View Full Version : My thoughts on DA/SA, LEM etc...
I started my LE career carrying a Sig, then glock and now M&P.
For the last year or so I have started to believe a longer trigger pull is preferable for law enforcement. If not a longer trigger pull than at least a hammer that can be seen/felt.
I recently attended a 5 day handgun instructor school and this reaffirmed my beliefs. No, there weren't any anti-glock people. In fact the instructors were all glock fans. We had several Glock 21's, 2 glock 22, Sig 226 da/sa .40, Wilson Combat CQB 45, 3 Kimber .45s and a M&P 45. All the guns seemed to run well. The Kimbers were issued and were series 2. Apparently they were issued some other series 2 models and had major problems. Kimber was unresponsive and finally they had to talk to the head of Kimber to get anything done, as they were ignored at first. The new guns have worked well.
Not because anyone screwed up did I get these beliefs. With all the different drills we did over 5 days and all the possible scenarios we went through, I guess I would rather have another deputy/officer with a longer trigger pull for the first shot or a hammer that can be seen, felt, when reholstering. I really liked putting the thumb on the back of the slide, hammer, when coming back to the ready position before reholstering. I shot a glock 22 and the M&P .40, so no hammer, but I still put my thumb on the back of the slide to ensure it was forward, as most of you train to do, I"m sure.
Everyone in the class seemed to do good, but these are people who wanted be there and shoot. Most deputies at my department aren't enthusiastic shooters and I think it's probably the same at most.
No, I'm not suggesting DAO (Sig, S&W, etc,)for everyone. I just don't know if the glock type trigger is best for most officers, just because it's easiest to shoot. Don't get me wrong, I think glock has one of the best triggers, but given the stressful situations that officers can be in and the tendency for fingers to sometimes go in trigger guards, I would prefer to give law enforcement a gun with the same trigger pull every time, but with a longer pull. I think the LEM may be that. No I haven't seen a finger go inside the trigger guard myself.
I understand the argument that your not supposed to have your finger inside the trigger guard unless your going to shoot someone. I follow that rule, but can I guarantee law enforcement officers from every agency I am working with is going to follow that, nope. I know some will argue that officers shooting da/sa forget to decock their firearms and have shot people or themselves on accident. I have also heard the valid argument that shooting goes to hell in stressful situations and you want an easy to operate/shoot gun in times like those. That is also hard to argue with. This is why I think the LEM might be a really good option for law enforcement.
I haven't shot a da/sa for quite awhile now and shot out the center of the target with a Sig 220R, easy to do at 7 and 15 yards, I know. This was slow and rapid fire. This affirms my belief that da/sa aren't as difficult to shoot as some would like us to believe. I did this after shooting the P30 LEM. If you really hit home on decocking and transition from the da/sa trigger pull, I think the da/sa is still a good choice for le/ccw. I do think da/sa is on the way out the door now, unfortunately, and trigger pulls like the LEM are a worth consideration.
I believe I read once where Ernest Langdon said a gun easy to shoot on purpose is also a gun easier to shoot unintentionally. Something like that anyway. He was referring to training a Swat team in an article and stated how these highly trained swat guys still put their fingers on the trigger during stressful training drills. Given the situations that many LE are in, I think the DA/SA, LEM, maybe DAK is worth serious consideration, for law enforcement. Some of the systems may seem to take more work, but it may be worth it.
If I were to have to make the decision to arm a department with a gun, I would pick an issued weapon and allow the option to carry a personally owned firearm. Yes, I would allow glocks, M&P's, but I would choose the LEM or Da/Sa for issue and allow the option for others.
My beliefs are more geared for law enforcement than civilians.
Just my random thoughts.
Oh, and I still think the Glock 17 is one of the best guns made.
Edited to add Langdon comment on Swat team. And I'm not saying the glock or M&P aren't great or shouldn't be issued, just curious as to what others think as my thinking has somewhat changed over time.
I tend to think if that trigger finger is riding that trigger and if the person is under stress that person is gonna yank that trigger. I don't think it matters whether the trigger is 12 lbs or 4.5 lbs. The person's focus is completely somewhere else and under stress they're going to "squeeze". I don't think its good to encourage people to accept that having your trigger finger on the trigger can be ok (even if it happens "often") just because a pistol has a heavier trigger.
The only solution is drilling people to index the weapon til its second nature. Just like using the brake and accelerator on a car. Cars don't have safeties or heavy accelerators but we operate them "safely" everyday without running people over. The trigger is the "accelerator" and the side of the pistol's frame or slide is the "brake". We must encourage proper mindset instead of constantly trying to create a "safer" gun which can only encourage us to be more passive.
IMHO
I agree it's not okay and I wouldn't train anyone to think it's okay. I don't believe having a longer trigger pull means you can cut safety out of training or take shortcuts. I hope that's not what I conveyed in my message. I wouldn't teach any different with a Sig da/sa or a glock, besides adding the decocking into the training.
I agree mindset matters, and I think we have to get people in the proper mindset to understand that da/sa, lem are as shootable as other trigger systems, they might take more patience.
I agree it's not the weight at all, it's the length of the pull that matters.
It just seems to me that so many agencies have gone the glock or m&P route because they are easier to teach. Is this being done because they think it's the best system for their officers or because it's easier for them to teach which = less work. That might not be the best reasoning if it's for the latter.
I wouldn't eliminate the 1911 from use either, since you have a hammer you can feel/see and a safety you can feel/see. Of course I think to carry a 1911 you need to really understand/use the system.
sigmundsauer
05-06-09, 15:59
Sean, I couldn't agree more. Well said.
Ian, I may get blasted for this, but I am of the opinion that the finger off the trigger rule is critical for all guns except full weight DA pistols.
10-12 pounds drawn over 3/4 of an inch stroke or so doesn't happen by accident. It takes a deliberate and conscience decision to do so. If an ND occurred under such conditions I'd be very, very suspicious if there weren't more to the story, like the operator had the trigger prepped, etc.
I believe proper manipulation of DA triggers depend highly on correct trigger finger position. Maybe it's because of my smallish hands, but I simply cannot achieve proper placement of my trigger finger on traditional DA guns unless I do it as I am establishing the master grip, usually coming out of the holster. For most pistols if I establish my master grip and then index the finger on the frame, it will not be right. Or, if I establish my proper grip and then come off the trigger and index to the frame my trigger finger will not find a proper home. This is not true of all pistols, but it is true for most of the DA/SA guns in my inventory. I think the finger-on-trigger prohibition largely stems from those accustomed to SA guns, like the 1911, an AR, or even a Glock (yes, it is an SA gun, imo), where shots can be triggered nearly instantly where much less weight and distance can be overcome swiftly. Full length and weight triggers like on a traditional SIG or DA revolver, I am comfortable with keeping my finger on the trigger (but I do not prep the trigger). We're not talking range etiquette here, I am talking reality. However, this is what works for me, and I don't suggest it for others necessarily. I realize I am in a very small minority here, and will likely get flamed for stating my opinion. Oh well. Real people get flagged with muzzles all the time in the real world, violating the other golden rule, but it is the reality of certain professions, and is managed safely among skilled operators.
A light DAO gun like the LEM or DAK shifts my opinion back to the golden rule, as far less leverage must be achieved to manage proper trigger manipulation. They both have the advantage of long trigger travel, which in itself is inherently safe, but the lighter weight makes prepositioning less necessary, if at all.
I still think an excellent DA/SA gun with a useable decocker, like the SIG P-series or HK P30/P2000 is still a very shootable gun. I personally prefer the LEM, and would likewise favor it as a mass-issue trigger system as well. A light DAO gun like the LEM, makes
Tim
I started my career with a P226,P220, G22, 1911 and now G17. The only ND's that occurred on the Dept. were with the Sig's. While it is true that these were training issues, there have not been any since the Glocks were adopted. I believe that relying on the long DA trigger pull for safety is a giant problem. No matter what platform is used, the finger should always be out of the trigger guard, even if there is a manual safety. I have always been taught this, no matter what the venue. Just my thoughts and what I require from my Officers.
Again, I wouldn't rely on the DA pull alone for safety. Not sure if your just stating it or you got that from my comments. I just think it's an additional measure of safety to have the longer trigger pull. I would hope any department would teach the trigger finger should be off the trigger and outside the trigger guard when not firing. We taught this with our S&W 4506 and do with the M&P. Nothing has changed in our training, except no decocking now. I don't think having a manual safety changes the "finger off the trigger until ready to shoot" rule either.
Interesting on the ND's. I take it the ND were with officers not decocking?
I was present at one, it was a finger on the trigger problem with a P220. The others were decocking issues. I hope that no one would rely on the DA pull for safety.
sigmundsauer
05-06-09, 17:26
Again, I wouldn't rely on the DA pull alone for safety. Not sure if your just stating it or you got that from my comments. I just think it's an additional measure of safety to have the longer trigger pull. I would hope any department would teach the trigger finger should be off the trigger and outside the trigger guard when not firing. We taught this with our S&W 4506 and do with the M&P. Nothing has changed in our training, except no decocking now. I don't think having a manual safety changes the "finger off the trigger until ready to shoot" rule either.
Interesting on the ND's. I take it the ND were with officers not decocking?
Sean, I wasn't suggesting that's what you said. I drafted my comments before your second response...but you beat me to the post.
Tim
sigmundsauer
05-06-09, 17:36
I hope that no one would rely on the DA pull for safety.
Wise advice. However, people do, including myself. Some inadvertently, others ignorantly, and others yet, deliberately, like me. I believe it to be acceptably safe in my hands, but I feel my experience validates it, as it may not for others, so I don't recommend it or teach it.
Like many things in my profession, safety is balanced with effectiveness, and this is a practice I use exclusively on my SIG M11 and Beretta M9 under very specific conditions, not as a routine habit. I won't argue its merit except to say that I feel it is sufficiently safe and is compatible only with traditional, heavy DA triggers. I accept the vast majority will disagree with me, however many have been fleeced if they refuse to believe that soldiers and officers routinely do this. With Glocks and 1911 and such, I'd be very concerned. With a 12-lb Beretta or SIG in experienced hands, I have come to accept that it happens.
To steer this thread back onto topic, this is just another reason why I feel HK's LEM is among the most useable and safe trigger systems available on a duty pistol. It represents an ideal balance between shootability and inherent safety.
Tim
Sigmund,
Not a problem. I wasn't actually referring to your post. I think for the most part we are saying the same thing. People can talk about training to keep fingers off triggers all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that it still happens. I don't know of anyone who would suggest shortcuts in training or less training because of longer or heavier trigger pulls. Of course you still train with the same safety rules.
I'd find it surprising to find anyone that knew what they were doing eschew keeping one's finger off the trigger on account of having a DA gun or one with a safety. I've always thought that a DA pull or a safety, and a hammer for that matter, helps keep one from having an ND associated with snagging the trigger on something unforseen or from having one's wardrobe manipulating the trigger during a re-holstering or something similar.
Sigmund,
Not a problem. I wasn't actually referring to your post. I think for the most part we are saying the same thing. People can talk about training to keep fingers off triggers all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that it still happens. I don't know of anyone who would suggest shortcuts in training or less training because of longer or heavier trigger pulls. Of course you still train with the same safety rules.
..my post seems a bit redundant after reading this as I'm essentially saying the same thing, from a slightly different angle
Anyone who says "my trigger finger is my safety" should have his trigger finger cut off.
Plenty of high-speed folks unconsciously seek out the warmth of that security blanket under stress. I've seen it in classes and matches countless times with shooters ranging from the beginner to the champion. Does it happen every time? No. Can it happen to anyone under the wrong circumstances? I believe so, yes.
Rather than get self-righteous about how safe you are, get self-aware about how imperfect we all are. None among us can say he's reached this far in life without making some mistakes. So why do some people seem insistent that it's not possible for them to make a mistake with their trigger finger?
Both the length and weight of the pull do matter. The idea that "under stress you'll pull through any trigger" sounds good in theory but what's it based on? The reality is that a longer trigger pull gives you more tactile feedback and a greater safety margin ... more time for your brain to say, "wait a minute, is that the trigger I'm pressing?" Same is true for greater weight.
I believe the dislike of DA/SA guns is a matter of what's in vogue more than anything else. It also suffers because teaching the DA/SA is more challenging, and many instructors simply never learned to master it themselves so they're not able to help others do so.
Patrick Aherne
05-06-09, 23:11
The LEMs suck the least of HK triggers. But, it still sucks. If your folks can't shoot, it's because you are training them wrong. Hardware solutions don't fix software problems.
I am, finally, shooting the HK USP .45 with LEM good enough to keep up with the 1911 and Glock guys, but it took six years and 20,000 rounds. A good trigger is like 90% of the solution.
Anyone who says "my trigger finger is my safety" should have his trigger finger cut off.
Well, I certainly did not say that. I think it was some Aussie actor named Bana in some movie. :D My 1911 has a safety. My 870 has a safety. My AR too. I use the safeties. I also index them and handle them like my Glocks. They all just happen to have safeties. I believe in using guns as they were designed. If its a DA/SA gun I better learn the DA/SA transition and decock before holstering.
Plenty of high-speed folks unconsciously seek out the warmth of that security blanket under stress. I've seen it in classes and matches countless times with shooters ranging from the beginner to the champion. Does it happen every time? No. Can it happen to anyone under the wrong circumstances? I believe so, yes.
Rather than get self-righteous about how safe you are, get self-aware about how imperfect we all are. None among us can say he's reached this far in life without making some mistakes. So why do some people seem insistent that it's not possible for them to make a mistake with their trigger finger?
Both the length and weight of the pull do matter. The idea that "under stress you'll pull through any trigger" sounds good in theory but what's it based on? The reality is that a longer trigger pull gives you more tactile feedback and a greater safety margin ... more time for your brain to say, "wait a minute, is that the trigger I'm pressing?" Same is true for greater weight.
I believe the dislike of DA/SA guns is a matter of what's in vogue more than anything else. It also suffers because teaching the DA/SA is more challenging, and many instructors simply never learned to master it themselves so they're not able to help others do so.
I have nothing against DA/SA guns. Or LEM. Or DAK. Or whatever gun manufacturers may come up with in the future. What I do believe in is choice. Informed choices made by thinking individuals. I understand some Glock/M&P/1911 trigger pullers unjustifiably rail against "crunch n' tickers" or "guns created by committee" But I also believe the inverse argument can be misleading and unjustified as well. That 1911's or Glocks/XD/M&P's with 5.5 lbs triggers are somehow "unsafe" or "less safe" because of a lack of a heavy DA trigger or other "safety measure." Two narrow schools of thought. Both are slippery slopes that can lead to uncomfortable fallacies. At least in my opinion.
Again. I believe in choice. An Informed choice. And again. IMHO.
Well, I certainly did not say that.
My post wasn't directed at any one person. Sorry if it came across otherwise.
But I also believe the inverse argument can be misleading and unjustified as well. That 1911's or Glocks/XD/M&P's with 5.5 lbs triggers are somehow "unsafe" or "less safe" because of a lack of a heavy DA trigger or other "safety measure."
There is a great big leap between saying they're "not unsafe" and saying they're not "less safe." As was quoted earlier, the easier a gun is to shoot, the easier it is to shoot accidentally. Longer trigger pulls add a safety margin. Heavier trigger pulls add a safety margin.
I believe in choice. An Informed choice.
Don't disagree with that one bit. For the past year and a half I was carrying an M&P, after all. If someone makes an [i]informed[/] decision that the shootability of a certain gun outweighs the narrowing of that safety margin, no problem. And if someone decides that the added "oh shit" safety margin is worth more effort to master a longer and/or heavier trigger, no problem.
Todd did a good job of explaining what I meant much easier than I did. I'm not for taking anything away from anyone. I just think I would prefer to arm those who don't care about making their own choice with a gun that takes a little more to deliberately fire it on the first shot.
John_Wayne777
05-07-09, 06:55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-yT5NC4cPM&feature=PlayList&p=1E5765DC3241ED47&index=3
Beretta 92. The video is kind of grainy, but I believe the weapon is in DA mode right before she pulls the trigger.
sigmundsauer
05-07-09, 07:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-yT5NC4cPM&feature=PlayList&p=1E5765DC3241ED47&index=3
Beretta 92. The video is kind of grainy, but I believe the weapon is in DA mode right before she pulls the trigger.
Although nearly impossible to tell from the video alone, I agree that the pistol was most likely in DA mode. However, the fact that she was neither startled nor under an immediate personal threat, I would be HIGHLY surprised to learn that the officer was not prepping the trigger to some degree.
There is a big and distinct difference between having a finger on a DA trigger and prepping that trigger. As soon as you apply any amount of pressure to the trigger you lose the kinesthetic ability to sense exactly how much pressure you are applying and how much more you need to stroke thru. If, God forbid, you prep the trigger by taking any amount of preslack out of the trigger we have now just turned the inherent safety of a DA trigger into a really lousy SA trigger, where both trigger stroke length and weight has been reduced to a fraction of its original position.
I agree that any placement of a finger on a trigger is less safe than being off it completely (unfortunately doing so also increases the risk of being able to deliver accurate fire on command, too). Therefore, it would be reasonable to condemn all prepositioning of your trigger finger on even a full-weight DA trigger with this video, but unfortunately I know of at least one instance where a 1911 shooter had finger off trigger and still managed to ND under stress.
Sadly, in armed professions there are no guarantees against ND. It is almost always an operator failure, and there almost always is an accepted amount of risk, and it is never the same for every situation.
Tim
I actually thought of that video when I was posting my comments. I have no doubt ND's will/do/would still occur with DA or DAO firearms.
Beretta 92. The video is kind of grainy, but I believe the weapon is in DA mode right before she pulls the trigger.
According to folks familiar with the incident when it occurred, the officer had cocked the pistol because she was not confident with her ability to hit using the DA stroke. That video has been shown and discussed at IALEFI conferences quite a few times in the past. In fact, it's often used as an example of why the longer, heavier trigger pull can be a good thing ...
Todd did a good job of explaining what I meant much easier than I did. I'm not for taking anything away from anyone. I just think I would prefer to arm those who don't care about making their own choice with a gun that takes a little more to deliberately fire it on the first shot.
That makes sense to me too. But also screams of the need to have such (non-gun) individuals constantly drilled about indexing and/or decocking before holstering as well. Whether Glock/M&P's are issued or DA/SA SIG P226's I just think its healthy to encourage the same level of discipline for safe gun handling. But further that such non-gun individuals be required to have a higher degree of training (if its necessary) to make them feel more competent and confident with their weapon with a heavier trigger, a decocker, or DA/SA transition so we can prevent incidents like the above.
And I think Todd and I are generally on the same page. We just may be acutely aware or sensitive to the knee jerk reactions by people who are narrow minded about this matter.
So what we're saying is there are varying degrees of inherent "dangerousness" to handguns. Human interaction can't be a factor because humans are fallible and can't be trusted to be safe all the time. So it comes down to one gun being less safe than another due to the specifics of how the same mechanical goal of a trigger mechanism releasing a firing pin and detonating a cartridge is achieved?
So I need a handgun designed to protect me from me...
So I need a handgun designed to protect me from me...
You need? I couldn't say. Probably not.
You might benefit from? Possibly. Depends on your priorities and the honesty of your self-assessment.
Some people want cars with no traction control, stability control, or anti-lock brakes. Why? Because they feel they can push the car to its limits without those things holding them back. Maybe 1 in a 1,000 people can actually do it, but many, many more think they can and thus buy cars that end up in a ditch or crushed by bigger, heavier, less fun, more practical, more crash-worthy cars. :cool:
Some people could take a Bugati around a road track in reverse while blindfolded. Some people struggle to operate an Accord properly. The rest of us fall somewhere in between.
I always find it .... Ironic, that the same people that like DA/SA or DOA for their pistols would crap a metric butt-ton if their carbines/shotguns had DA triggers.
If one believes that a DA/SA trigger is the answer, and will somehow prevent a fellow "officer" from "accidentally" jacking a round in their back, they are retarded.
Guns are for shooting. (Notice it doesn't say guns are to keep you from shooting)
I'm sure Samurai gathered around and discussed how it would probably be better to carry dull swords so as to prevent the idiots from cutting themselves....
It's far past time we drop this penny-annie "we have to keep them from hurting themselves" BS and get with the program.
sigmundsauer
05-08-09, 12:11
I think, perhaps, a question to ask is at what point does a "safer" trigger unnecessarily reduce a shooter's ability to deliver accurate fire on command? Not everyone needs an M1911 with a 4 lb trigger to do this. Nor does everyone need a 12 lb DA trigger to prevent accidents from happening.
Personally, I think a traditional DA trigger provides an excellent measure of inherent safety that is still able to be shot well. Will it win world-class competitions? Maybe, but certainly not usually. There's no doubt that DA triggers can be shot well.
I think that good triggers (that is "easy to shoot") have spoiled many shooters. Reliance on a perfect, light trigger has never forced legions of shooters to truly master good trigger control, especially under stress.
It's not that I don't appreciate a nice trigger. It is very rewarding on the range -- able to shoot well with little fatigue. But I must admit that I can shoot just as well with a DA gun, albeit with more effort. I don't make a habit of carrying lightly triggered guns. The only SA, light trigger gun I am comfortable carrying is HK's P7.
IMO, general issue firearms (to soldiers and officers undergoing compulsory, basic training) should be of only two types of trigger systems: either DA/SA w/decocker, or DAO. I happen to think that HK's LEM with its 7.5 pound pull is the ideal trigger system that provides both inherent safety and shootability in the simplest manual of arms possible. It can be mastered and shot exceedingly well, but it is not as fun to shoot on the range in precision slow fire.
Does it protect me from myself? Perhaps. I prefer simple manuals of arms, and in my experience I cannot shoot a flawlessly-tuned M1911 any better than my HK's with LEM.
Tim
Personally, I think a traditional DA trigger provides an excellent measure of inherent safety that is still able to be shot well.
What "inherent safety"? Never mind that every single ND I have seen with pistols has been from DA/SA guns in DA mode, guns are inherently dangerous in use... Just like knives, cars, planes, and male appendages.
Does it protect me from myself? Perhaps. I prefer simple manuals of arms, and in my experience I cannot shoot a flawlessly-tuned M1911 any better than my HK's with LEM.
Tim
While that is absolutely true for the mass majority, I wouldn't use it as the proof that crappy triggers are the answer. Rather, I would say that is the proof that we need to stop being dorks with guns, and start being professionals.
Note: I'm not calling sigmundsauer a dork... :D
sigmundsauer
05-08-09, 16:51
Charles,
You've gone too far with the name calling. ;)
Perhaps my poor choice of words, and this is of course totally subjective, but my experience with DA/SA SIGs and LEM HK's is that their triggers are far from crappy, although I've encountered one or two that were. I've definitely encountered crappy 1911 triggers though. Just because it's single action, and/or light doesn't mean its a good trigger, not that you are suggesting such.
Just because you have only witnessed NDs with DA/SA guns is no indication that other trigger mechanisms are more safe. Conventional wisdom, by even the most experienced, has generally concluded quite the opposite. No one ever doubted or second-guessed the inherent safety of the DA revolver for decade upon decade. The 1911, on the other hand, is a professional's pistol, requiring more disciplined training. The only reason the military avoided such a high incidence of NDs with their 1911s over the decades is because they all but mandated across the board that the pistols never be carried with a round in the chamber. The fact the preponderance of NDs you've witnessed has occurred with DA/SA pistols has probably far more to do with the combination of their ubiquity in law enforcement and the meager training that the average person who carries them possesses.
I think the DA/SA and DAO trigger systems do represent a greater level of inherent safety. If NDs are occurring with DA guns it is because individuals are purposefully prepping or manipulating the trigger against all better sense, not because the trigger itself is more prone to inadvertent operation.
Tim
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-08-09, 18:39
but my experience with DA/SA SIGs and LEM HK's is that their triggers are far from crappy, although I've encountered one or two that were. I've definitely encountered crappy 1911 triggers though. Just because it's single action, and/or light doesn't mean its a good trigger
Ditto
I always find it .... Ironic, that the same people that like DA/SA or DOA for their pistols would crap a metric butt-ton if their carbines/shotguns had DA triggers.
Carbines/shotguns have manual safeties.
Carbines/shotguns are expected to provide substantially more accurate fire at substantially greater ranges.
Carbines/shotguns are generally capable of substantially greater mechanical accuracy.
If one believes that a DA/SA trigger is the answer, and will somehow prevent a fellow "officer" from "accidentally" jacking a round in their back, they are retarded.
I'd say if one believes that a DA/SA trigger is a problem, and will somehow prevent a shooter from performing well in combat, they are retarded.
I'm sure Samurai gathered around and discussed how it would probably be better to carry dull swords so as to prevent the idiots from cutting themselves....
This is an even worse analogy than the carbine/shotgun comparison. Samurai didn't run around with swords in their hands, and no matter what they did "wrong" they couldn't hurt someone beyond the reach of the weapon.
Many years ago, a sergeant made entry on a search warrant and had an ND with a DA/SA pistol. He was now holding a cocked pistol and had a second ND. The bullet struck the non-resisting suspect and killed him.
I can certainly understand that someone may have a different belief on the disadvantages or advantages of a certain trigger system. Unless I missed it no one has been stating a DA/SA or DAO is going to prevent ND's. In fact, I've never heard anyone ever suggest da/sa or DAO guns are incapable of of ND's.
The belief is, it "MAY" be safer. I still believe officers should decide what they carry, but from my experience most are happy with what's issued. For those who will carry the company gun, I think they would be better off with a LEM, DAK, DA/SA. If they don't like it they can carry a glock or m&p, or 1911.
I'd say if one believes that a DA/SA trigger is a problem, and will somehow prevent a shooter from performing well in combat, they are retarded.
I know from experience that very solid shooters with the M9 and Sig's, shoot better (or should I say lose less skill) with Glocks and especially 1911's when under extreme physical and mental duress. They are simply easier to shoot well.
Regardless, this is a mindset issue, not a hardware issue. We need stop looking at stuff from a "safety" standpoint, and start looking at it from a performance standpoint.
[list]
This is an even worse analogy than the carbine/shotgun comparison. Samurai didn't run around with swords in their hands, and no matter what they did "wrong" they couldn't hurt someone beyond the reach of the weapon.
Actually, I think what he meant (and I follow this line of thinking) is that "safety" "liability" or "unintended consequences" wasn't a consideration to warriors back then. Not to any Roman, Viking, or Samurai who wielded a sword. Once a sword was unsheathed the person wielding it knew that it can not only cut or pierce the enemy but themselves or friendlies as well. Just like a pistol, once its out of the holster it can turn against anyone. The difference is warriors back then never considered trying to make their weapon "safer". Just deadlier. Never second guessed their weapon or tried to tame its nature. They simply accepted its uncomplicated, efficient, and brutal nature. And the more uncomplicated, efficient, and brutal it was, the better.
But I don't dispute we live in more complicated times with more "civilized" rules and consequences. We don't live in the kind of fatalistic society like the Samurai and their Bushido code. (Not that true warriors don't live among us today)
varoadking
05-09-09, 07:09
I always find it .... Ironic, that the same people that like DA/SA or DOA for their pistols would crap a metric butt-ton if their carbines/shotguns had DA triggers.
If one believes that a DA/SA trigger is the answer, and will somehow prevent a fellow "officer" from "accidentally" jacking a round in their back, they are retarded.
Guns are for shooting. (Notice it doesn't say guns are to keep you from shooting)
I'm sure Samurai gathered around and discussed how it would probably be better to carry dull swords so as to prevent the idiots from cutting themselves....
It's far past time we drop this penny-annie "we have to keep them from hurting themselves" BS and get with the program.
Not a bad thesis, however, that would be penny ante. It's a poker term...
Glad to help...
We need stop looking at stuff from a "safety" standpoint...
Whoops...see, now ya lost me...
Beretta 92. The video is kind of grainy, but I believe the weapon is in DA mode right before she pulls the trigger.
According to Metro Academy firearms instructors, it was in DA. They showed an enhancement of the video, focusing on the firearm and you can see the slow progression of the hammer as it is cocked through the DA pull until it fires.
Interview of the shooter revealed that the pistol as posessed.
sigmundsauer
05-09-09, 08:46
According to Metro Academy firearms instructors, it was in DA. They showed an enhancement of the video, focusing on the firearm and you can see the slow progression of the hammer as it is cocked through the DA pull until it fires.
Interview of the shooter revealed that the pistol as posessed.
Regardless, although the officer definitely ND'd, there is no indication that it was a result of a inadvertent, reflexive response. It was most likely a result of her deliberately prepping or pulling the trigger to gain a perceived advantage. This is not the same as simply having the finger on the trigger and BOOM! Oops. Especially considering that it was a female officer with likely small hands and far less hand strength than a male. She was doubtless playing roulette with the trigger. DA triggers don't just magically get stroked without a deliberate action.
Tim
DA triggers don't just magically get stroked without a deliberate action.
Tim
I would say that NO trigger does.
What trigger do you have on your glocks? I shoot a sig 226 da/sa with about a 10lb double action trigger. I have been thinking about getting a glock 26 to have something more concealable. I rented a glock & liked it, but don't feel safe with the stock 5 lb disconnect. If i had the ny-2 module installed that would get about the same first shot pull as the sig. Would it then be safe to carry in a pocket w/out a holster?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_11_50/ai_n6209982/
Years ago, I shot a lot of practical matches with the sig, & got the hang of the da/sa transition. You see AD's on the second shot sometimes. The first shot was always a challenge, but eventually became tranparent. Decocking also became second nature after a while. That being said, the simplicity of the glock or M&P is appealing.
I actually prefer and like the stock trigger on the glock the best. This is what I have carried in the past and still would if I were carrying a glock. I don't think the 5lb vs 8lb will make much of a difference. The reason some like the NY1 8lb and NY2 12lb trigger pull is because they get a more consistent trigger pull all the way through the press of the trigger. The agencies that choose the NY triggers for safety reason's are not taking into consideration that the glock trigger pull is so short the extra couple pounds probally won't make a difference, at least on the NY1 trigger.
To get to the weight of the Sig, you would need the NY 2 trigger. I would never carry a glock or most other firearms in a pocket without a holster. They do make pocket holster.
Ian, exactly. It matters not what period it is, that mindset should be one we all strive towards.
Not a bad thesis, however, that would be penny ante. It's a poker term...
Glad to help...
Thanks. :D Thats what I get for typing at 12 in the morning...
Whoa...see, now ya lost me...
Lost you how?
sigmundsauer
05-09-09, 19:58
I would say that NO trigger does.
True, to an extent. But I think its painfully clear that what we're talking about here is the likelihood that one trigger system versus another is more prone to inadvertent ND than the other. If you intend by this statement to suggest that a short stroke, light trigger is just as resistant to ND than a heavy, long stroke DA trigger, then I think I'll simply politely disagree and bow out of any further discussion as this is clearly going circular....and one of us is more wrong than the other.
Tim
I know from experience that very solid shooters with the M9 and Sig's, shoot better (or should I say lose less skill) with Glocks and especially 1911's when under extreme physical and mental duress. They are simply easier to shoot well.
Really? I know from personal experience that someone who is a "very solid shooter" with an M9 and a SIG may not shoot Glocks/1911s better. I don't. Ernest Langdon doesn't (Ernest just ditched his STI 9mm for a Beretta 92G .. because he shoots the Beretta better, even after about seven years of shootings SIGs, 1911's, and M&Ps). A good friend of mine, who's taught a couple M4C classes, is currently issued a Glock but wants to go back to a SIG as soon as he's able because he shoots it better.
It's also important to define what you mean by "shoot better ... under extreme physical and mental duress." Shoot an IPSC match or similar test? Probably true for a lot of people who don't have proper training & practice on using a DA/SA gun. More combat effective? I don't think so.
I just got back from teaching a class in PA. Of the six students who scored "intermediate" on the test (highest scores we had in this class), half were shooting DA/SA guns (all SIGs). The other three were a 1911, a Glock, and an M&P. For the rest (scoring "basic"), we had one 1911, four striker-fired guns, and three DA/SA guns. Shooter skill dwarfs hardware selection every time.
Regardless, this is a mindset issue, not a hardware issue. We need stop looking at stuff from a "safety" standpoint, and start looking at it from a performance standpoint.
Your car would be faster, brake faster, and corner better if you removed the extra weight of your airbags, seatbelts, and other safety features. A performance-only machine is fine for playing games. For a device that will be used day-in and day-out, safety is a factor. You'll handle your gun 100, 1000, a million times more often than you'll actually fight with it. Ignoring its "performance" during all of that time just because you see some perceived iota of difference "in a fight" is skewed priorities IMHO.
Actually, I think what he meant (and I follow this line of thinking) is that "safety" "liability" or "unintended consequences" wasn't a consideration to warriors back then. Not to any Roman, Viking, or Samurai who wielded a sword. Once a sword was unsheathed the person wielding it knew that it can not only cut or pierce the enemy but themselves or friendlies as well. Just like a pistol, once its out of the holster it can turn against anyone. The difference is warriors back then never considered trying to make their weapon "safer". Just deadlier. Never second guessed their weapon or tried to tame its nature. They simply accepted its uncomplicated, efficient, and brutal nature. And the more uncomplicated, efficient, and brutal it was, the better.
