knowledge on here. It's not the same internet gun forum garbage I see on other sites.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doug]

I came across these studies/articles. I found them interesting. Never heard of the force science institute before so have no idea of their reputation.

Preventing discharges

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/print/fsnews3.pdf

Police Officer Reaction Time to Start and
Stop Shooting: The Influence of Decision-Making and Pattern Recognition

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/reactionshooting.pdf

[Lon]

I came across these studies/articles. I found them interesting. Never heard of the force science institute before so have no idea of their reputation.

Preventing discharges

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/print/fsnews3.pdf

Police Officer Reaction Time to Start and
Stop Shooting: The Influence of Decision-Making and Pattern Recognition

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/reactionshooting.pdf

Pay attention to anything Force Science puts out. Good stuff.

[DocGKR]

Got to know your history...

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/IMG_8045_zpsl0cgtpt4.jpg
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/IMG_8046_zpsmtz6ctzz.jpg

and

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/IMG_8047_zpso96ukkj8.jpg
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/IMG_8049_zpsmaa3rzse.jpg

[oldtexan]

Got to know your history...



http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/IMG_8047_zpso96ukkj8.jpg
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/IMG_8049_zpsmaa3rzse.jpg

Doc, thanks for posting this. A couple of things about the second document are odd, though.

How did the FBI come to the conclusion that Glocks had a "high rate of malfunction"? Based on the 1987-88 date on the document, doesn't this refer to 2d Gen G17 and /or G19 pistols? I thought these were models that helped build Glock's rep for high reliability.

Also under "design related bugs", "trigger weight increasing with usage"? I've never heard of a Glock trigger pull increasing as the round count increased. And "trigger hang fires"? That's new to me, as well.

And "non-interchangeable parts"? Does any pistol design in common use allow greater interchangeability of parts than a Glock, either among individual specimens of the same model or among different models?

Were these issues that did exist at that time and were corrected later, or was the report simply wrong?

[JustOneGun]

When we transitioned to Glock from HK it was somewhere around 2000/2001. We heard all the horror stories about the AD/ND of Glock. My department was a not an exception when it came to training time. They crammed it all into one day to include a qual at the end.

I never did see the expected horror story. Asking around the state, neither did anyone else. Except that darn pulling the trigger for takedown. That did increase from almost zero to every once in a while.

Does anyone know of a study to determine if the expected horror has happened over and above TDA?

[StraitR]

Brilliant Gary!!! Had my facts straight, I just couldn't dig it up. Well, at least I don't have to email the Russians and beg for a copy.

[BehindBlueI's]

When we transitioned to Glock from HK it was somewhere around 2000/2001. We heard all the horror stories about the AD/ND of Glock. My department was a not an exception when it came to training time. They crammed it all into one day to include a qual at the end.

I never did see the expected horror story. Asking around the state, neither did anyone else. Except that darn pulling the trigger for takedown. That did increase from almost zero to every once in a while.

Does anyone know of a study to determine if the expected horror has happened over and above TDA?

Didn't a CA department just have that issue after moving to M&Ps?

[Tom Givens]

[QUOTE=oldtexan;479101]Doc, thanks for posting this. A couple of things about the second document are odd, though.

Also under "design related bugs", "trigger weight increasing with usage"? I've never heard of a Glock trigger pull increasing as the round count increased. And "trigger hang fires"? That's new to me, as well.

This issue is not common, but it is real. I have seen it several times in students' Glocks. The fire control parts have to be lubricated. In guns that are run bone dry and rarely, if ever, cleaned, the trigger pull will get heavier and heavier with continued use. Not a consideration to me, as I'm not a moron, and don't run my pistols bone dry or excessively dirty.

[breakingtime91]

Didn't a CA department just have that issue after moving to M&Ps?

That's what I remember.. Moved from berettas to MPs and NDs went up.

[JustOneGun]

I don't know. I've always wondered if we could look at various departments failures and see how they trained.

My reason for asking the question is that if my department doesn't have an issue with the transition and another does can it be the training? If it is the training, which is my suspicion, then would it not be better to say that using a TDA is good for departments with poor transition training and just fine for the others?

I know that sounds funny but to my pea brain it makes sense. I've always argued that why make my shooting a bad guy when my life is on the line, more difficult on the first round in order to not shoot myself or someone else accidentally because I have a department with bad training?

Because if my training is so bad am I not taking just as much risk using that first round of a TDA or not decocking before holstering? At some point do I not have to train properly the system we are using? Missing the first double action round is not a good thing. Not properly decocking before holstering is not a good thing.

I suppose the real question is if one believes they can train either system to be safe? I do and like the Glock. Others don't and shy away from it.

[Doug]

Didn't a CA department just have that issue after moving to M&Ps?

LA Times Article

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-guns-20150614-story.html

Office of Inspector General - County of Los Angeles - 52 page report

https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Unintended%20Discharge%20Report.pdf

[oldtexan]

[QUOTE=oldtexan;479101]Doc, thanks for posting this. A couple of things about the second document are odd, though.

Also under "design related bugs", "trigger weight increasing with usage"? I've never heard of a Glock trigger pull increasing as the round count increased. And "trigger hang fires"? That's new to me, as well.

This issue is not common, but it is real. I have seen it several times in students' Glocks. The fire control parts have to be lubricated. In guns that are run bone dry and rarely, if ever, cleaned, the trigger pull will get heavier and heavier with continued use. Not a consideration to me, as I'm not a moron, and don't run my pistols bone dry or excessively dirty.

Tom, thanks.

[DocGKR]

The FBI "Semiautomatic Pistols 1987-1988" paper also had a significant discussion on the problems/early failures demonstrated with alloy frame pistols compared to other more durable frame materials.

[GJM]

The FBI "Semiautomatic Pistols 1987-1988" paper also had a significant discussion on the problems/early failures demonstrated with alloy frame pistols compared to other more durable frame materials.


Alloy as in Sig/Beretta, 1911 or something else?

[DocSabo40]

I came across these studies/articles. I found them interesting. Never heard of the force science institute before so have no idea of their reputation.

Police Officer Reaction Time to Start and
Stop Shooting: The Influence of Decision-Making and Pattern Recognition

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/reactionshooting.pdf

I found this very interesting. I'll start another thread if this is too much of a derail, but pertaining to the article it makes me wonder what is the optimum speed to aim for (pun intended). I usually practice for upper A zone hits as fast as I can. Unless I'm having a really bad day, that's faster than .5 splits out to 15 yards or so.

If my reaction time is .5 in a stressful situation though, am I wise to train to outrun my reaction time? Should I be training at .5 splits with an even greater emphasis on accuracy? To be honest most of my "training" is so I can beat my buddies on our Thursday night local matches and has nothing to do with the defensive use of a gun.

[breakingtime91]

I found this very interesting. I'll start another thread if this is too much of a derail, but pertaining to the article it makes me wonder what is the optimum speed to aim for (pun intended). I usually practice for upper A zone hits as fast as I can. Unless I'm having a really bad day, that's faster than .5 splits out to 15 yards or so.

If my reaction time is .5 in a stressful situation though, am I wise to train to outrun my reaction time? Should I be training at .5 splits with an even greater emphasis on accuracy? To be honest most of my "training" is so I can beat my buddies on our Thursday night local matches and has nothing to do with the defensive use of a gun.

I am not an expert but after listening to guys that have done/do a lot of fighting with pistols, it seems like reducing the target size you shoot isn't a bad idea. I got stuck in the speed vortex and ran 8 inch circles and figure that was cool. After listening to other guys who do this stuff for a job (the people I am talking about emphasize accuracy over speed) I use 6 inch circles, b8s, 2 inch cirlces, and 3x5s now.. no more 8 inch circles for me unless someone else is running the training.

[John Hearne]

I'm not Wayne or Darryl but IIRC, they believe that resources spent chasing splits below 0.25 are better spent on refining accuracy.

FWIW, I think that being able to hit an 8" target at 7 yards in around 1.5 (maybe 1.7, especially from concealment) is a good solid goal. After you can do that at 1.5-1.7, I'd reduce the target down to the black of a bullseye around 5.5". If you can consistently (while cold) hit 1.5-1.7 then feel free to work on going faster.

I keep waffling on the exact time as Paul Howe says 1.7 is good enough and any time I find myself disagreeing with Paul Howe, I have to really think about what I'm saying.

If we use 1.5 to 1.7 and .25 splits then we end up with a Bill drill between 2.75 and 2.95 (under three seconds) which seems like solid work. Certainly, the shooting cyborgs can do better, but this is probably the point of diminishing returns for most folks worried about a combative context.

