Restrike capable?

[ramairthree]

Well, it's not like there was a tier 1 lead unit mastering the M9 as its primary sidearm.

The M9 was only a primary or secondary weapon for a minority of guys at the time.

When we traded in the 1911s, I think it was 1987, maybe 1988, the AMU sent a MTT over to give a two week class on it.
Immediate action was squeeze and keep on shooting,
Or squeeze, tap, rack, squeeze if it did not keep on shooting.

Same TTP retaught during an SOT MTT (basically the equivalent niche as SFAUC has now).

The highest Army pistol training I know of using the M9 was SFARTEC. I did not do it, but at least in the early 90s I have been told it was used then. As was safety manipulation with the weak side hand. I do not know how long either continued to be taught.

[Mysteryman]

You are right about current weapons selection. However in an era when everyone was using an M9, squeeze tap rack squeeze was a very viable TTP that had your gun shooting fast r most of the time

Right, and the TTP for your AR is to use the forward assist to ensure the bolt is seated. Both are retarded actions that accomplish nothing.

MM

[ramairthree]

Right, and the TTP for your AR is to use the forward assist to ensure the bolt is seated. Both are retarded actions that accomplish nothing.

MM

Again,
You are taking something out of time and era situational context.

It is like calling someone retarded if their thumb is on the back plate of their Glock when they holster,
Because you don't understand what platform they did it on for decades and why.

I think using the safety on the M9 is retarded.
But situational context is policy said they had to.

I think using the weak hand to to disengage it is retarded.
But situational context is enough guys with small hands went through the CIF pipeline they used it.

I have had more second strike primers go off in a 92/M9 over the past 30 years than I have had other FTF with live ammo in non induced training FTFs than I have had other malfunctions. So on that platform it did not accomplish nothing, it resulted in less time not being functional.

If someone is only using a second strike platform I am ambivalent over whether they STRS or TRS.
If they switch between platforms or never use a SS platform it is a negative IMO.

My only goal is shedding light on the history of when second strike capability had some relevance.

Over the decades I have seen many things I have thought were retarded until I understood more about it.

[zachsm]

I believe completely that the round should be cleared before pulling the trigger again. However, I've noticed that when it comes to mud/whatever getting between the hammer and the firing pin, usually the next trigger pull clears it and fires the round.

The only single action/striker pistol in my experience that seems to avoid this issue is the hi-power. There is not much that can stop the stock 32lb hammer spring.

[Mysteryman]

Again,
You are taking something out of time and era situational context.

It is like calling someone retarded if their thumb is on the back plate of their Glock when they holster,
Because you don't understand what platform they did it on for decades and why.

I think using the safety on the M9 is retarded.
But situational context is policy said they had to.

I think using the weak hand to to disengage it is retarded.
But situational context is enough guys with small hands went through the CIF pipeline they used it.

I have had more second strike primers go off in a 92/M9 over the past 30 years than I have had other FTF with live ammo in non induced training FTFs than I have had other malfunctions. So on that platform it did not accomplish nothing, it resulted in less time not being functional.

If someone is only using a second strike platform I am ambivalent over whether they STRS or TRS.
If they switch between platforms or never use a SS platform it is a negative IMO.

My only goal is shedding light on the history of when second strike capability had some relevance.

Over the decades I have seen many things I have thought were retarded until I understood more about it.

I appreciate the history of the SS mantra as it is interesting to see what was compared to what is. I'm simply stating that doing so makes no sense and is not a universal manual of arms and therefore should be avoided like the plague. TAP RACK solves most problems without the need for additional information. Pulling the trigger again might solve one problem. I also agree that using the safety on a Beretta is pointless and redundant, then again the Beretta is far from a well designed pistol to begin with. As for being "policy" that's fine when qualifying but anyone with half a brain would purge those methods when deployed.

MM

[ritepath]

No real operator would dream of having such a gimmick on their firearm since glock doesn't do it.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

Restrike is cool for .22 pistols at the range. If you are serious about carrying a gun, "click" should initiate tap-rack-bang.

[ST911]

My only goal is shedding light on the history of when second strike capability had some relevance.

Over the decades I have seen many things I have thought were retarded until I understood more about it.

Never let history, context, and critical thinking enter an internet argument / chest-thumping session.

For me, the best lesson on the wheres-and-whys of second-strike came from a navy guy with a 226.

[Ron3]

Seems simple to me.

If the gun is second-strike capable hit it again. It's blink of an eye fast. Still doesn't fire? Tap-rack.

Gun not second-strike capable just tap rack.

I've had a second strike work and not work rimfire and centerfire. Usually get a bang on second hammer drop.

I would not, however, let 2nd strike capability determine whether I bought or carried a gun. (Okay, unless it was a rimfire, because rimfire stinks)

[Velo Dog]

Always try squeezing the trigger a second or even third time before throwing your gun at the intended target.