I've worked hundreds of accidental shootings. Vanishingly few are with revolvers. Those that were were either playing with it or non-drop safe with single digit exceptions. Nobody fatally shot themselves with one appendix.Originally Posted by 4RNR
Maybe your scenario works, maybe it doesn't. I've had to speed holster due to changing context where a lethal that went to non lethal but still a threat. You don't get to pick.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I don't think the fences are the main point - I think it's that you don't know what else you'll have to do in a defensive gun use besides just drawing, maybe shooting, and then putting the gun away in whatever way you see fit.
You don't control all the variables. You could have someone nearby who needs medical assistance or some other help from you that requires two hands, with the situation still being such that you can't safely put your gun somewhere other than your person. Hell, you may need to render medical aid to yourself right the eff now and need to safely stow the gun to do it because your car or a nice empty piece of ground are however many yards away.
The area you're in may not be a good place to stay: busy parking lot; you're in the middle of a road; middle of the mall food court; attacker's buddies are acting aggressive because you shot their friend but they don't currently present a deadly force threat; you ended up not shooting because the deadly force threat stopped but the people around you are still definitely not your friends; attacker is down and doesn't currently present a deadly force threat so you can't shoot him again, but he could change his mind and you need to be further away. For any number of reasons you may be better off moving to a safer place to call 911 from and doing so without a gun displayed to the whole world.
As far as keeping stuff out of your holster, we do what we can but there aren't guarantees. Brass or some other object can fall in your holster, your holster could crack/fold/break/etc. due to physical contact with an opponent or the ground in such a way that it can press on the trigger when you reholster.
These are all just examples, but the point is that not every defensive shooting is going to be a mugging on an empty street with no one else around and with no one besides the aggressors getting hurt.
This post is too long for a tangent already but I'll throw in a recent real world example. A good friend was walking his dog and they were attacked by a very aggressive pitbul. The dog was so hostile my friend drew his gun and was going to shoot it (and would've been 100% justified), but then his own dog slipped her harness and he was afraid that a gun shot would send her running for a mile to get hit by a car somewhere. So he decides not to shoot and has to holster to a) free up his hands to find another solution to the problem and b) avoid freaking out the neighbors, one of whom eventually showed up to help him manhandle the pitbul and resolve the situation (the cop who showed up did tell him to just shoot the thing next time). He happened to be using a Walther PPQ, but talking to him after, he wasn't the biggest fan of having to holster that thing fast, distracted, and blind without any extra safety layer. If PPQ gadgets were available I'm sure he'd have one on order.
Edit - other people made similar, and shorter, points while I was typing this. I'm long winded - we'll blame that on being a damn lawyer.
Options.
It gives you options. You can safely re-holster with extra margin for error.
If that’s not valuable to you then that’s not. I’ll take the margin for error. I saw a diagram for risk and severity recently in IT and I guess the way I’d phrase this is “low risk high severity”. Will your shoot yourself re-holstering? More than likely no, but could you add a layer of prevention that doesn’t really modify the gun? Yes.
In my opinion this is an easy answer without having to think about when I’d re-holster or more than likely I won’t re-holster. The answer to me is - I can do whatever I want with less risk of consequences. I look at it like an incremental improvement like an RDS, WML, or JHP. Do you need an RDS? No. Do you need a WML? No. Do you need to prefer JHP over FMJ? No.
But I’d recommend all of those things if you can have them. Why not? I mean yes it’s added expense but so is going out to eat with my family twice. Don’t go out to eat twice and buy a SCD IMHO.
I also consider quality holsters and belts a must have. But not everybody does. I figure I’m just mitigating risk and improving my chances for success.
I cringed watching a guy bring the hammer down on his gun manually at a USPSA match without a de-cocker. I can’t remember the model presently. But I was like “Yeah, you can do that. But the risk is something I wouldn’t want on a live chamber”. I want to say it was a CZ model but I’m not sure.
ETA: I was thinking even carrying from 3-4 o’clock holster to AIWB. An incremental improvement. IMHO, once a technology and method has been validated as safe and viable. To me you keep picking up those improvements as able. You’re just shaving inefficiencies and improving your odds IMHO.
Dry fire is another one.
Last edited by BWT; 12-22-2021 at 10:37 AM.
God Bless,
Brandon
My wish for you for 2022 is better restaurants.
I’m totally busting your chops here, brother, just so you know!
As to your comments about options and incremental improvement of the tool/platform, I concur.
(I should mention that I was enough of an early adopter that I got all the gadgets floating around my house at Tom’s original pricing- I don’t remember exactly what that was, but I do know that my wife and I can’t get out of the local brew pub at the end of the strip mall for what I paid for any single gadget these days. Cheap insurance, for sure.)
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
That’s true though. I mean… we went out of town recently and ate out a good bit. I was scared to look at my bank account.My wish for you for 2022 is better restaurants.
I’m totally busting your chops here, brother, just so you know!
As to your comments about options and incremental improvement of the tool/platform, I concur.
(I should mention that I was enough of an early adopter that I got all the gadgets floating around my house at Tom’s original pricing- I don’t remember exactly what that was, but I do know that my wife and I can’t get out of the local brew pub at the end of the strip mall for what I paid for any single gadget these days. Cheap insurance, for sure.)
God Bless,
Brandon
Right? The debit card posts rolling in each day of vacay are like watching the gas gauge on a ‘68 Hemi Charger.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
An SCD type device for the M&P is what I most want.
Well not more than anything. Like I would prefer alambres, world peace, cheaper gas, etc, but it is on up there.
It's a hopeless dream, but I'd love to see the SCD's next manufacturer do the R&D to expand it to other models. Specifically for me, PPQs. Tom Jones had stated that an SCD for a fully tensioned striker is possible, though obviously it would work differently than the Glock version. I want to guess it would have to be impinging against the trigger bar, but I could obviously be wrong.
One can dream. I could see M&P and Sig options happening. I think even that would be a huge deal, and the rest of the market is basically SOL due to low demand.
I think the issue with fully tensioned designs is making them compatible with existing fully tensioned designs. The easiest way to to accomplish Gadget function with a fully tensioned design is to slide something under the sear so that it cannot move out of the way of the striker. (Fig. 39 and 40 in the SCD patent). Mounting something on the backplate that goes under the sear is a bit of pain on existing designs. If you look through the patent, the other ways of accomplishing Gadget function are covered. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8528242B2/en
With an M&P, the manual safety with a good holster design that holds the safety in the "On" position would be an alternative to a Glock with SCD.
I forgot the patent covered that, thanks for the reminder.
I'm very comfortable with manual safeties (see tagline) and also strongly, really exclusively, prefer holsters that trap them "on," so I'd agree - a manual safety M&P is probably my personal first choice from amongst striker-fired guns. I just also like the PPQs, and we have one, and if SCDs for them were a thing, we'd probably have a few more...
Reply With Quote
