Common sense and the four rules?

[Kobalt60]

So does common sense apply to the four rules? I recently attended a course taught by active and former Tier 1 (I live close to Ft. Bragg) SpecOps guys and in the opening discussions we spoke about the four rules and they were not dogmatic at all about them. They understood them and said to use them as core principles, especially #3 and #2, but there is also the concept of "big boy rules." What was communicated was that being deliberate and aware is the key to safety because there are common situations where you're going to violate a rule here and there, you just shouldn't do it ignorantly. For instance, if you're cleaning your weapon and its unloaded with the action open, you don't necessarily need to keep it pointed in a "safe" direction because sometimes there is no "safe" direction.

I got the point of what they were saying, I'm just not 100% sure it was the best way to communicate the rules to an intro class. The students were a mix of "just got this pistol last month" to "security contractor brushing up for quals" and "Marine officer attending with his wife who is relatively new to firearms." What have you guys taught or been taught? I like "big boy rules," but I'm not sure if they're the best approach for students just learning basic weapons manipulations.

[ToddG]

Big boy rules has turned from a phrase a few high level instructors use when dealing with people of known, proven skill level to a cool guy/high speed-wannabe catchphrase for "we're too awesome to follow the same rules as the peasants."

The loading/unloading example is a great one. "We don't worry about safe direction when unloading because in real life there may not be a safe direction..." WTF? Who is unloading his gun in a 360-degree combat environment? What possible benefit is there to being casual about unloading a gun -- a process which, by definition, begins with a loaded gun in someone's hand -- when you're probably never more than 10yd from a berm where you can do it in absolute safety? It's one thing to acknowledge that there may be times off the range when strict adherence to the rules may not be possible. It's something altogether different to use that as an excuse for poor unsafe gunhandling in a class or when practicing.

[Kevin B.]

Here are my thoughts:

First, I despise the term "Big Boy Rules." It implies there are two sets of rules for handling a firearm; one that the general gun owning/using public follow and one for the elite SOF/SEAL/SWAT guys. There are not. But as most people are unwilling to go to BUD/S or join LAPD's SWAT team, some figure the easiest way for them to get a seat at the grown-up table is to selectively violate the Four Rules and/or dismiss their violation. That whole "THIS is my safety..." thing. :rolleyes:

Second, common sense is not common. Military units that have an extensive vetting process have a significantly lower density of jackasses that the population at large. Based on my limited interaction with similar law enforcement organizations, the same holds true. Trying to apply their mindset to the populace at large is courting disaster. Look at how many instances of reckless gun-handling we see without an instructor giving a student a license to disregard the safety rules.

Third, if you do something long enough/often enough you will eventually encounter situations where blind adherence to the rules would cause a greater problem than breaking them. I am sure everyone learned to check their mirrors and/or blind spot before changing lanes. Ever have to swerve into another lane suddenly while driving your car? How many times have you changed lanes like that? It only stands to reason that people who spend a substantial amount of time solving problems in ambiguous environments with guns or preparing for those type of situations are going to encounter situations where the rules do not apply far more often than than a guy who only shoots in the controlled environment of his local range. Naturally, there view of the application of the Four Rules is going to be influenced by their experience.

The Four Rules are time tested and 99.9% of the time they should be followed. If they are not, the violation, the conditions under which the rule was violated and the alternatives available to the violator all need to be evaluated against the outcome. That requires a subjective analysis and subjectivity is generally a poor mix with gun safety. If it were not, we would have just one rule: Do not do dumb shit with guns.

[JSGlock34]

I've heard some instructors talk a great game about 'big boy rules'. The problem with this attitude in an open enrollment course is that the instructor doesn't know me, my level of training, or that of the other students. Far too many assumptions there. In my experience, this was accompanied by a casual attitude towards safety, weapon handling and muzzle discipline in the 'administrative area'.

[LOKNLOD]

I would expect true Big boy rules should be more about expecting everyone present to execute the fundamentals at high enough level that constant watching and handholding isn't necessary, rather than carte blanche for f'ing around willy nilly. It also means being accountable and taking your lumps when you screw up, so I'd expect the guy who is dangerously sloppy under big boy rules to be dealt with even more harshly than somebody who does it in a beginner level class.

[Kobalt60]

The impression I got was actually that when you're under stress as well as in training, that's when following the rules is most important. They put a lot of emphasis on 100% round accountability, for instance, and in order to maintain that accountability, you need to observe rule 4 religiously. But an empty gun, for example, is an empty gun and a berm is a berm. At one point, a student was having an issue with their gun and I presume the instructor wanted to check if the sights were right, so he walked away from the group, looked around and fired a few round off into the berm. No calling the line hot or making any formal announcement, he just did it and that was that. I guess that wasn't actually a violation of the 4 rules, but it was a departure from "cold range" rules.

[Odin Bravo One]

If common sense were applied to firearms safety, there would be no need for any rules. Fact is, what is common sense to me doesn't even register for 99% of the firearm owning world. "Big Boy Rules"? What exactly is that? I run ranges every once in awhile, and I don't recall my safety brief ever including the phrase "Big Boy Rules". I don't care who the audience is. Safety is addressed, participants are reminded of protocols often, and the standards are maintained from the start of the brief, until clean up is over and the range is vacated.

Anyone who is too cool to be safe can have the range to themselves for all I care. I won't stay on an unsafe range, or shoot with unsafe people. Anyone who thinks the rules don't apply to them, or that they get to wear "Big Boy Pants" that exempt them from the same safety rules as anyone else is unsafe.

[TCinVA]

If common sense were applied to firearms safety, there would be no need for any rules. Fact is, what is common sense to me doesn't even register for 99% of the firearm owning world. "Big Boy Rules"? What exactly is that? I run ranges every once in awhile, and I don't recall my safety brief ever including the phrase "Big Boy Rules". I don't care who the audience is. Safety is addressed, participants are reminded of protocols often, and the standards are maintained from the start of the brief, until clean up is over and the range is vacated.

Anyone who is too cool to be safe can have the range to themselves for all I care. I won't stay on an unsafe range, or shoot with unsafe people. Anyone who thinks the rules don't apply to them, or that they get to wear "Big Boy Pants" that exempt them from the same safety rules as anyone else is unsafe.

Isn't it interesting how individuals who spend lots of time in close proximity with others handling firearms tend to take safety rules most seriously?

There may just be a lesson in that, folks.

I find that most who spend their time yakking about "big boy rules" have significant problems with the other side of the equation: Namely big-boy accountability. Call them on something and they either get pissy about it or try and justify why pointing guns at people isn't a big deal.

[David Armstrong]

The big boys know the rules are there for a reason and tend to follow them whenever possible. There are times when it is not possible, at least not in a reasonable context. Big boys know that, thus the fact that they do follow the rules on the range and in training.

[BoppaBear]

I guess I'm not in the know. I've never heard of "Big Boy Rules" until this thread. This includes my latest course with a SWAT member and instructor/IDPA M/USPSA GM/JTTF member. It wasn't a "beginners'" course, but the first words out of his mouth were his safety expectations and the fact that they were not to be broken. We had fun, and he was a goof ball when the time was right, but when the bolts and slides went forward, it was all about being serious and muzzle discipline.

Class started with 5, and luckily ended with 5. No one aerated or kicked out for lack of safety.

[Mr_White]

I find myself in 100% agreement with those who have posted so far. I hate the term big boy rules, and on the rare occasions I have seen it used by an instructor it immediately led to sloppy and lame gunhandling by students who then justified it under the big boy rules umbrella. I am glad to see that I am apparently in agreement with the actual pro guys on this forum that (paraphrasing) a real professional is such because he continues to apply the four safety principles even in more complex and difficult circumstances and at all possible times.

A comparison coming off my GSSF match today: seriously and consciously attempting to follow all four safety principles is a lot like seriously attempting to shoot the center of every target with every shot. It will get screwed up all on it's own. By sticking to the true center of safety or marksmanship, as the case may be, both by ingrained habit and by conscious control, when you screw it up, disaster is not usually the result, even though there is no sure thing. That is the best that can be done and anything less is straight up deficient.

[Josh Runkle]

On the flip side:

While not using rules by claiming things like "360 degrees may not be safe in the real world" is a joke, I'd like to point out that there are some limited firearms experiences that do include limitations on those rules.

Appendix Carry, by nature, is a very, very dangerous practice. I think advocates of it would still admit that, but, they would also explain mitigation of that danger, and why the danger is worth it. When combined with foreknowledge and safe reholstering skills, appendix carry is still more dangerous than other common carry positions, but we accept that in exchange for more danger (which we mitigate as much as possible), there is now a faster drawing position with better concealment available. While the phrase: "big boy rules" is not overtly stated, it is implied with "Kitten up, you die."

Being in a shoot house, similarly changes the safety setting and safety rules. While you might do something that is more dangerous, like engaging a target only 2 meters from your teammate, the idea is that the benefit for training in such a manner outweighs the higher risk, and said risk is also mitigated as much as possible. Something like the "indexing on the front sight before a pressout" like you might see Todd do, however would be a clear violation in a shoot house, because, with people above you watching, you have now violated rule #1. When, however, that same person were to reholster and point a tiny portion of the muzzle at a tiny piece of skin along the side of their leg (which would be something they don't want to destroy and also violates rule #1), no one would say anything to them. Why? Because it is deemed to be a "relatively" safe practice that, while dangerous, is deemed necessary, and every effort is made to mitigate the danger.

Using a phrase like "big boy rules" to explain a lack of safety is retarded. Knowingly violating a safety rule in an extreme circumstance, with foresight, mitigation and a clearly decisive benefit that outweighs the risk might be a situation that is worth it. Simply taking a high level class is NEVER a good reason to violate a safety rule. Having limited, discussed, pre-planned exemptions to safety rules are something completely different. What can be hard for high level shooters/units is switching back and forth between environments.

When you dry fire from appendix carry, do you actually take 20 seconds to reholster? Will this create bad muscle memory in live fire? These are good safety questions. Strict adherence to rules WILL NOT KEEP YOU SAFE! There will always be an exception or something unaccounted for. Instead, constantly and continually evaluating all actions to deem whether or not they are indeed safe and then having a quality instructor, Range Officer or training buddy reevaluate your training and decision making is one of the few ways to mitigate as many potential problems as possible. It still won't make you completely safe, though.

Firearms are dangerous. That should be rule #1 when you're discussing safety.

[Kobalt60]

Somewhere along the way, "big boy rules" became synonymous with "disregards safety" and I don't want anyone to think that the group I trained with exhibited anything but strict adherence to and enforcement of the four rules during the class. Common sense was clearly used in running the range from hot to cold and in between. I think there is room for common sense as long as safety is first and foremost in training. That said, I approach every firearm as if its loaded, until I personally check it clear and then double take. After that, as long as its in my possession, I can clean it and dry fire it without necessarily worrying about, for example, my neighbor's house on the otherwise of the exterior wall in my office or field stripping a pistol just to inspect the bore when locking back the action will work. During dry fire practice, I'm violating rule 1 consciously and likely violating rules 2, 3, and 4 as well because I don't happen to have a berm in my office. Also, when I carry AIWB, I also flag myself, but I do it carefully so as not to die. There's common sense again. Big boy rules are about using your head and being accountable. I think we should all follow big boy rules, all the time. Own your mistakes and use your head.

I totally agree with Todd that there's no excuse for using "Big Boy Rules" as any sort of pass to ignore basic safety rules. But let's face it, we've all shot on ranges where they treat every shooter as if they're a dangerous idiot that has no business handling a firearm and that's not exactly conducive to effective training either.

[JHC]

Somewhere along the way, "big boy rules" became synonymous with "disregards safety" and I don't want anyone to think that the group I trained with exhibited anything but strict adherence to and enforcement of the four rules during the class. Common sense was clearly used in running the range from hot to cold and in between. I think there is room for common sense as long as safety is first and foremost in training. That said, I approach every firearm as if its loaded, until I personally check it clear and then double take. After that, as long as its in my possession, I can clean it and dry fire it without necessarily worrying about, for example, my neighbor's house on the otherwise of the exterior wall in my office or field stripping a pistol just to inspect the bore when locking back the action will work. During dry fire practice, I'm violating rule 1 consciously and likely violating rules 2, 3, and 4 as well because I don't happen to have a berm in my office. Also, when I carry AIWB, I also flag myself, but I do it carefully so as not to die. There's common sense again. Big boy rules are about using your head and being accountable. I think we should all follow big boy rules, all the time. Own your mistakes and use your head.

I totally agree with Todd that there's no excuse for using "Big Boy Rules" as any sort of pass to ignore basic safety rules. But let's face it, we've all shot on ranges where they treat every shooter as if they're a dangerous idiot that has no business handling a firearm and that's not exactly conducive to effective training either.

My read of the thread in general is that you pretty much trashed the reputation of the trainers you refer to; intentionally or not.

[Kobalt60]

My read of the thread in general is that you pretty much trashed the reputation of the trainers you refer to; intentionally or not.

It does look that way huh? I think it's more a result of Todd seeing "big boy rules" in my OP and talking about what he's seen in his experience rather than anything these guys did during my class.

It looks more like the phrase has been taken out of its original context in a part of the training community and abused by others that don't appreciate the responsibility that comes with it. Kinda like the term "operator" and how it got spread around until it was being used for purposes that watered down the original use.

I guess I stepped on a phrase that has left a bad taste with a lot of trainers here. I should have just posted

"Big Bpy Rules"... Thoughts?

as my OP and seen what came back. Which is fine, I didn't come into this knowing there were so many training outfits out there who are cavalier about safety.

Switching gears slightly to focus on "common sense" or "thought" and the 4 rules... If you could build a robot, call him "RoboCop" and program him so that he was incapable of violating any of the four rules as written by Cooper, do you think he could do his job effectively? Lets assume he isn't any more bullet proof than anyone else. If not, how could the rules be tweaked or reinterpreted to allow for RoboCop to operate in the real world?

[Mr_White]

That said, I approach every firearm as if its loaded, until I personally check it clear and then double take. After that, as long as its in my possession, I can clean it and dry fire it without necessarily worrying about, for example, my neighbor's house on the otherwise of the exterior wall in my office or field stripping a pistol just to inspect the bore when locking back the action will work. During dry fire practice, I'm violating rule 1 consciously and likely violating rules 2, 3, and 4 as well because I don't happen to have a berm in my office.

I recognize that not everyone will agree with my take on this issue. I also mean this in a friendly way and am not trying to attack you. I believe it's an extremely bad idea to not use multiple layers of safety in dry fire. It sounds like the safety of your dry fire practice hinges solely on you being correct that your gun is unloaded. As soon as you make a mistake about the status of your gun, there are no more layers of safety and you will put a round through that wall and out into the world. I strongly believe that you should use a safe direction when dry firing. It doesn't have to be a berm. Get a used vest panel or other material able to absorb pistol bullets. Arrange bookcases tightly packed with printed material sufficient to stop a pistol bullet.

The issue boils down to one of mathematics. It is vastly harder to make two mistakes than one, and vastly harder still to make three mistakes than two. Being one mistake away from plugging the neighbor's house is a thin layer.

[JHC]

It does look that way huh? I think it's more a result of Todd seeing "big boy rules" in my OP and talking about what he's seen in his experience rather than anything these guys did during my class.

It looks more like the phrase has been taken out of its original context in a part of the training community and abused by others that don't appreciate the responsibility that comes with it. Kinda like the term "operator" and how it got spread around until it was being used for purposes that watered down the original use.

I guess I stepped on a phrase that has left a bad taste with a lot of trainers here. I should have just posted

"Big Bpy Rules"... Thoughts?

as my OP and seen what came back. Which is fine, I didn't come into this knowing there were so many training outfits out there who are cavalier about safety.

Switching gears slightly to focus on "common sense" or "thought" and the 4 rules... If you could build a robot, call him "RoboCop" and program him so that he was incapable of violating any of the four rules as written by Cooper, do you think he could do his job effectively? Lets assume he isn't any more bullet proof than anyone else. If not, how could the rules be tweaked or reinterpreted to allow for RoboCop to operate in the real world?

+1 regarding the "big boy rules". For the first dozen or so applications of the phrase that I saw; it related to modern day mutual combat punchouts to settle arguments with no thought of involving the law or lawyers. I didn't realize it had been adapted to sloppy gun handling.

[Al T.]

Food for thought. Recently I read a thread on a .mil/LEO board where most thought the Four Rules were the "Big Boy rules". Sadly, I agree that the common definition of BBRs has deteriorated due to inept asshats using the term.

