Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Improving my safety-ON, performance??

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    223
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gringop View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CAPT KIRK; 11-03-09 at 21:52.
    "God made Cops, so Firemen could have Heroes."
    "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

    Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    West of the Atlantic
    Posts
    1,803
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CAPT KIRK View Post
    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.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by thopkins22 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by rob_s; 11-04-09 at 06:17.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,152
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Navigating Collapse View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Safetyhit; 11-04-09 at 15:53.
    "Facit Omina Voluntas = The Will Decides" - Army Chief


  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    152
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    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.
    Last edited by el guapo; 11-04-09 at 12:53.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    291
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    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. .

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Flowery Branch, GA
    Posts
    181
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,742
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by NMBigfoot02 View Post
    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.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,211
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    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.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •