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

[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/califor...614-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....

[El Cid]

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