[ST911]

Where I've encountered the "big boy rules" statement, it's been on ranges that were run hot, and where students can load, unload, and handle guns as they need to without being on a common line, in a group, or under direct observation. The cardinal rules weren't cast aside, but were even more important in these environments. It was used by instructors to distinguish their SOPs from the most novice or restrictive methods and environments people may be accustomed to.

[Jay Cunningham]

Where I've encountered the "big boy rules" statement, it's been on ranges that were run hot, and where students can load, unload, and handle guns as they need to without being on a common line, in a group, or under direct observation.

This has been my experience as well.

I neither endorse it nor disparage it; it is simply my experience with that phrase and what it meant in context at the time.

That said, I have heard it applied to other less-than-safe circumstances where I wasn't personally present.

[rsa-otc]

Where I've encountered the "big boy rules" statement, it's been on ranges that were run hot, and where students can load, unload, and handle guns as they need to without being on a common line, in a group, or under direct observation. The cardinal rules weren't cast aside, but were even more important in these environments. It was used by instructors to distinguish their SOPs from the most novice or restrictive methods and environments people may be accustomed to.

This I can live with. In fact it makes sense. Basically stated "You are all Big Boys and know the 4 rules and are expected to follow them without constant supervision". Actually when I get together with some of my experienced friends that is exactly how we play it. And if you don't your XXX will be handed to you.

Unfortunately I first heard the phrase coined on another forum in a big Brew HAHA where one member was objecting to safety issues in a class and the instructor threw out the phrase "Big Boy Rules" to explain the lapses in safety. Wasn't well received.

[Mr_White]

This I can live with. In fact it makes sense. Basically stated "You are all Big Boys and know the 4 rules and are expected to follow them without constant supervision". Actually when I get together with some of my experienced friends that is exactly how we play it. And if you don't your XXX will be handed to you.

One person explained the term to me that way a while back, and I agree that used that way it makes sense.


Unfortunately I first heard the phrase coined on another forum in a big Brew HAHA where one member was objecting to safety issues in a class and the instructor threw out the phrase "Big Boy Rules" to explain the lapses in safety. Wasn't well received.

On most of the occasions I've heard the phrase used, it was used this second, dumb way. In fact, I think I am thinking of the same AAR you might be thinking of.

[ToddG]

Where I've encountered the "big boy rules" statement, it's been on ranges that were run hot, and where students can load, unload, and handle guns as they need to without being on a common line, in a group, or under direct observation. The cardinal rules weren't cast aside, but were even more important in these environments. It was used by instructors to distinguish their SOPs from the most novice or restrictive methods and environments people may be accustomed to.

That was how I first learned & heard the term, as well. And the guys who used that term that way "back then" weren't idiots and they certainly weren't unsafe.

However, enough AARs get posted with the phrase "Big Boy Rules" in them and suddenly every guy who's ever watched Commando is out there teaching Combat Tactical Operator Carbine Level IX and using "Big Boy Rules" as his misplaced excuse for running a dangerous range. It was intended to convey the sense that I'm as cool and switched on as those famous guys who famously say cool Big Boy Rules in their cool famous classes ... but he wasn't, and his class wasn't, and his students weren't. That's how you end up with students pointing loaded guns at each other or instructors.

Personally, I'd rather an instructor burn 10 minutes of class time telling me exactly what his expectations are in terms of safe gun handling... and more importantly, telling the dozen or so strangers in the class with me what his expectations are of them. In my experience it's a mistake to assume that just because someone has internet access and signs up for a Level 8 Warrior Mindset 3Gun Ninja class that he's also familiar with (and capable of following) fundamental range safety protocols.

[Al T.]

Slight twist - one class I was in had "BBRs" and everyone was expected to manage their firearms and ammo supply on their own. The instructor called a cease fire and walked downrange to clear a students pistol. Several students were so unsettled by his breaking the 180 degree rule, they cleared their firearms and reholstered.... :rolleyes:

[cclaxton]

Slight twist - one class I was in had "BBRs" and everyone was expected to manage their firearms and ammo supply on their own. The instructor called a cease fire and walked downrange to clear a students pistol. Several students were so unsettled by his breaking the 180 degree rule, they cleared their firearms and reholstered.... :rolleyes:

This was due to fear of violating the 5th Rule:

5th Rule- Never, EVER muzzle the Safety Officer.

CC