Stop and Think Series

[jlw]

#1: Class Safety Briefings


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLA_imDlOYU&t=2s

[Moylan]

Thanks for the post!

Maybe it's because I know nothing at all about how the 911 operators work, but it seems to me like it's mainly a matter of setting a tone for the call and how the whole thing gets colored. You call and say "there's been a shooting at Blankety Blank Range!" And I imagine the 911 operator hitting the big red SWAT button before the conversation even continues. (I just said I know nothing at all about how 911 operators work. For all I know, they have a big red SWAT button. Why not? I'd want one. Seems cool. Maybe it should be blue instead. Still, for purposes of this post, I use the term merely metaphorically.) On the other hand, you call and say "there's been a training accident at Blankety Blank Range." And the 911 operator--hand not even twitching in the direction of the big blue SWAT button--goes, "at Blankety Blank Range, eh? Did this accident involve a gunshot wound?"

I expect you could talk an operator down after setting the "shooting!" tone. But I expect you don't have to talk anyone down when you set the "accident" tone. So it's just a question of picking the easiest terms to work with. That's how I've understood the distinction up to now. I have never called 911 in my life, so it's not based on knowledge. Is this inaccurate?

[jlw]

Thanks for the post!

Maybe it's because I know nothing at all about how the 911 operators work, but it seems to me like it's mainly a matter of setting a tone for the call and how the whole thing gets colored. You call and say "there's been a shooting at Blankety Blank Range!" And I imagine the 911 operator hitting the big red SWAT button before the conversation even continues. (I just said I know nothing at all about how 911 operators work. For all I know, they have a big red SWAT button. Why not? I'd want one. Seems cool. Maybe it should be blue instead. Still, for purposes of this post, I use the term merely metaphorically.) On the other hand, you call and say "there's been a training accident at Blankety Blank Range." And the 911 operator--hand not even twitching in the direction of the big blue SWAT button--goes, "at Blankety Blank Range, eh? Did this accident involve a gunshot wound?"

I expect you could talk an operator down after setting the "shooting!" tone. But I expect you don't have to talk anyone down when you set the "accident" tone. So it's just a question of picking the easiest terms to work with. That's how I've understood the distinction up to now. I have never called 911 in my life, so it's not based on knowledge. Is this inaccurate?


What I am attempting to address is the notion that simply stating "training accident" will be magic words that ensures that EMS will slide to a stop in time to save the day. I am hoping to get people to realize that there will be follow-up questions, particularly about the nature of the wound, and it is going to be obvious that guns are somehow involved.

By all means, specify that there is no hostile act and that there is no ongoing threat.

[Artemas2]

Some of my local ranges are pretty straight forward about it, along the lines of "We have had an accident involving a firearm at such and such range, details etc".
Our call center people are smart enough to get it (60% chance it was a local officer making the call anyway)

Being clear and upfront seems to be the best policy for these incidents.

If for some reason the swat ninjas roll in, the overall scene should be a big clue and EMS would have been no more than a mile behind them.

[SeriousStudent]

Thanks very much, Lee! I will look forward to watching and reading more of these in the the future. :)

[jlw]

Here is the second video in the series:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kASyv0KRci0

[Robinson]

jlw - thanks for posting these.

The second video brings a question: When an Officer is dealing with a subject who is determined to be a threat and is likely about to hurt or kill someone -- maybe the Officer or someone else -- but the Officer is still in that phase in which he or she is yelling commands at the subject (to put down the weapon for example) will the Officer in that moment likely still have his or her own weapon in a ready position or will it be in a firing position? In other words, in the case of a LEO, does pointing the gun at a subject always mean the trigger will be pressed? I know I've seen videos in which an Officer is pointing a gun at a subject and still yelling commands, but I'm not qualified to judge whether that's right or wrong -- thus my question.

I can imagine scenarios -- in a self defense situation -- where a very quick judgement call must be made on whether to bring one's gun into a firing position or keep it at low ready.

[jlw]

@jlw (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=136) - thanks for posting these.

The second video brings a question: When an Officer is dealing with a subject who is determined to be a threat and is likely about to hurt or kill someone -- maybe the Officer or someone else -- but the Officer is still in that phase in which he or she is yelling commands at the subject (to put down the weapon for example) will the Officer in that moment likely still have his or her own weapon in a ready position or will it be in a firing position? In other words, in the case of a LEO, does pointing the gun at a subject always mean the trigger will be pressed? I know I've seen videos in which an Officer is pointing a gun at a subject and still yelling commands, but I'm not qualified to judge whether that's right or wrong -- thus my question.

I can imagine scenarios -- in a self defense situation -- where a very quick judgement call must be made on whether to bring one's gun into a firing position or keep it at low ready.

Muzzle on meat does not mean that the trigger will be pressed. However, it is a question as to what is legal. Is it legal to actually point (muzzle on meat) a firearm at someone without having met the legal mandates to use deadly force?

[jlw]

A Study of Ready (https://firstpersonsafety.com/2020/04/22/a-study-of-ready/)addresses many of my thoughts on ready positions, etc.

[Robinson]

Muzzle on meat does not mean that the trigger will be pressed. However, it is a question as to what is legal. Is it legal to actually point (muzzle on meat) a firearm at someone without having met the legal mandates to use deadly force?

No, not in my understanding. I get your point.

[jlw]

https://youtu.be/5OpNLSXZY60

[jlw]

Here's #4:


https://youtu.be/Ta5rysaRz9s


Are you really safer carrying a TDA when AIWB?

[David S.]

Are you tryyyyying to break the internet? ;)

I've personally chosen to shoot TDA for the reasons that Ernest Langdon and Darryl Bolke articulate. I train the decocking with purpose, and I make a point to decock "tactically" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9463-When-to-Decock-Safe-a-Pistol&highlight=decocking) during competition.

That said, I'd still be shooting a LEM if it wasn't so complicated and expensive to mount a RDS on an H&K.

[jlw]

Are you tryyyyying to break the internet? ;)

I've personally chosen to shoot TDA for the reasons that Ernest Langdon and Darryl Bolke articulate. I train the decocking with purpose, and I make a point to decock "tactically" (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9463-When-to-Decock-Safe-a-Pistol&highlight=decocking) during competition.

That said, I'd still be shooting a LEM if it wasn't so complicated and expensive to mount a RDS on an H&K.


Langdon and Bolke are two guys who have dedicated time with the system and understand it. I'm addressing the casual user who thinks they are being safer by choosing TDA but, in effect, they aren't safer. I know they'll say, "I would never..." but are they truly putting in the dedicated training time?

[TheNewbie]

I think there he makes some good points, and Jlw knows much more about shooting and guns than I.


However,

1. Warning I’m about to talk about how things “feel”. I didn’t feel much difference between a Gen 5 Glock trigger and my P-07 in SA mode. If anything, the SA mode felt safer than the Gen 5 trigger. The Gen 5 is too light in my opinion, and the only way I would carry one is with a quality thumb safety or NY1 trigger.


2. Even if I fail to decock, as long as I place my thumb over the hammer, any AD/ND issues should be greatly mitigated, if not eliminated.


When I handle my TDA pistol in any way, I hit the decocker. This means off target, holstering after securing it at the jail, after cleaning or admin handling, changing holsters, etc. So this video was not really directed at those like me, but it doesn’t hurt to hear the warnings again.

I also agree that a DAO gun is a great option. Wish the P250 was still made, PX4s could more easily be found in DAO, Glock had a true DAO set up etc.

[jlw]

I should add that de-cocking on the square range and getting it done under "hands on" conditions are two different things.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Very interesting piece. So the issue is not decocking on reholstering. That is understandable from several perspectives:

1. Not enough reps to establish the motor memory. That takes lots of effort. Using the term conscious competence as compared to unconscious. The conscious falls if you go fast. Different motor control systems.
2. Finer motor patterns fade under stress. Having been in stressful training or real world incident, your attention is elsewhere and you just want to get the gun away, if appropriate to do.
3. This is enhanced by the two affordances (configurations that draw the action in a certain fashion).
a. The finger seeks the trigger. That's bad, so folks may leave on the trigger and trying to break that tendency and finger control might not leave capacity for another complex movement on the reholster.
b. The gun seeks the holster and you want to that quickly and not divert to another movement if you need to quickly reholster.

Worth what you paid for. Having almost having a 45 ACP in my foot from a guy holstering a 1911 at make ready in a match (I was score keeper), holstering is fun under stress. He was all excited.

My fat old body is OWB, so this theoretical.

[Yung]

I do remember John Johnston having a DAO full size LTT in class, which I believe is owned by Caleb Giddings now. I'd have to double check and ask but I think parts availability may have something to do with its rarity, probably because it is not (or maybe was not ever) a popular choice for a semi-auto trigger.

From Greg's article:


Overall, my conclusion is that when considering training efficiency, it’s faster and easier to teach the shooter how to safely draw and holster a striker-fired pistol than it is to teach the same person how to safely manage a DA/SA trigger and decocker. Your mileage may vary.


Thinking back to previous 'basic' classes i have assisted in, students have a hard enough time just learning to work the slide lever and get used to a proper grip. Any decocking discipline I don't address here, though, will surely become much harder to address if/when they ever move from the bench to a holster. At the same time, I usually tell folks online and in person who ask 'which one' questions that at I have seen a lot of people perform at high levels with pretty much everything.

I won't pretend I have always covered this topic as well as I could have when I was starting out. At the very least I can say I never and never will be the instructor to reach over to a student's Beretta and cock it for them while telling them to start each string that way. I was that student once, and there are many others who were too.

GJM can attest to my struggles with doing what I learned from reading Todd's writing on decocking, and running the the stage with gun in hand between arrays in Tim Herron's class. It has been a lot easier for me to agree with the idea of needing to separate contexts than it has been to practice that way, though I've gotten better.

Looking forward to David Cagle's appearance.

[jlw]

I do remember John Johnston having a DAO full size LTT in class, which I believe is owned by Caleb Giddings now. I'd have to double check and ask but I think parts availability may have something to do with its rarity, probably because it is not (or maybe was not ever) a popular choice for a semi-auto trigger.

From Greg's article:


Thinking back to previous 'basic' classes i have assisted in, students have a hard enough time just learning to work the slide lever and get used to a proper grip. Any decocking discipline I don't address here, though, will surely become much harder to address if/when they ever move from the bench to a holster. At the same time, I usually tell folks online and in person who ask 'which one' questions that at I have seen a lot of people perform at high levels with pretty much everything.

I won't pretend I have always covered this topic as well as I could have when I was starting out. At the very least I can say I never and never will be the instructor to reach over to a student's Beretta and cock it for them while telling them to start each string that way. I was that student once, and there are many others who were too.

GJM can attest to my struggles with doing what I learned from reading Todd's writing on decocking, and running the the stage in Tim Herron's class. It has been a lot easier for me to agree with the idea of needing to separate contexts than it has been to practice that way, though I've gotten better.

Looking forward to David Cagle's appearance.


I taught our Glock transition course back in the day, and I've taught plenty of newbies on the Glock and other striker fired pistols, and it certainly is 'easier" without the de-cock step. Students seem to be especially resistant to de-cocking when coming off of a target to a ready position.

[JJN]

Most of the advocates for TDA as an AIWB mitigation method like the idea of putting a thumb on the hammer. That's what the Gadget was replicating. A thumb on the hammer is a backstop for failing to decock, assuming the shooter can feel the difference between SA and DA. Maybe we're in a copy-of-a-copy situation where some folks missed the why behind TDA.

