Improving my safety-ON, performance??

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by Dunderway

This is what I have always been taught and practiced. Whether 1911, shotgun, or carbine; once I have to shoot at someone, that gun is HOT and my finger is my safety until it is holstered or a low ready and all threats are gone.

I'm open to the idea of using it more, but just haven't been trained to do so at this time.

What mark suggested and what you describe are not the same thing.

What he's saying is that if he's going through a door with a group of guys (what on earth he's doing in that situation to begin with is beyond me) he thinks they should all have safeties off the entire time.

What you're saying is that if you have already engaged a threat until you verify that there is no more threat and then re-engage the safety before lowering to low ready, which is pretty much the same thing that everyone else in the thread (and 99% of the training world) is saying too.

Nobody here is saying "engage target one until they stop, engage safety and move to known target two, disengage safety, and engage until they stop, engage safety and move to known target three, disengage safety, and engage until they stop" etc.

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by Surf

Scenarios and shot timers can easily verify that a well trained individual can manipulate the safety with no loss in time from when they can properly identify a shootable threat until the gun comes on target and the round goes off. Give it an honest try.

For this reason alone, it makes no sense not to incorporate the use of an added safety. Kinda like manipulating the slide safety on a 1911. Pretty simple when trained. It takes not more time or effort when trained properly. Unless of course you want to dumb down your fellas and expect less out of them. We also need to consider that many guys may have to go hands on, in an instant. They may let their weapon drop and hang with the safety off. This may cause it to hang up on gear, especially if a hands on confrontation ensues. There is no good logic not to use the added safety when trained and incorporated.

This has been EXACTLY my experience in training and competition. Flicking the safety on and off as you come up or down has ZERO impact on the time it takes between the first O and the A of OODA.

We get at least one new shooter (meaning someone that may have a TON of time shooting from the bench at the public range and can often shoot the wings off a gnat) a month at drills that starts off not wanting to manipulate the safety as they go up and down with the muzzle. Usually it's not a conscious decision it's just something they are forgetting to do with all of the other information they are trying to absorb. Within a 3 hour block of basic instruction and <200 rounds I have never failed to make a convert out of them by the end of the night.

Same thing goes for the 1911 for that matter, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[KellyTTE]

Originally Posted by Magsz

Seriously, that whole "hoot" comment from BHD always drove me nuts. "This here's my safety".

Uhh...

Just for the record, I asked Paul Howe about that comment and he explained the 'whole' story. It had nothing to do with being 'too elite for rules'. The chow hall backed up to a exterior perimeter and Delta was worried that there would be an IED attack on the chow hall which would catch the vast majority of the soldiers unarmed and unprepared.

Delta's warnings (and advice that personnel in the mess hall should still be armed) were never heeded, so Delta took it upon themselves to stay armed in the event there was an attack. While armed, their rifles were empty chamber, hammer up, mag inserted. Since the rifles were hammer up, you couldn't engage the safety. The 'this is my safety' comment is out of context in both the book, and movie. It was part of a bigger conversation and preparedness struggle between the Rangers and Delta.

[thopkins22]

Originally Posted by KellyTTE

Uhh...

Just for the record, I asked Paul Howe about that comment and he explained the 'whole' story. It had nothing to do with being 'too elite for rules'. The chow hall backed up to a exterior perimeter and Delta was worried that there would be an IED attack on the chow hall which would catch the vast majority of the soldiers unarmed and unprepared.

Delta's warnings (and advice that personnel in the mess hall should still be armed) were never heeded, so Delta took it upon themselves to stay armed in the event there was an attack. While armed, their rifles were empty chamber, hammer up, mag inserted. Since the rifles were hammer up, you couldn't engage the safety. The 'this is my safety' comment is out of context in both the book, and movie. It was part of a bigger conversation and preparedness struggle between the Rangers and Delta.

I was about to respond with what Paul told us about that incident before reading the whole three pages. What you said is correct per Paul Howe.

ETA from the link posted earlier:"Someone put a lot of thought and time in designing safeties for a reason. Proper range
fire and the use of cover will expand your reaction time and decrease the reaction time
and visual angles of your opponents while giving you an added sense of confidence.
Use the safety and keep your lead going where you intend it to go, not in yourself, your
buddy or an innocent civilian."

[Magsz]

Originally Posted by KellyTTE

Uhh...

Just for the record, I asked Paul Howe about that comment and he explained the 'whole' story. It had nothing to do with being 'too elite for rules'. The chow hall backed up to a exterior perimeter and Delta was worried that there would be an IED attack on the chow hall which would catch the vast majority of the soldiers unarmed and unprepared.

Delta's warnings (and advice that personnel in the mess hall should still be armed) were never heeded, so Delta took it upon themselves to stay armed in the event there was an attack. While armed, their rifles were empty chamber, hammer up, mag inserted. Since the rifles were hammer up, you couldn't engage the safety. The 'this is my safety' comment is out of context in both the book, and movie. It was part of a bigger conversation and preparedness struggle between the Rangers and Delta.

Roger Dodger, its cool to know the actual history ie truth behind that comment. What i was referring to was the typical debate that ensues whenever that particular clip/situation is brought up.

[Navigating Collapse]

Rob and Mark, haven't you guys been at each others' throats for like, 2 years?

Either duel, make out, or get over it.

You guys are almost as bad as RickRock and my boy SafetyHit.

[CAPT KIRK]

Originally Posted by KellyTTE

Uhh...

Just for the record, I asked Paul Howe about that comment and he explained the 'whole' story. It had nothing to do with being 'too elite for rules'. The chow hall backed up to a exterior perimeter and Delta was worried that there would be an IED attack on the chow hall which would catch the vast majority of the soldiers unarmed and unprepared.

Delta's warnings (and advice that personnel in the mess hall should still be armed) were never heeded, so Delta took it upon themselves to stay armed in the event there was an attack. While armed, their rifles were empty chamber, hammer up, mag inserted. Since the rifles were hammer up, you couldn't engage the safety. The 'this is my safety' comment is out of context in both the book, and movie. It was part of a bigger conversation and preparedness struggle between the Rangers and Delta.

I have trained under Jim Smith (Spartan Tactical) who was also Delta on the ground in Mogadishu BHD. He also teaches use of the safety when not on target, to the point of refering to it as "non negotiable".

Spartan Tactical AAR
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33049

[KellyTTE]

Originally Posted by CAPT KIRK

I have trained under Jim Smith (Spartan Tactical) who was also Delta on the ground in Mogadishu BHD. He also teaches use of the safety when not on target, to the point of refering to it as "non negotiable".

Paul Howe was the same as well.

[thopkins22]

A couple of quotes from Kyle Lamb who has been there and done that as well.

Also, ALWAYS engage your safety between strong to support side transitions. ALWAYS. A mishandled, unsafe weapon could have dire consequences. Be Safe!

If you disengage your safety before you have a target to engage, you are wrong.

Lamb, Kyle. Green Eyes & Black Rifles Warriors Guide To The Combat Carbine. Third Edition. Trample & Hurdle Publishers, 2008. 153,181. Print.

[gringop]

If your finger is in the trigger guard, your safety should be off. If your finger is out of the guard, safety should be on. If you are not engaging a target, your finger should be out of the trigger guard.

This works for BB guns, airsoft guns, rifles, pistols or shotguns. It's not hard to understand.

A question for markm. What was the specific reason that you guys lined up in a stack with safeties disengaged? Was it to enhance your performance? Were you trained that way by an organization? Was it mandated by higher leadership?

Gringop

[CAPT KIRK]

Originally Posted by gringop

A question for markm. What was the specific reason that you guys lined up in a stack with safeties disengaged? Was it to enhance your performance? Were you trained that way by an organization? Was it mandated by higher leadership?

Gringop

Some SWAT Schools do teach this. I dont agree with it. There was a SWAT Cop not to long ago in our county that was killed by a round from another officers M4 when that officer became engaged in a struggle with a crook over his gun and it went off. Dont know if there were any CQB training issues or not, but one must wonder if the utilization of a safety would have changed that outcome.

[Surf]

Originally Posted by CAPT KIRK

Some SWAT Schools do teach this. I dont agree with it. There was a SWAT Cop not to long ago in our county that was killed by a round from another officers M4 when that officer became engaged in a struggle with a crook over his gun and it went off. Dont know if there were any CQB training issues or not, but one must wonder if the utilization of a safety would have changed that outcome.

This was very old school SWAT 101, and yes it still does exist. I was originally taught, that as soon as the van stopped and boots hit the pavement the safety goes off. As a young buck Firearms Instructor, I pushed the safety manipulation concept heavily. It was met with quite a bit of resistance by the "old timers", which is often the case in LE. Now that I am the "old dog" so to speak, this technique is pretty much just looked at as being common safety sense. New guys are taught this method from the get-go and pick it up quickly. The "incumbents", especially the "old dogs" were a harder group to re-train with this technique. Change is not often easily accepted for old dogs. Of course I try not to fall into that "can't teach and old dog new tricks" category. Don't get me wrong as I don't just jump on board any new technique, we try to give anything a fair evaluation and often shit-can a lot of things, like gear and techniques. However it is not smart to ignore things that just flat out work. Especially when it adds to the inherent safety of operations, and does not diminish efficacy.