No, the analogy still fails. Swords didn't "swing" accidentally with just a little pressure on one tiny part. Swords didn't reach beyond a couple of yards. Swords couldn't hurt someone beyond their obvious (visible) reach. Romanticizing this as some kind of warrior culture thing doesn't change the facts. A gun is not a sword. An AD is not the same as slicing someone's arm off during a poorly executed flourish.
John_Wayne777
05-10-09, 11:06
I would say that NO trigger does.
I'd have to disagree with my good friend Hawkeye on this one...
In Virginia sometime in the last couple of years (I forget exactly which agency but I think it was Va Beach....someone please correct me if I am wrong) some SWAT guys were serving a warrant. One officer slipped and fell, and as he slipped his Glock pistol discharged and the round struck the subject of the warrant, killing him IIRC.
I don't know all the details about this situation such as whether his finger was on the trigger when he slipped, etc....
I'm reasonably certain, however, that he didn't have the intent to shoot the unarmed subject.
Let's face it, folks....crap happens. While most negligent discharges are undoubtedly the result of violation of basic safety rules, there yet remains a subset of incidents where the bad thing wasn't really the result of purely negligent behavior. Some weapons have a greater margin of error than others. Striker fired weapons with a 5.5-7 pound trigger and no manual safety (like the M&P I carry daily) have a much narrower margin for error than say a 1911 with two manual safeties or a Sig/Beretta/S&W 5906/P30 with a traditional double action first shot.
Obviously that doesn't discourage me from carrying the M&P or the Glocks (my most frequently used carry guns) but I do try to maintain an awareness of the potential downsides of my choice and I seek to minimize them whenever possible, either through choices in carry equipment or in handling the weapon. I'm not in circumstances that regularly require me to pull a gun. Were I patrolling the streets in a police cruiser, I'd want a slightly different choice. I'd have an M&P with a manual safety. The higher the liklihood that I would need to use the weapon in stressful situations, the larger I want that margin of error.
Just my 2 cents.
Just to make sure there are no misinterpretations on what I said, I dont think there is any (quality) handgun made, that will fire without the trigger being pulled. Doesnt matter what kind of action it is, how heavy it is, etc. The trigger must be pulled, for the gun to fire. Thats all I was saying, and did not mean to imply nor infer anything more.
No, the analogy still fails. Swords didn't "swing" accidentally with just a little pressure on one tiny part. Swords didn't reach beyond a couple of yards. Swords couldn't hurt someone beyond their obvious (visible) reach. Romanticizing this as some kind of warrior culture thing doesn't change the facts. A gun is not a sword. An AD is not the same as slicing someone's arm off during a poorly executed flourish.
It is a matter of priorities. Your focus is on the weapon. I think its better to focus on individual mindset. It wasn't suppose to be taken as literal analogy.
I don't dispute a heavier trigger is more difficult to pull. But I believe in periods of duress or stress that slightly heavier trigger isn't going to make a difference if the finger is on the trigger. You feel it does. I understand that. It sounds logical theoretically and I understand the appeal (former Beretta 92FS/SIG P226 owner myself). But I simply don't see any convincing data. We've heard a lot of individual and anecdotal evidence so far here and elsewhere. But they don't seem to point to anything conclusive except prove Murphy's Law.
I'm a proponent of how things can be. Not accepting the way things supposedly are. I feel individuals and training programs are far better off choosing the most effective weapon for themselves along with relevant "safety" training. That should be the priority. It could be a Glock or a SIG P226 DA/SA pistol. Its about indivdiual mindset and training that overcomes any potential shortcomings of either weapon. I feel focusing on a ''safer" gun instead of a "safer" operator is a slippery slope. That type of thinking can eventually lead us to adopt things like smart gun technology that can reduce the overall effectiveness of weapons. And concurrently a more passive and lazy attitude towards them. To people like ourselves who constantly discuss and think about our weapons probably not. But to most others who don't I feel it can.
To be a warrior is to not only master yourself but also your weapon. Not only shooting it well but handling it safely, esp. in times of stress. "Safety scissors" can cut paper just like ordinary scissors and we give them to our children. But we are adults and we use real scissors because they are better and we'll accept whatever consequences from using them. I do understand a cut on a finger is not the same as a gunshot wound. Again, please don't take the analogy too literally. More like a parable.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/Ian111/safetyscissors.jpg
It is a matter of priorities. Your focus is on the weapon. I think its better to focus on individual mindset. It wasn't suppose to be taken as literal analogy.
And therein lies the debate. You're assuming incorrectly that I am taking the individual out of the equation. I'm not suggesting that we should issue guns so "safe" that no amount of jackassery will result in an AD. Certainly, anyone with a gun in his hand needs to use the utmost professionalism and responsibility.
At the same time, I understand that human beings -- even highly skilled, dedicated people with the best mindset -- are capable of making errors. Some guns are simply more forgiving of those errors.
I don't dispute a heavier trigger is more difficult to pull. But I believe in periods of duress or stress that slightly heavier trigger isn't going to make a difference if the finger is on the trigger.
I don't think you read my post. My point isn't that a 10# trigger will stop someone from pulling the trigger if he has a muscle spasm. But the 99.99% of our lives we spend with guns not under critical stress should be taken into account, as well.
It sounds logical theoretically and I understand the appeal (former Beretta 92FS/SIG P226 owner myself). But I simply don't see any convincing data.
So when faced with a question which cannot be answered by an existing scientifically collected data set, your approach is to take the position opposite the one you yourself consider "logical." :D
Its about indivdiual mindset and training that overcomes any potential shortcomings of either weapon.
And this is the crux of our disagreement. You think if someone has "enough" training he can be safe regardless. So you'd be ok with someone who told he practices a lot and thus walks around with a 2# trigger on his 1911, safety off, grip pinned? Because if training, and I quote, "overcomes any potential shortcomings," then absolutely any gun with any trigger system is exactly as safe as any other in your mind.
I feel focusing on a ''safer" gun instead of a "safer" operator is a slippery slope.
Again, you're creating a false dichotomy. No one ever said that a safer gun means you ignore safety training. That's like saying anti-lock brakes mean we don't have to learn how to drive.
That type of thinking can eventually lead us to adopt things like smart gun technology that can reduce the overall effectiveness of weapons.
Now you're just playing on people's fears. This has absolutely nothing to do with "smart guns" or any other political hot topic.
To be a warrior is to not only master yourself but also your weapon.
That's another nice soundbite. So will you concede that for the 99.9% of people who haven't mastered a handgun, there is such a thing as a "safer" gun and that it is appropriate for them to choose one?
And this is the crux of our disagreement. You think if someone has "enough" training he can be safe regardless. So you'd be ok with someone who told he practices a lot and thus walks around with a 2# trigger on his 1911, safety off, grip pinned? Because if training, and I quote, "overcomes any potential shortcomings," then absolutely any gun with any trigger system is exactly as safe as any other in your mind.
Great point.
Additionally, even if an individual is flawless in his safe gun handling, one still has to recognize that a well designed safety (sweep down/1911 type) represents certain advantages, such as decreased risk for ND's while holstering, esp. when using an IWB holster, and, probably most importantly, as a device that can help foil an attacker from shooting you with your own weapon in a gun snatch scenario.
On this note, I am reminded by a study cited by Mas Ayoob, originally published in 1981 in Police Chief magazine, that showed that when a gun snatcher took control of a weapon, it took them approximately 17 seconds to fire that gun if a safety was engaged, compared to only 1.2 seconds to fire a gun that did not have a safety engaged, but was rather point and shoot. 17 seconds could buy you some much needed time to engage in some much needed remedial action in the face of extreme danger. Just something to think about.
Now other studies have repeatedly shown that if one is trained with the specific firearm in question, disengaging the safety does not slow down one's ability to engage the target in any significant way.
So then why not have a safety on the firearm? Well speaking of training, ironically, I think that it is because its recognized that training someone to use the safety properly requires some additional training. It is probably easier to train people to merely draw and shoot.
But training is also presumably needed in order to make sure that the operator of the gun doesn't ventilate his/her leg, or someone else's, with a gun that has a light trigger and no safety. So why not have a safety on it, train, and reap the benefits of both being safer due to improved safe gun handling, and of having the benefits associated with a safety as outlined above?
Can it be due to the fear of not being able to disengage the safety under a situation of stress? Well, is one trained, or not? I think that this concern is more of a myth blown out of proportion by a few cases of people handling guns that they were not practiced with. Conversely, there are many documented cases of lives saved when the safety foiled the death of officers when their guns were snatched. And again, repeated studies have shown that a safety doesn't significantly slow down target engagement whatsoever.