[Hambo]

Langdon and Bolke are two guys who have dedicated time with the system and understand it. I'm addressing the casual user who thinks they are being safer by choosing TDA but, in effect, they aren't safer. I know they'll say, "I would never..." but are they truly putting in the dedicated training time?

Have you seen a large number of any level of users with TDAs in classes? I haven't. Usually I'm the only guy who has one. It is possible, and easier than you might think, to hard wire decocking. Whether the average striker-centric instructor knows how to do that is another question.

One of your recent videos made me look at your class schedule. This one was click bait.

[BehindBlueI's]

Have you seen a large number of any level of users with TDAs in classes? I haven't. Usually I'm the only guy who has one. It is possible, and easier than you might think, to hard wire decocking. Whether the average striker-centric instructor knows how to do that is another question.

One of your recent videos made me look at your class schedule. This one was click bait.

"Did you just "decock" that Glock?" - Range instructor to me after watching me in a shoot house.

I think I got a pretty automatic level of it.

[TheNewbie]

I think the TDA offers multiple redundancies in the safety department, even if you forget to decock.

Heavier first pull
Hammer to thumb
Visual reference of hammer moving
Tactile reference of hammer moving

Even if you fail to decock-

Can still thumb hammer
On my P-07, weight/length of trigger travel are not that much different from the Glock 45 I had.


Not to mention, not many people are carrying thumb break holsters anymore, where the strap can get caught in the trigger guard.


I do agree that the TDA is probably not the answer for the person who wants to do the minimum to get their CHL. AIWB probably isn’t for that person either. However, I don’t think you have to be all that advanced in the shooting and gun handling arena to successfully and competently carry a TDA.

[jlw]

Have you seen a large number of any level of users with TDAs in classes? I haven't. Usually I'm the only guy who has one. It is possible, and easier than you might think, to hard wire decocking. Whether the average striker-centric instructor knows how to do that is another question.

One of your recent videos made me look at your class schedule. This one was click bait.

I know it's possible. As I stated in the episode, I carried one for seven years. I have not said it can't be done. I'm simply reporting what I am seeing, and I am not alone in that.

[TheNewbie]

I know it's possible. As I stated in the episode, I carried one for seven years. I have not said it can't be done. I'm simply reporting what I am seeing, and I am not alone in that.

What are your thoughts on manual safeties? Such as on the M&P.

[jlw]

What are your thoughts on manual safeties? Such as on the M&P.


Muzzle on, safety off. Muzzle off, safety on.
Erick Gelhaus

[TheNewbie]

Muzzle on, safety off. Muzzle off, safety on.
Erick Gelhaus

Also, do you see many in class? Do people struggle with them?


I just wonder if it would take more or less training in regard to manual safety vs decocker. With my wife, who has zero background in firearms, I felt the best balance of safety vs ease of use was the EZ Shield sans safety. She has one now, likes it and shoots it well.

A revolver would be my first choice, but they are no bueno for her tiny hands.

[jlw]

Also, do you see many in class? Do people struggle with them?


I just wonder if it would take more or less training in regard to manual safety vs decocker. With my wife, who has zero background in firearms, I felt the best balance of safety vs ease of use was the EZ Shield sans safety. She has one now, likes it and shoots it well.

A revolver would be my first choice, but they are no bueno for her tiny hands.

The vast majority of pistols I see are Glocks with 320s and 365s becoming more common. I don't recall an M&P with a manual safety. The manual safety pistols that I see tend to be 1911/2011s. The less seasoned the student the more reluctant they seem to be put the safety back other than when going to the holster.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think I read this from Mas, apologies if I get it wrong or it was from someone else.

1. One idea for the heavier TDA first pull was that it might counteract folks keeping a finger on the trigger and some accidental pull, from some factor like a startle, sympathetic squeeze, etc. We do know that such factors can overcome the heavier pull though. Does it cut down the rate? I don't know if that has been quantified.