I will also say that "progressive" tactical organizations / SWAT schools teach the safety on/off technique. It is pretty much accepted as a proven method of operation to manipulate the safety. Unfortunately in LE it often takes much longer for some to get up to date as others. Out of curiosity I would be curious to know which SWAT school / schools that you are aware of that are still teaching the safety always off concept. Feel free to PM me if you prefer.

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by thopkins22

A couple of quotes from Kyle Lamb who has been there and done that as well.

Lamb, Kyle. Green Eyes & Black Rifles Warriors Guide To The Combat Carbine. Third Edition. Trample & Hurdle Publishers, 2008. 153,181. Print.

The only ND that I'm aware of in nearly 5 years of our carbine matches was a stage that required lateral transitions. Going back and forth the shooter grabbed with his left hand as he would if he was using it to hold the vert grip and when he did his finger was on the trigger.

What I demonstrate at our drills nights now is that if you are moving and not shooting, the safety is on. Moving laterally or fore/aft, moving up/down going from one shooting position to another, or moving the gun from one side to the other.

[Safetyhit]

Originally Posted by Navigating Collapse

Rob and Mark, haven't you guys been at each others' throats for like, 2 years?

Either duel, make out, or get over it.

You guys are almost as bad as RickRock and my boy SafetyHit.

Hey, what the.....how did I get dragged into this?





Anyway, I don't mess with that individual anymore. As far as Mark and Rob, it stinks to see such hostility among old members. Can't help but wonder if the two of them would actually enjoy each other's company over a beer.

[el guapo]

I think the answer to this debate is pretty obvious

For using your safety when not on target:

Pat Rogers (First hand in a class)
Chris Costa (First hand in a class)
Travis Haley (First hand in a class)
Kyle Lamb (In print)
Paul Howe (According to KelleyTTE from a class and in print)
Jim Smith (According to Capt Kirk from a class)
Everyone posting in this thread

Against using your safety when not on target

MarkM (I don't know anything about MarkM's abilities/background)
Guys MarkM is in a stack with (I don't know who these guys are either)
Old School Swat 101 guys (I don't know any of these guys)

MarkM mentioned he was using this method in a class. I'm curious who the instructer is and why they feel it is beneficial.

[Shane1]

The 'safety off' was taught in some SWAT schools because of the standard safeties on MP5's being so hard to manipulate while keeping a good firing grip. Fast forward several eyars and now 'safety on' is being taught. Even though they pushed safety off back then, I did not then , nor now for that matter, run in a stack with the safety off, no matter what weapon I was carrying. IMHO, It was stupid then to run off safe, its stupid now to also. .

[NMBigfoot02]

Sorry for the thread hijack, but this touches on an issue that's been bothering me lately.

I understand the rationale behind safing a carbine when it leaves your hands, but what about pistols? Are they not subject to this rule? I only ask because of safe action pistols like the Glock, M&P, etc. that don't have an external safety.

Not trying to start a shitstorm; just curious.

[thopkins22]

Originally Posted by NMBigfoot02

I understand the rationale behind safing a carbine when it leaves your hands, but what about pistols? Are they not subject to this rule? I only ask because of safe action pistols like the Glock, M&P, etc. that don't have an external safety.

The rule as I understand it is to use the safety if one exists. Glock/revolver type guns are inherently less safe if mishandled than a similar gun with an external safety. Generally there is also longer travel and more perceived work to make one go bang than your run of the mill AR. Additionally pistols spend the vast majority of their lifetime in a holster, while a deployed rifle is either in hands or slung and banging into gear. Not really comparable in my opinion.

I'm not a Glock hater, in fact the only centerfire pistols I own lack external safeties. But I'm man enough to recognize that everything has a downside. I've found that a 3.5 lb connector allows me to be much more accurate with my Glock(or at least allows me to hide deficiencies,) but I also install a NY1 trigger spring on them. I don't install it for the reset like many do, I install it because it slightly raises the overall trigger pull weight while still allowing the connector to erase(mostly) the second stage that was causing me to pull everything left as I overcame it.

[Dunderway]

Originally Posted by rob_s

What mark suggested and what you describe are not the same thing.

What he's saying is that if he's going through a door with a group of guys (what on earth he's doing in that situation to begin with is beyond me) he thinks they should all have safeties off the entire time.

What you're saying is that if you have already engaged a threat until you verify that there is no more threat and then re-engage the safety before lowering to low ready, which is pretty much the same thing that everyone else in the thread (and 99% of the training world) is saying too.

Nobody here is saying "engage target one until they stop, engage safety and move to known target two, disengage safety, and engage until they stop, engage safety and move to known target three, disengage safety, and engage until they stop" etc.

Gotcha. I was either reading into it too much, or not enough.