Now overall requirements or circumstances might mean that one's pistol is a striker pistol with a relatively light trigger and no safety. Well I don't think anyone is saying not to carry it, but I do think that one has to realize that the margin of error has been reduced, that's all.
But for me, yes, if Glock put out a model with a nice 1911 style safety on it, I'd go for it, and then I could have the best of all worlds, an easy to use safety with all the benefits associated therewith, and a nice 3.5lb trigger on it. Until then I'll carry my USPc cocked and locked, and my Glock in a nice stiff IWB holster and not engage in any blind reholstering or going Mexican, esp. AIWB :eek: :)
I read that Ayoob piece and found it to be nothing more than an ignorant rant trying be fill copy space; he needed a thousand words on something for the editor. It could have been a better piece about holsters and or training and not a sales pitch for the latest POS Ruger semi auto. If anything, his rant makes a feeble argument for magazine drop disconnects (you don't think the cholos know that about S&W? Drop the mag, get the gun out of the fight?). Anyone with the fortitude to take a gun from a cop is going to kill that cop, with or without that weapon, period. No safety in the world is going to prevent that. INTENT! Why do you think Ayoob's perps in his poor examples took the damn gun in the first place? Poor article, full of poor arguments.
DAO, LEM, Glock trigger, etc. are a good thing for LEO's for a variety of reasons. Liability is surely at the top of the department counsel's list but there are other reasons, like training. I have had the opportunity in my profession to carry the 92FS, 96D, P229DAO, P229DA/SA, HK USPc LEM, P229DAK, and the P2000SK. From a training standpoint DAO and it's cousins LEM and DAK have no peer. Simple is superior. There is no argument against that. We could go on for days about fine and gross motor skills and the effects of stress on those skills.
A decade or so ago, when the USBP (no Agency or department has more shootings than they do) went to transition its Agents from wheelguns to semi-autos they mandated that the competing vendors bid a DAO, to replicate the trigger feel of those wheelguns they were replacing, to simplify training, to maintain that critical muscle memory in a crisis situation where hits matter the most. On the range, on the paper anything outside the 2 ring hits the backstop. On the street officers don't have that luxury, every single round has to be accounted for, legally and civilly. AD's ND's and poorly placed shots have real consequences.
DAO and its like do several things. First, they force a deliberate pulling of the trigger to initiate the firing sequence. Training-wise that equates to front sight on target and a hit in the black. Same trigger pull, every shot; same result every shot. The same trigger pull makes diagnosing shooter problems very easy (training) and makes judging a shoot easier for a review panel, coroner's inquest, or ultimately a jury easier too (criminal/civil actions). DAO and the like make de-cocking a hammer or engaging a safety a non issue when it is time to re-holster or break leather again if need be. Leave those fine motor motions for the range, where the 1911 cardboard experts have that luxury, not on the street, in the dark, after a three block foot chase with a soon to be three strike felon.
It's also important to define what you mean by "shoot better ... under extreme physical and mental duress." Shoot an IPSC match or similar test? Probably true for a lot of people who don't have proper training & practice on using a DA/SA gun. More combat effective? I don't think so.
No, physical stress- like so messed up it takes several seconds to remember your birthday. So much physical stress its like you're looking through a straw, and have earmuffs on because of visual and auditory exclusion, with heart rates in the red zone.
Mental stress like- "if I miss this, somebody will get hurt"...
I have more then a little experience shooting DA/SA guns (with the "M" card to prove it). I have more then a little experience with physical and mental stress.
I've witnessed the tests and have been apart of the tests. I know which guns are easier to hit with when I am "sucking". I know which guns were easier for them to hit with when they were "sucking".
"Your car would be faster, brake faster, and corner better if you removed the extra weight of your airbags, seatbelts, and other safety features"
Do GMV's have airbags, seatbelts, and "other safety features"?
Oh, yes. My personal vehicles do have those things. However, my Rover is set up for comfort and to support my laziness. Not for combat or fighting. Regardless, the seatbelts, and to a lesser extent the airbags, add a huge amount of measurable protection that does not cost performance in any way. They are akin to the thumb safety on a 1911. The same cannot be said of DA/SA mechanisms. It simply does not make sense to have two types of trigger pulls in a pistol, anymore then it does to have two types in a long gun.
SFA and SA pistols are easier to shoot and hit with, can be handled professionally and responsibly, so I find zero reason for a shooter to use anything else.
The size of the Beretta makes it awful tempting for someone with medium or small hands to keep it in SA because it allows them to actually reach the trigger in a normal manner.
Light triggers are an awful lot more dangerous than most people realize. There is a point at which your fine motor skills degrade due to heart rate, stress or fatigue.
And therein lies the debate. You're assuming incorrectly that I am taking the individual out of the equation. I'm not suggesting that we should issue guns so "safe" that no amount of jackassery will result in an AD. Certainly, anyone with a gun in his hand needs to use the utmost professionalism and responsibility.
At the same time, I understand that human beings -- even highly skilled, dedicated people with the best mindset -- are capable of making errors. Some guns are simply more forgiving of those errors.
No, that it can encourage more reliance on physical mechanisms. I think its the wrong direction.
I don't think you read my post. My point isn't that a 10# trigger will stop someone from pulling the trigger if he has a muscle spasm. But the 99.99% of our lives we spend with guns not under critical stress should be taken into account, as well.
99.99% of the time the finger shouldn't be on the trigger.
So when faced with a question which cannot be answered by an existing scientifically collected data set, your approach is to take the position opposite the one you yourself consider "logical." :D
I said it sounds logical not that it is logical.
And this is the crux of our disagreement. You think if someone has "enough" training he can be safe regardless. So you'd be ok with someone who told he practices a lot and thus walks around with a 2# trigger on his 1911, safety off, grip pinned? Because if training, and I quote, "overcomes any potential shortcomings," then absolutely any gun with any trigger system is exactly as safe as any other in your mind.
OK since I attributed an extreme conclusion to your argument I guess you can attribut one to me too.
I'd be "ok with it" in that its none of my business. Would I recommend it? No. But I wouldn't force someone if they didn't wanna do it. I'm not trying to prove a 1911 or a Glock is "as safe" as a DA/SA SIG. Its that I don't care. That its splitting hairs.
Again, you're creating a false dichotomy. No one ever said that a safer gun means you ignore safety training. That's like saying anti-lock brakes mean we don't have to learn how to drive.
If a police officer or citizen is properly trained he/she is properly trained. Period. It doesn't matter what kind of pistol it is. And those who are not? Again, it doesn't matter what kind of pistol does it. They'll find some way to screw up.
Also, it can create a bias toward "safe guns" and a prejudice against so called "unsafe guns". Again, not the right direction IMO.
Now you're just playing on people's fears.
I think we may both be guilty of that.
That's another nice soundbite. So will you concede that for the 99.9% of people who haven't mastered a handgun, there is such a thing as a "safer" gun and that it is appropriate for them to choose one?
Theoretically. There are many followers of the philosophy you espouse. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just not convinced that it should be a priority.
"Anyone with the fortitude to take a gun from a cop is going to kill that cop, with or without that weapon, period. No safety in the world is going to prevent that. INTENT! Why do you think Ayoob's perps in his poor examples took the damn gun in the first place? Poor article, full of poor arguments."
Being both a firearms and DT instructor, with a great deal of emphasis in my career on studying gun grabs and teaching weapon retention skills, I find your observations flawed.
Many officers have survived gun grabs due to weapon safeties being engaged when the gun was taken from them, and there have been even more that have survived due to the magazine safety on various pistols such as the HiPower and the S&Ws.
I may not wish to have a magazine safety on my pistol, but I can not ignore the documented cases where they have saved lives.
Additionally, to say that an officer is as good as dead if they lose their weapon during the fight ignores the many who have prevailed in these situations, through the use of back-up guns, knives, retention disarm skills, etc.
No, that it can encourage more reliance on physical mechanisms. I think its the wrong direction.
But you've argued yourself into a corner. If you can teach someone to be safe and have a warrior mindset, then the mere fact that his gun has some additional margin for error shouldn't suddenly make all of that immaterial.
If you can teach someone to have a warrior mindset, certainly I can hand them a "safer" pistol as we're calling it without that mindset disintegrating.
If you've got the time & resources to teach someone to be perfectly safe with a light, short trigger and no safety under the stress of a potential lethal encounter, I've certainly got enough time & resources to teach them to disengage physical safeties and/or overcome the dreaded double action trigger pull.
99.99% of the time the finger shouldn't be on the trigger.