[GJM]

2.75 happens to be the school standard time for the Bill Drill at the Rogers School, and .25 is their standard for splits to an eight inch at 7 yards.

[breakingtime91]

2.75 happens to be the school standard time for the Bill Drill at the Rogers School, and .25 is their standard for splits to an eight inch at 7 yards.

I always thought 2 seconds was the standard... the more you know and all that. Makes me feel a little better about never getting below a 2.5 bill drill.

[GJM]

I always thought 2 seconds was the standard... the more you know and all that. Makes me feel a little better about never getting below a 2.5 bill drill.


Depends who we are talking about. USPSA, 2 seconds is considered M. The Rogers School gives out a little piece of paper of their various school standards, including the Bill drill.

By the way, I just spent a whole session in the rain, shooting eight inch targets. When they are at 25 yards and further, on the clock, they wear you out pretty quickly.

[breakingtime91]

Depends who we are talking about. USPSA, 2 seconds is considered M. The Rogers School gives out a little piece of paper of their various school standards, including the Bill drill.

By the way, I just spent a whole session in the rain, shooting eight inch targets. When they are at 25 yards and further, on the clock, they wear you out pretty quickly.

well now your just bragging.

[GJM]

well now your just bragging.


Actually, it was hard work and now I am worn out. I was shooting a USP 40 LEM for most of it. :)

It was raining too hard to shoot my CZ and DP Pro, unless we had a big golf umbrella my wife could have held over me.

[breakingtime91]

Actually, it was hard work and now I am worn out. I was shooting a USP 40 LEM for most of it. :)

It was raining too hard to shoot my CZ and DP Pro, unless we had a big golf umbrella my wife could have held over me.

Isn't that what wives are for? :p Also I could see how 40 would wear you out.. also that lem, its a bastard to shoot :cool:

[jthhapkido]

OK, I finally got a chance to do some research on this.
I suspect this is the “study” referenced by others.


The thing about this, is that Todd was very specific about how "the study said" trigger pull weight wasn't a factor, and trigger pull length was a factor---he mentioned those two specific things several times when I talked with him about this, and the material from Hall and Patrick not only doesn't match that, but doesn't separate those into two individual testable situations.

This isn't to take away from what Tom wrote, and DocGKR provided---material like that is immensely appreciated! (Not only is the citation and material itself appreciated, but you also two taking the time to do find and provide it!) Just....that doesn't seem to be what Todd was talking about.

I wonder if there was a study of some sort that specifically separated trigger weight and trigger pull length, which has since disappeared? Or instead did someone once make a comment that later turned the "workshop" material about trigger pull length/weight into a "study" on "trigger pull length, AND trigger weight"? That is a pretty significant drift of meaning...

[Tom Givens]

"I wonder if there was a study of some sort that specifically separated trigger weight and trigger pull length, which has since disappeared? Or instead did someone once make a comment that later turned the "workshop" material about trigger pull length/weight into a "study" on "trigger pull length, AND trigger weight"? That is a pretty significant drift of meaning..."

You have to remember, this is from 28 years ago. I have seen many, many subjects in this business morph into something almost recognizable over far less time.

I really doubt any major agency (fed or state) took the time to do an actual study and publish it, but Doc Roberts, Darryl, Wayne, Mas and I are all unaware of it. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but we were all in the business at that time frame.

[GJM]

"I wonder if there was a study of some sort that specifically separated trigger weight and trigger pull length, which has since disappeared? Or instead did someone once make a comment that later turned the "workshop" material about trigger pull length/weight into a "study" on "trigger pull length, AND trigger weight"? That is a pretty significant drift of meaning..."

You have to remember, this is from 28 years ago. I have seen many, many subjects in this business morph into something almost recognizable over far less time.

I really doubt any major agency (fed or state) took the time to do an actual study and publish it, but Doc Roberts, Darryl, Wayne, Mas and I are all unaware of it. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but we were all in the business at that time frame.

If I were betting ten PF dollars, it would be that Tom is absolutely right with both his points. Beyond that, how would such a test be conducted, why would such a test be conducted, and how did the FBI integrate that information into their weapon selection and firearms training?

[jthhapkido]

You have to remember, this is from 28 years ago. I have seen many, many subjects in this business morph into something almost recognizable over far less time.

I really doubt any major agency (fed or state) took the time to do an actual study and publish it, but Doc Roberts, Darryl, Wayne, Mas and I are all unaware of it. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but we were all in the business at that time frame.

I believe you. [sigh] Dang it, the results Todd related matched my preconceived notions really well, so I liked them a lot.

So really, about the only research we have (versus anecdotal evidence collected over time via memories from people which may be spot-on but may also be completely useless because humans are bad at that sort of thing) is that startle reflexes can cause finger clenching with strength amounts up to far in excess of even heavy trigger pull weights, though it is highly variable and person-and-circumstance-specific.

Yes?

[Wayne Dobbs]

I believe you. [sigh] Dang it, the results Todd related matched my preconceived notions really well, so I liked them a lot.

So really, about the only research we have (versus anecdotal evidence collected over time via memories from people which may be spot-on but may also be completely useless because humans are bad at that sort of thing) is that startle reflexes can cause finger clenching with strength amounts up to far in excess of even heavy trigger pull weights, though it is highly variable and person-and-circumstance-specific.

Yes?

Here is the definitive peer reviewed, scientifically done, paper on the various ways (there are three) you can have an involuntary firearms discharge:

"Involuntary Muscle Contractions and the Unintentional Discharge of a Firearm"; Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D. Department of Integrative Physiology; University of Colorado, Boulder, CO Corresponding Author: Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D. Department of Integrative Physiology; University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0354, USA

Text available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/docs/classes/Firearms_Patrol_Rifle_Instructor_2014/Section%2015%20Resources.pdf

Here is a European police study of the same topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17063958

[GJM]

Wayne, can you provide the cliff notes summary?

[Wayne Dobbs]

Wayne, can you provide the cliff notes summary?

Yes. Trigger fingers on, in line with, or in proximity to triggers can, will and have actuated those triggers INVOLUNTARILY (as in the brain was not involved) when one or more of the following situations occur: startle event, sympathetic contraction by the gun hand and trigger finger due to an off hand maximum grip event and a loss of balance event. The grip efforts during some of these events approached 50 pounds of trigger pull. You cannot train this out of your being and you cannot install a trigger that will prevent occurrence of these events. You must keep trigger fingers in register on the frame ABOVE the trigger guard (not in line with the trigger outside the trigger guard either) until you have a cognitive decision to fire the weapon and the weapon oriented on the target.

This paper was originally published about 1985 by Dr. Enoka and is the landmark work on the problem. The European study simply applied more specific instrumentation to Enoka's findings. I've noted that the link to the Euro study may be difficult to access. If needed, I can email a PDF of that study.

[GJM]

Thanks, Wayne.

[Clobbersaurus]

Office of Inspector General - County of Los Angeles - 52 page report

https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Unintended%20Discharge%20Report.pdf

Thank you for posting this link. I found the below very interesting:



The OIG found that as soon as widespread use of the new gun by field deputies commenced, there was a marked increase in tactical unintended discharges – that is, deputies firing weapons without intending to do so during police operations. In 2012, just before the M&P became standard issue, there were three tactical unintended discharges. In 2013, there were nine. In 2014, after substantial adoption of the new weapon in patrol settings, there were nineteen tactical unintended discharges, over a 500% increase when compared with 2012.

[John Hearne]

when one or more of the following situations occur: startle event, sympathetic contraction by the gun hand and trigger finger due to an off hand maximum grip event and a loss of balance event. ... You cannot train this out of your being

I'm not trying to argue just adding some detail:

You can also get trigger finger contraction when your hands are not on the normal side of the body. The classic example of this is Harries flashlight technique. For the right hander, the gun is now on the left side and the flashlight is on the right. If the Harries is a novel experience or it hasn't been trained for awhile, you can get contraction in the trigger finger when you activate the flashlight.

While I can't cite author, title, and page number, I did find a reference that training can mitigate the factors that Enoka identified. The problem is that the training is very sensitive to recency effect. So technically, you can train to mitigate it but it takes a lot of effort. You're better off just keeping you finger off of the trigger.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I'm not trying to argue just adding some detail:

You can also get trigger finger contraction when your hands are not on the normal side of the body. The classic example of this is Harries flashlight technique. For the right hander, the gun is now on the left side and the flashlight is on the right. If the Harries is a novel experience or it hasn't been trained for awhile, you can get contraction in the trigger finger when you activate the flashlight.

