I was still at Troop F when that occurred... but I remember it. R and I went through the academy together. There were quite a few discussions about that afterward... what I remember most was your faux leather jacket and kick-ass 'stache... :-)
.
I was still at Troop F when that occurred... but I remember it. R and I went through the academy together. There were quite a few discussions about that afterward... what I remember most was your faux leather jacket and kick-ass 'stache... :-)
.
Didn't click the video, don't care enough to sit through it.
It depends on the gun and on the user. Some guns (ie, 1911) display much better ergonomics with the manual safety, others not so much. Regardless of hours dry firing, I could never get the CZ thumb safety 100% while under time stress and being jerked around by a training partner. It was simply too small and too stiff (giggity). It took a lot of work to get to 100% with the 1911, but with enough reps it became second nature even if being pulled around, struck, etc.
Most folks don't know what they don't know. They really have no idea if they can deactivate the safety under high stress, as they've never tried. They don't put in the time and reps, they don't put in the time and reps under less than ideal situations (with a simulated injury, while grappled, etc.) When shit goes sideways, maybe they get it, maybe they end up like the guy in LSP's story above. I could add a few more to that list, but it's the same dance, just a different song.
If I was going to carry a manual safety gun, it would be one that mimics (or is) the 1911 style. I'd remember that a gun with a safety doesn't have a second set of handling requirements (it's ok to do this stupid thing because the safety is on...ND). I'd practice until I literally couldn't get it wrong even if I was being jerked around by a gorilla. I would carry nothing else that had some other safety system. On a related note, this is why I got out of AKs and went all AR. I can run the thumb safety of an AR in my sleep, and have demonstrated ability to do so under extreme stress. I see no reason to use anything else at this point.
See, that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I get that pistol /= rifle, but people train to disengage safeties on their rifles prior to firing and then immediately re-engage when dismounting the rifle, to the point of sub-conscious mastery. I don't understand how doing the same thing on a pistol is THAT different.
I also agree that if you're going to carry a particular manual of arms, you shouldn't randomly change up your "carry rotation" with something that you haven't subconsciously mastered.
People who are not properly trained to operate a pistol, either because their organization sucks or their personal initiative sucks, are going to struggle to use that pistol with proficiency under stress.
Full. Stop.
I've seen members of the military utterly flummoxed by their M9, too. I also know those people have had minimal training on that weapon, certainly not enough to know they are engaging the safety when they attempt to run the slide overhand after a reload. It is the height of absurdity to look at that situation and pronounce that the problem is that the M9 has a safety.
That's the same sort of thinking that leads somebody to look at NYPD OIS shooting reports and conclude that it's impossible to make aimed hits in a gunfight. The NYPD has poor accuracy in gunfights because their personnel are relatively poorly trained, not because aimed fire is impossible under gunfight conditions.
Some safety designs are better than others. The 1911's safety correctly done is the best of the breed. The slide-mounted safety of the M9 is not optimal, especially for those with small hands, but it is by no means unusable.
If you are going to minimally train someone who is uninterested in developing proficiency with a sidearm and won't do anything with it they aren't forced to, a manual safety might not be the best idea. Then again, issuing that person a gun is probably a bad idea too.
Last edited by TCinVA; 09-01-2016 at 08:44 AM.
3/15/2016
Yeah.
Seems like just about everything is now presented as video, including doofus' opinions.
I can read.
I much prefer to read.
When I see a news item or other informational contribution, I'm glad to read about it, but if it's presented as a video by talking heads or by some self-styled "authority" (everyone's an expert on the internet nowadays) I won't even view it unless said video specifically contains content otherwise not evaluable, e.g., physical actions or occurrences caught on camera which are better seen than described.
Yes, I'm a curmudgeon.
Last edited by SAWBONES; 09-01-2016 at 08:43 AM.
"Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman
I think it's easier with a long gun. If you need your long gun in a hurry, you're probably already carrying it in your hands. You've already established grip, you're likely already hovering over or touching the safety, the safety tends to be easy to disengage, etc. Compare that to drawing a pistol under stress and while the idea is the same the execution is tougher. Sort of like backing up a car vs backing up a tractor-trailer rig. Same concept, more difficult to accomplish...but you can if you put the time/effort in.
Agree, and would add that if you are carrying a rifle, you reasonably have an expectation of using or needing it. Not so with a pistol. We carry way more than we draw and present. There is a critical difference in thinking about something and executing it vs needing to do it when you least expect it.