Well, you did say you're a proponent of how things can be, not how they are. So I guess that makes sense from your perspective.
Having watched enough HSLD types as well as countless street cops, competition shooters, and defense-minded private citizens come into contact with their triggers at unsafe times under just mild stress, I have to take the opposite approach. My thought process is based on reality, not what should be.
If a police officer or citizen is properly trained he/she is properly trained. Period. It doesn't matter what kind of pistol it is. And those who are not? Again, it doesn't matter what kind of pistol does it. They'll find some way to screw up.
So what constitutes "properly trained?" How many hours does that take? How do you measure it?
Also, it can create a bias toward "safe guns" and a prejudice against so called "unsafe guns". Again, not the right direction IMO.
Yes, we definitely wouldn't want a bias towards safety! :rolleyes:
Many officers have survived gun grabs due to weapon safeties being engaged when the gun was taken from them, and there have been even more that have survived due to the magazine safety on various pistols such as the HiPower and the S&Ws.
I may not wish to have a magazine safety on my pistol, but I can not ignore the documented cases where they have saved lives.
QFT ...
SFA and SA pistols are easier to shoot and hit with, can be handled professionally and responsibly, so I find zero reason for a shooter to use anything else.
Guys - We're venturing into an area where experienced, capable folks will have some significant differences of opinion. As long as we recognize that and keep it civil, let's drive on.
(Charles - my quote of your post above is not meant to imply anything untoward or "uncivil" in your statement - it just served as a useful example for me to keep the discussion on the right track.)
then the mere fact that his gun has some additional margin for error shouldn't suddenly make all of that immaterial.
.
This is where we differ. I don't think its enough of an additional margin for error that people should be forced or coerced to use something they don't like. And in fact, a DA/SA pistol requires additional training to get fully acclimated and the additional and constant training to keep up that specific skill set. I dont' discount the knowledge and experience you have. But I also cannot discount the knowledge and experience of other instructors I've encountered who see things differently. Who don't think having a heavier trigger should be given that much priority. All I'm saying is that I don't think YOUR ARGUMENT is necessarily the ONLY WAY. I don't think you believe pistols with heavier triggers are the only kind of pistol we should be using. And I'm not saying those pistols have no place in this world nor that they're bad weapons. Is a DA/SA SIG or LEM HK the best choice to issue to officers who routinely have to hold suspects at gunpoint? Maybe, maybe not but they certainly are good weapons. But I also don't see the problem with an officer who wants a Glock or 1911 if they were willing to properly and consistently train with them either.
This is where we differ. I don't think its enough of an additional margin for error that people should be forced or coerced to use something they don't like.
Coerced? Where is that coming from?
And in fact, a DA/SA pistol requires additional training to get fully acclimated and the additional and constant training to keep up that specific skill set.
... and ...
But I also don't see the problem with an officer who wants a Glock or 1911 if they were willing to properly and consistently train with them either.
If someone is going to "properly and consistently train" with a gun, then the argument that a DA/SA pistol requires, in your opinion, "additional training" and "constant training" doesn't really add any additional burden, does it?
If anything, you've proved my point: if you train, you can shoot anything well. If you don't, you can't. So all else being equal, a gun that has a greater margin of safety built in is worth considering.
If anything, you've proved my point: if you train, you can shoot anything well. If you don't, you can't. So all else being equal, a gun that has a greater margin of safety built in is worth considering.
I was not out to prove that a gun that supposedly has a "greater margin of safety" is not worth considering. Only that pistols that supposedly have "less margin of safety" are still worth considering. That's my basic premise.
If someone consistently trains with their gun they'll eventually "master" how to safely and effectively handle a DA/SA pistol or a Glock. But if they don't, all these devices like safeties, heavy triggers, or lack of (safety/heavy trigger) can all be benefit or a detriment depending on the individual. Now you say all things being equal if someone is that dedicated then why not a "safer" pistol? I would say that's fine. But if that same person is more effective with a Glock or 1911 I say that's fine as well. I say it is as personal decision as someone who chooses to put on a uniform and carry a gun or a citizen who gets a CCW and carries a gun. If they want to carry something they feel is more effective they should. If they want to carry something they perceive as safer they should. They are assuming the risk the same way they are choosing to carry a gun
Even people who had "proper training" are gonna carry condition 3 or cock the hammer on a DA/SA gun after unholstering, or put their booger pickers in the trigger guard. Humans. We are unpredictable. We will not be controlled.
Ian, I don't recall anyone saying an officer or person should be forced to carry a gun they don't want to. I never did and I haven't read where anyone states that. In fact, I said officers should get to decide. I only stated I would issue a LEM, DAK, DAO, or DA/SA first and let them choose a glock or m&P if they weren't happy with the issued weapon.
I believe the LEM,DAK, DA/SA, gives a "slight" safety advantage over the glock, m&P without having a great effect on accuracy. I believe this makes them a viable system and they shouldn't be so quickly overlooked. It seems that too many people, including yourself, think a Sig, Beretta, or H&K with LEM are so much harder to shoot. I'm okay if an officer or department decides the glock or m&p is best for them. I just don't think they should be so quickly overlooked or viewed as being systems that "handicap" officers.
I have to say it. "I'm the only one professional enough BANG!"
One of my retired F.I.s put a rifled slug through the squad car roof. No more gun racks for the rest of us. Luckily, we were still allowed long guns in a carry case.
One of our former FIs had a non-injury ND while instructing.
Little do most people know that Bill Jordan had a fatal ND.
Bad things can happen when handling machines.
The KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid. The Simpler you make a mechanism that is operated under stress, the easier it is to operate correctly, CONSISTANTLY, under stress. LEO's deal with the same four firearms safety rules that are posted at every range that I have ever shot at, finger off the trigger unless ready to shoot; don't aim at anything you aren't prepared to destroy; beware of your backstop; treat all weapons as if they are loaded. In addition, LEO's have to be cognizant of every departmental rule, regulation, state law, and court interpretation of the Fourth Amendment written every time they draw their weapon and aim in, not to mention they are all going over in their head the expected double guessing that they are going to get for what ever level of force they end up having to use from every level from the department review panel all the way up to a civil or criminal jury. A lot to digest in a time of stress. This list doesn't even factor in all the minutiae of the moment regarding why they had to draw their weapon and maybe use it in the first place. For these reasons making the weapon as simple as possible to operate in a time of stress are important factors. Simple is also easy to train. Simple is easier to get someone from mediocre to good or excellent. Simple is good. Simple reduces the POTENTIAL for error. LEM, DAO, DAK, Glock, Wheelguns, I love them because they are SIMPLE.
Guys - We're venturing into an area where experienced, capable folks will have some significant differences of opinion. As long as we recognize that and keep it civil, let's drive on.
(Charles - my quote of your post above is not meant to imply anything untoward or "uncivil" in your statement - it just served as a useful example for me to keep the discussion on the right track.)
Understood. :) Nothing I've stated should be taken out of context. I haven't meant anything negative towards anyone.
Todd, what type of pistols dominate practical competition? And why do you think that is? This is an honest question.
We have both Berreta's and Glocks. I have/do work with units/organizations that are issued every pistol thus far mentioned. I can, and have, shoot Mater level scores with most of them. I still know which are easier to shoot. (I have had my arm injured to the point where I could not physically pull the DA first shot on the M9)
I guess we are just looking at this from different view points. I'm looking at this from a shooter's/gunfighter's perspective. Most seem to be looking at this from an administrative/"safety" perspective.
Ian.......It seems that too many people, including yourself, think a Sig, Beretta, or H&K with LEM are so much harder to shoot.
I think that's a debate best left for another thread. Do I think a DA/SA SIG or LEM HK pistol is a viable and effective sidearm? Yes. Would I feel comfortable carrying one if that was my only option? Yes after I've acclimated to them again.
Todd, I'm curious, do you ever see any triple retention duty holsters used in competition?
vicious_cb
05-13-09, 22:29
HK P30 LEMs are out now? All I see available are the V3 versions.
Todd, I'm curious, do you ever see any triple retention duty holsters used in competition?
HK P30 LEMs are out now? All I see available are the V3 versions.
Gents - let's keep this on topic.
Todd, what type of pistols dominate practical competition? And why do you think that is? This is an honest question.
Which practical competition?
In IPSC, various CZ clones and similar seem to be one of, if not the, dominating force.
In USPSA, it's the 1911 of course. Glocks come in a close second.
In IDPA, it changes with the wind. I remember when Beretta was the top gun. Ever since Dave Sevigny got into the game, it's been Glock.