2. Because of the perceived safety of the DA pull, folks were keeping their finger on the trigger after the first shot and now have a lighter short pull, when they should have moved the finger to a safe position.

3. They, thus, had an illusion of safety, and more more likely to fire a second shot as a ND due to various factors has mentioned above.

4. One might argue that you would notice the trigger is back but perceptual narrowing under stress, might cause the person to miss that or just forget the trigger pull difference.

Any evidence for this?

[jlw]

I think I read this from Mas, apologies if I get it wrong or it was from someone else.

1. One idea for the heavier TDA first pull was that it might counteract folks keeping a finger on the trigger and some accidental pull, from some factor like a startle, sympathetic squeeze, etc. We do know that such factors can overcome the heavier pull though. Does it cut down the rate? I don't know if that has been quantified.

2. Because of the perceived safety of the DA pull, folks were keeping their finger on the trigger after the first shot and now have a lighter short pull, when they should have moved the finger to a safe position.

3. They, thus, had an illusion of safety, and more more likely to fire a second shot as a ND due to various factors has mentioned above.

4. One might argue that you would notice the trigger is back but perceptual narrowing under stress, might cause the person to miss that or just forget the trigger pull difference.

Any evidence for this?
Mas?

[Erick Gelhaus]

What are your thoughts on manual safeties? Such as on the M&P.

I prefer them, but I "grew up" shooting pistols with them. I grip a Glock or other soulless, plastic guns :cool: and thumb doesn't know what to do.

Seriously, I finished the academy with a 1911a1 and carried one for 20 years on duty, and I've carried an M&P with a thumb safety for 6 1/2 of the last ten years. I think Pannone recently discussed this and positively compared using the selector/safety on the M16/AR15 family with one's ability to use a frame-mounted thumb safety on a handgun.

As jlw pointed out, Off-target/On safe or On-target/Off safe. If drawing, presenting from the holster to the shot, then the safety comes off once the shoot decision has been made and the sights are on the target (not you having a sight picture). If drawing to a ready position, the safety stays on until both criteria from the last sentence are met.

The thumb rides on top of the safety when it's on & off, except for the instant one is putting it back on safe. Otherwise, one risks bumping it on unintentionally.

When does it go back on? "As jlw pointed out, Off-target/On safe or On-target/Off safe."

After years of Glocks being the most common pistol, it's interesting to see people migrating (for various reasons) to the 2011s and 1911s while being quite unfamiliar with their manual of arms.

The use of the safety is trainable.

[Mas]

I think I read this from Mas, apologies if I get it wrong or it was from someone else.

1. One idea for the heavier TDA first pull was that it might counteract folks keeping a finger on the trigger and some accidental pull, from some factor like a startle, sympathetic squeeze, etc. We do know that such factors can overcome the heavier pull though. Does it cut down the rate? I don't know if that has been quantified.

2. Because of the perceived safety of the DA pull, folks were keeping their finger on the trigger after the first shot and now have a lighter short pull, when they should have moved the finger to a safe position.

3. They, thus, had an illusion of safety, and more more likely to fire a second shot as a ND due to various factors has mentioned above.

4. One might argue that you would notice the trigger is back but perceptual narrowing under stress, might cause the person to miss that or just forget the trigger pull difference.

Any evidence for this?

Glenn and Lee, I don't recall writing exactly that, but might have quoted some other instructor who felt that way. Taking your points in order:
1. The long, heavy double action pull has always been one safety net against unintended discharge due to things like startle response, but has never been a bulwark against it.

2. I can think of more than one case when an unintended DA shot was immediately followed by a second from SA, due to startle response.

3. See 2., above.

4. I think a lot of that is simply forgetting to decock, as Lee and Greg have pointed out.

[UNM1136]

I taught our Glock transition course back in the day, and I've taught plenty of newbies on the Glock and other striker fired pistols, and it certainly is 'easier" without the de-cock step. Students seem to be especially resistant to de-cocking when coming off of a target to a ready position.