While I can't cite author, title, and page number, I did find a reference that training can mitigate the factors that Enoka identified. The problem is that the training is very sensitive to recency effect. So technically, you can train to mitigate it but it takes a lot of effort. You're better off just keeping you finger off of the trigger.

Enoka also confirmed one to me a couple of years ago about impacts to the gun arm being associated with an ND. You're right, John: keep your finger off the trigger and out of line with it.

Also correct on the flashlight/opposite side issue. Darryl had a case in his agency where an officer under stress of conducting a hot stop, keyed a radio mike and ND'd a round DA round from a Sig 220.

[psalms144.1]

Also correct on the flashlight/opposite side issue. Darryl had a case in his agency where an officer under stress of conducting a hot stop, keyed a radio mike and ND'd a round DA round from a Sig 220.Unpossible! Everyone on the interwebz knows you can only ND with a GLOCK...

[Paul Sharp]

Enoka also confirmed one to me a couple of years ago about impacts to the gun arm being associated with an ND. You're right, John: keep your finger off the trigger and out of line with it.

Also correct on the flashlight/opposite side issue. Darryl had a case in his agency where an officer under stress of conducting a hot stop, keyed a radio mike and ND'd a round DA round from a Sig 220.

Seen it happen with a guy grabbing the car door handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

Unpossible! Everyone on the interwebz knows you can only ND with a GLOCK...

Lol nah, we all just think it's easier.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Seen it happen with a guy grabbing the car door handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And there is a very competent and well respected friend of Darryl's and mine (and present here and LF) who had an operational Glock ND by gripping and swinging a baton to break a car window with his off hand....

[Mjolnir]

Depends who we are talking about. USPSA, 2 seconds is considered M. The Rogers School gives out a little piece of paper of their various school standards, including the Bill drill.

By the way, I just spent a whole session in the rain, shooting eight inch targets. When they are at 25 yards and further, on the clock, they wear you out pretty quickly.

Yeah, my eyes (to the largest degree) and trigger control (it's not perfect) beat my ass with small targets at distance.

GD genes, diet, etc...


-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

[Mjolnir]

Lol nah, we all just think it's easier.

The VP9 is potentially worse.

Just wait and see...


-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

[Erick Gelhaus]

OK, I finally got a chance to do some research on this.

During the time frame in question, John Hall was the Unit Chief of the Firearms Training Unit of the FBI at Quantico. He was an FBI agent for 32 years.

At the same time, Urey Patrick was the Assistant Unit Chief of the FBI FTU. Patrick was with the FBI for 24 years.

After retiring, they co-authored a book, In Defense of Self and Others, “Issues, Facts & Fallacies- The Realities of Law Enforcement‘s Use of Deadly Force”. This is a very thorough 415 page book that deals with the legal, tactical, training and wound ballistic aspects of the use of deadly force. I recommend it. Obviously, I don’t agree with it 100%, but most of the information is very valuable.



The 3rd edition of In Defense of Self and Others is out. I got my copy from Carolina Academic Press, don't know if it has made Amazon yet. There is enough new material to make it worthwhile - especially if you involved in the L/E side of training, evaluating, or explaining this.

[Drang]

The 3rd edition of In Defense of Self and Others is out. I got my copy from Carolina Academic Press, don't know if it has made Amazon yet. There is enough new material to make it worthwhile - especially if you involved in the L/E side of training, evaluating, or explaining this.

Apparently, it is not yet on Amazon.

Dead tree: CAP - In Defense of Self and Others . . .: Issues, Facts & Fallacies -- The Realities of Law Enforcement's Use of Deadly Force, Third Edition (9781611636826). Authors: Urey W. Patrick, John C. Hall. Carolina Academic Press (http://www.cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781611636826/In-Defense-of-Self-and-Others-.-.-.-Third-Edition)

eBook edition: In Defense of Self and Others . . . 9781611636826 | 9781531003562 RedShelf (https://www.redshelf.com/book/611639/in-defense-of-self-and-others-611639-9781531003562-urey-w-patrick-john-c-hall)

[oldtexan]

The VP9 is potentially worse.

Just wait and see...


-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

What characteristics of the VP9 have led you to this view?