You need to look at how the games evolved and how they're scored before drawing too many conclusions. The simple reality is that while competition certain has great value, it's a mistake to assume that just because a gun is great for IPSC, it's great for real world.
I have/do work with units/organizations that are issued every pistol thus far mentioned.
Me, too.
I can, and have, shoot Mater level scores with most of them.
Me, too.
I still know which are easier to shoot.
Me, too. And I know how little difference it makes.
I guess we are just looking at this from different view points. I'm looking at this from a shooter's/gunfighter's perspective. Most seem to be looking at this from an administrative/"safety" perspective.
Sorry, no. Being cognizant of the the mistakes humans make under stress doesn't somehow make one less "practical." One would think that a true shooter/gunfighter, to borrow your phrase, would be less concerned with tiny factors that influence square range/competition performance than with practical things like not shooting one's teammates in the back. But that's just me ...
Me, too. And I know how little difference it makes.
It's a world of difference when you can't pull that 12lb trigger...
Sorry, no. Being cognizant of the the mistakes humans make under stress doesn't somehow make one less "practical." One would think that a true shooter/gunfighter, to borrow your phrase, would be less concerned with tiny factors that influence square range/competition performance than with practical things like not shooting one's teammates in the back. But that's just me ...
Sorry, no. DA triggers do not stop ND's. If someone is going to shoot their teammates in the back, they are going to do it whether they're using a Sig, Beretta, Glock, or 1911.
sigmundsauer
05-16-09, 18:23
It's a world of difference when you can't pull that 12lb trigger...
My 12-year old daughter can pull the DA trigger on my SIG without inordinate amount of effort. There are truly few that a 12-lb trigger is an insurmountable obstacle.
Sorry, no. DA triggers do not stop ND's. If someone is going to shoot their teammates in the back, they are going to do it whether they're using a Sig, Beretta, Glock, or 1911.
Doubtless, NDs can occur under a great breadth of conditions. What we are talking about here is whether a 10-12 lb trigger that requires .5-.75" trigger travel is more resistant to inadvertent ND than a short stroke, 4-lb trigger. To argue or imply that there is no difference is ignoring the physics of the matter. Yes, both require deliberate acts, but I know from personal experience that adrenaline-charged hands can trip a 4-lb SA trigger with very little feedback to the operator or warning that something very bad is about to happen. Whereas, a 10-12 lb DA trigger requires a considerable amount effort not even remotely as likely to occur inadvertently. If I can shoot both equally well I will take the inherent safety of the DA trigger every single time.
Tim
It's a world of difference when you can't pull that 12lb trigger...
Now you're just being silly. That's like saying 1911's suck because some people can't reliably depress the grip safety (I've seen that plenty of times) or Glocks suck because some people can hold them comfortably (also common enough).
Sorry, no. DA triggers do not stop ND's. If someone is going to shoot their teammates in the back, they are going to do it whether they're using a Sig, Beretta, Glock, or 1911.
Sorry, no. It takes more effort to pull through a long 12# trigger pull than a short 5# trigger pull. As Tim said, it's possible to AD with either. One has substantially less margin of error.
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-17-09, 00:08
As Tim said, it's possible to AD with either. One has substantially less margin of error.
Exactly. Why God why am I still hearing this after all these years? WHY??:D
Now you're just being silly. That's like saying 1911's suck because some people can't reliably depress the grip safety (I've seen that plenty of times) or Glocks suck because some people can hold them comfortably (also common enough).
That was in reference to-
"(I have had my arm injured to the point where I could not physically pull the DA first shot on the M9)"
sigmundsauer, I can just about guarantee you, that your twelve year old daughter would not have been able to pull the trigger....
Sorry, no. It takes more effort to pull through a long 12# trigger pull than a short 5# trigger pull.
If it takes more effort, then it would be harder to shoot... No?
If it takes more effort, then it would be harder to shoot... No?
Gents -
We keep circling around this argument. As I stated before, very competent individuals will have differences of opinion on this subject. Agree to disagree and let's move on.
- YRAC
I tend to think if that trigger finger is riding that trigger and if the person is under stress that person is gonna yank that trigger. I don't think it matters whether the trigger is 12 lbs or 4.5 lbs. The person's focus is completely somewhere else and under stress they're going to "squeeze". I don't think its good to encourage people to accept that having your trigger finger on the trigger can be ok (even if it happens "often") just because a pistol has a heavier trigger.
The only solution is drilling people to index the weapon til its second nature. Just like using the brake and accelerator on a car. Cars don't have safeties or heavy accelerators but we operate them "safely" everyday without running people over. The trigger is the "accelerator" and the side of the pistol's frame or slide is the "brake". We must encourage proper mindset instead of constantly trying to create a "safer" gun which can only encourage us to be more passive.
IMHO
I agree with you but I don't think that's what the OP is saying. leaving off the training issues, longer/harder trigger pull is going to be safer than shorter/lighter. can't argue with that...
As I think someone mentioned at least once already in this thread:
The easier a gun is to shoot, the easier it is to shoot accidentally.
So each of us needs to make some decisions. At what point is the "shootability" improvement not worth the risk? At what point is the "safety" improvement not worth the performance hit?
In my experience, many folks put far too much emphasis on miniscule or non-existent performance differences while ignoring the safety aspect because they believe that they're perfect human beings incapable of making errors when it comes to gun safety. Oddly, it seems that the more often someone has had to point a loaded gun at someone under stress, the more important the safety thing is likely to be in his list of priorities.
Many years ago, a sergeant made entry on a search warrant and had an ND with a DA/SA pistol. He was now holding a cocked pistol and had a second ND. The bullet struck the non-resisting suspect and killed him.
five years ago, I had a DA/SA pistol in an unlocked cabinet. sometime during the night, it crept out and anally assaulted my dog.
now I only own Glocks...
According to Metro Academy firearms instructors, it was in DA. They showed an enhancement of the video, focusing on the firearm and you can see the slow progression of the hammer as it is cocked through the DA pull until it fires.
Interview of the shooter revealed that the pistol as posessed.
I'm still trying to find the justification that the DA/SA is not a "safer" tool.
look at it this way, if the LEO in question was able to ND the weapon through a long/heavy DA pull, how much sooner would she have ND'd a SA trigger? while the gun was still pointed at the suspects head?
no one said DA/SA was Idiot Proof...
edit: complying with hallowed moderator request...
:D
Hello,
If one is Lucky enough to work for a Sensible Agency/Department that Allows Single Action Automatics, then there's No Reason to even consider anything Less than a Sleek & Classy FN-Browning High Power or M1911.
When it comes to pistols, the single action automatic offers the safest & simplest manual of arms that there is.
John_Wayne777
05-19-09, 00:11
Hello,
If one is Lucky enough to work for a Sensible Agency/Department that Allows Single Action Automatics, then there's No Reason to even consider anything Less than a Sleek & Classy FN-Browning High Power or M1911.
Actually there are several good reasons...expense, service life, and the extra maintenance requirements being among them. I'm a 1911 fan and I love the look of high-powers (always have)...but if I were selecting a duty weapon I wouldn't pick either of those options as my sidearm.
1911's are finicky beasts that require a knowledgeable, enthusiast end user. As Ken Hackathorn has famously said, they are a lot like a Ferarri. They can do amazing things but if you want one you'd better know a good mechanic and you'd better bring money.
Hi-powers generally come out of the box with terrible triggers and bad ergonomics. Lots of people suffer hammer-bite when shooting high-powers. They improve considerably with customization...but that customization is very expensive and doesn't address some of the long term durability issues the weapons have.
Most LE officers would be much better served by a Glock or a Sig. They are very reliable, generally require comparatively little maintenance to keep running, and easily supportable by the agency. Can't really say the same about the Hi-power or the 1911.
Littlelebowski
05-19-09, 06:27
When it comes to pistols, the single action automatic offers the safest & simplest manual of arms that there is.
No, it's not. See the Glock and M&P. Fewer moving parts and no safety to swipe. This isn't even debatable if you look at the facts.
Jay Cunningham
05-19-09, 06:33
There is also the issue (with Hi-Powers) of needing to employ a less-than-optimal grip to avoid locking the slide back after every shot.
then there's No Reason to even consider anything Less than a Sleek & Classy FN-Browning High Power or M1911.
Well I, for one, agree with this statement. There is no reason to consider anything "Less" than those guns. Luckily, plenty of quality service-grade weapons like Berettas, Glocks, HKs, SIGs, & Smiths are available that are, in most cases, "More".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.