Way back in the day I was criticized by the head of my agency's FTU for decocking "too often" and "too soon". He wanted the decock to preceed holstering. Your hard break and scan and addressing additional targets should be SA. My answer was always "off target, hammer down." If I am going to start/restart "observe-decide-engage if necessary cycle ", paricularly if it involves moving, or going hands on or manipulating things in the environment like radios, doors, etc, I want the hammer down.

I have seen more than one ND when officers were climbing in windows, kicking doors, doing reloading drills etc. I very firmly believe and teach "off target, hammer down"...

Besides, everyone knows that DA/SA triggers are harder to run, so I wanted more practice with the transition...:p

I have never believed TDA gave any additional margin of safety: when the trigger moves to the rear, a loud noise is the predictable result. I do recall, due to the nature, seeing the hammer move to the rear in my peripheral vision, before changing my mind, and getting off the trigger. I do buy that the process, depending on circumstances, can allow one last opportunity to exit this ride.

This may be relevant to me in the future. If Gadgets are going to be hard to get I am eyeing the CZ P-07 for off duty appendix carry. Spent 6 years with a P229 in .40 and .357. 14 years with a Kimber Warrior that Uncle Pat helped me source, a year with an issue M&P9, and coming up on 2 years with a G17. I don't NEED a gadget to carry a Glock appendix, but I prefer it. The only reason I dropped the issue M&P was MOS, RMR, and Gadget, in that order. MOS no longer matters that much.

pat

[TheNewbie]

Way back in the day I was criticized by the head of my agency's FTU for decocking "too often" and "too soon". He wanted the decock to preceed holstering. Your hard break and scan and addressing additional targets should be SA. My answer was always "off target, hammer down." If I am going to start/restart "observe-decide-engage if necessary cycle ", paricularly if it involves moving, or going hands on or manipulating things in the environment like radios, doors, etc, I want the hammer down.

I have seen more than one ND when officers were climbing in windows, kicking doors, doing reloading drills etc. I very firmly believe and teach "off target, hammer down"...

Besides, everyone knows that DA/SA triggers are harder to run, so I wanted more practice with the transition...:p

I have never believed TDA gave any additional margin of safety: when the trigger moves to the rear, a loud noise is the predictable result. I do recall, due to the nature, seeing the hammer move to the rear in my peripheral vision, before changing my mind, and getting off the trigger. I do buy that the process, depending on circumstances, can allow one last opportunity to exit this ride.

This may be relevant to me in the future. If Gadgets are going to be hard to get I am eyeing the CZ P-07 for off duty appendix carry. Spent 6 years with a P229 in .40 and .357. 14 years with a Kimber Warrior that Uncle Pat helped me source, a year with an issue M&P9, and coming up on 2 years with a G17. I don't NEED a gadget to carry a Glock appendix, but I prefer it. The only reason I dropped the issue M&P was MOS, RMR, and Gadget, in that order. MOS no longer matters that much.

pat


Where I think the DA/SA gives some safety margin is in holstering, if you thumb the hammer. While not exactly easy, I could overcome the SCD. With a NY1 trigger, the SCD was much harder, if not impossible, to overcome.


I’m really thinking a M&P might be in my future. The bit of take up on the trigger is something I actually like, and the real issue is if I can convince myself to like the safety. If I get one it will be a manual safety version, but it does mess my grip up. Surely training and practice can eliminate that issue.


I do hope we get more SCDs and I hope all is good with Tom.

[BehindBlueI's]

I've really come to appreciate the Glock/SCD combo. Invisible when you need to shoot, mimics a hammer for holstering, and if you forget to use it you are no worse off than you would be without it. Just an extra layer.

I still *really* like a TDA gun as well.

Personally won't carry a manual safety handgun for reasons I've detailed elsewhere several times.