I'd like to get on his shoulders and play Master Blaster! Next time he shoots himself I can say "HE HAS MIND OF CHILD"!
Printable View
Allow me to gently redirect the discussion in this thread to the accident in the video, rather than the body composition of the individual in the video.
We are all better than 5th grade fat jokes.
Thanks!
Could anyone with the patience to listen to the 12 minute whale sounds recording summarize for me? I have about 30 seconds' worth of patience for inarticulate rambling on a good day and burned through all of it looking through the first video for something entertaining.
He was showing his competition gear. The thing that stood out to me was that he was about to do his first USPA match (as opposed to IDPA) and decided to add the use of the drop attachment for his holster. The holster is some CompTac something for XDm 5.25 in .45.
Isn't this the second guy we've seen in recent history putting a .45 round through his own fleshy thigh. The other was using a BlackHawk! rig I think.
This is really simple:
The strong majority of self-inflicted training accidents occur during reholstering.
If we know that, then we should seek to mitigate this possibility as strongly as possible during training.
Most instructors today are very aware of this problem today and seek to mitigate it by: #1, making students aware of the problem and need for additional safety. #2, telling students to intentionally slow down during the reholstering phase. #3, make sure that their finger is off the trigger. #4, make sure that clothing doesn't present a threat to the trigger. #5, looking down and slowly watching what you are doing as you reholster.
This guy does not go slow or look down while reholstering.
This shows either a direct lack of training and/or complete unwillingness to follow established, (but possibly not required in the rulebook) safe gun handling procedures.
Either way. This is negligence of safety, and this presents as pretty much a textbook case of a negligent discharge. As he is doing the same things he has done for years without getting unlucky yet, he instead blames the gun, which is also textbook.
While viewing the video, I realized that while I don't know the shooter "Big Dog" I was familiar with the range, recognized the SO and knew him as well. Looking at the video, from that angle whether to SO was looking at the gun hand during the act of holstering was uncertain. I know the SO and how he operated I doubt that he wasn't looking at the gun hand.
So rather than relying on the video I reached out and discussed this with the SO and several other who witnessed the AD/ND.
At the risk of seeming a tool this is what I found out:
The SO was looking at the hand during the act of holstering and Big Dog's finger was along the frame and not in the trigger guard. The SO also says that the shirt did not get caught on the trigger. This was a USPSA match with no Cover Garment and Big Dog was using a CompTec Drop Offset Holster so I doubt there was any cloth down there to interfere with the holstering process. This was also witnessed by several other shooters I know and who verified no contact with the trigger.
What Big Dog alluded to in the comments below the video on Youtube and later that day admitted to the range staff that he had done some kitchen table gunsmithing on the gun the night before and hadn't test fired the gun. In fact that was the first stage of the day and was the first Big Dog had loaded the gun since working on it.
I'm not sure what gun parts he used (Alludes to Springer in the Video and accompanying comments) but this is what I was told after asking if that was the first stage of the day:
"he was the third shooter on the first stage. What a, little research found was that the parts he used put tension on the sear pin. So much so that the pin starts to bend. With a bent sear pin there is minimal engagement and the slightest vibration will cause it to slip and set the gun off. Even though the company denies this problem, they started offering a sear pin that has been hollowed and then inserted hardened tool steel to prevent flex."
Again I don't know the shooter from Adam and have no horse in this race other than the truth helps prevent similar events and injuries. While I applaud BigDog's coming forward, like others I to was not impressed with his video.
He's actively pruning the comments, so things are coming and going. Yesterday I saw a few comments from him defending the no-look reholster, claiming that looking at the holster is somehow bad, unprofessional, or not tactical enough. I don't remember the exact phrasing he used, but that was the gist. Now I can't find those comments, though admittedly I'm not sure whether that's my own ineptitude or a case of more comments disappearing from the video discussion.
He hammers on his "sticky striker safety" hypothesis endlessly, even when multiple people explain to him that it just doesn't make any sense. If you follow the timeline of the discussion, he is even "leaning" towards this as the cause before any inspection of the firearm has taken place.
(Apologies if these quotes are out of chronological order; a distinct possibility.)
Quote:
any and all parts that were replaced/upgraded were tested. This firearm has worked flawlessly for the last 8 months, up until this little incident. I have my suspicion about the cause and it has nothing to do with any parts I have replaced. It has to do with a sticky striker safety.
Quote:
i beg to differ... the parts worked just fine. I'm 100% confident that this had nothing to do with the parts I swapped out. I believe that we are looking at a striker safety that got stuck. That is a part I never touched. there could have been a build up of lube or dirt in that area. Right now a smith is looking at it. I believe this is 100% accidental. "negligent" implies that I did something wrong like not checking the chamber before cleaning.
Quote:
this had nothing to do with the triggers or springs... i'm confident it was the striker safety that got stuck/malfunctioned.
Quote:
When I said sticky I was referring to a possible build-up of lube in that area.
Emphasis added.Quote:
at this point i don't think we'll know 100% for certain what the problem was. I'm still leaning towards the striker safety. unfortunately the gunsmith that requested to take a look at it has plenty of experience with XDMs, but isn;t actually certified. Might ship it to springfield and see what they say.
So he's absolutely certain that he didn't trip the trigger.
And he's absolutely certain that it was the gun's fault; a mechanical malfunction.
But he's also certain that said mechanical malfunction was not the result of any modifications he made.
Therefore, he's pretty sure it must be some other thing that wasn't his fault, even if that thing doesn't work the way he thinks it does.
Perfect investigation right there! Wrap it up, folks: we're done.
That's how a thorough investigation works: first you eliminate the explanation that carries the highest statistical likelihood of being correct (shooter error) because... well... because that only happens to unsafe people.
Then you eliminate the next most likely explanation (that the user modifications created a somehow unsafe pistol) because... well... because you're "100% confident that this had nothing to do with the parts [you] swapped out." Confidence is the metric by which we judge the likelihood of an event, right? RIGHT?
Then... um... pick some part that sounds like it has something to do with your problem, even though you're not really sure. But that's the one part you didn't touch... so that has to be it, right?
The exchange with Springer Precision is just hilarious:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerPrecision
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDawgBeav
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerPrecision