With sequester over, it's about quantity over stewardship. The money is flowing, so burn baby burn.
Too bad they didn't wait to select the winner, in the trump area, they might have opted for performance over price.
Want to buy the Glock that lost the Army handgun competition?
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
With sequester over, it's about quantity over stewardship. The money is flowing, so burn baby burn.
Too bad they didn't wait to select the winner, in the trump area, they might have opted for performance over price.
Funny how that works.
Yup. Well worth the added weight for combat soldiers, especially ones operating in urban and built up areas.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Several people here with action jobs have provided anecdotal evidence that it is the presence and reliance on a safety that contributes to NDs. Do you have any evidence to share with the class that safeties reduce NDs?
Lmao WHAT?! Poe's Law in effect, this has to be sarcasm
Interesting theory. Would you apply it to other types of "safeties", i.e. seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, safety harnesses for construction workers? I guess everyone would be a safer better driver if not for reliance on seatbelts to save their life in the event on an accident, huh?
Many ND's happen when the weapon is being holstered or unholstered. A manual safety would decrease the risk of that type of ND. And there is no real downside to having a manual safety, especially for soldiers who don't use handguns as their primary weapons. It's as simple as that.
Speaking of theories, where are the stats that many or most nd's happen when drawing and holstering?
I believe many nd's could be avoided if people had less faith in manually manipulated safety levers.
What ever happened to ACTS/PROVE and muzzle control?
Which one of those acronyms is the one where they teach you to look down the barrel from the muzzle end?
lols
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
No I wouldnt apply it to other typea of safeties. Different equipment. Different circumstances. Different training.
Metaphorically, seatbelts have more in common with body armour than they do safeties. Neither prevent accidents, both mitigate harm afterwards. And there are studies that show people drive slower when they arent wearing a seat belt.
You got stats on NDs? Please share
That is quite a statement. Have you ever heard of Glock Leg? Google it and let us know what the first five topics are. I know of three instances, two of which caused injury and one just a slap on the ego but with three holes in the shooters 511 pants. Two of the three I believe were caused by the shooters clothing catching the trigger upon holstering. One was caused by an errant finger on the draw. Two were Glocks, one was an M&P.
It is isn't just Glocks either, we should be clear. Any safe action pistol without a manual safety will fire when the trigger is pulled by a loose shirt if the latter gets into the trigger guard area. Most shooters I shoot with who shoot safe action pistols are well aware of the issue. Loose shirts can be a real problem if the shooter is not careful when holstering. I have stopped shooters during the holstering process during matches and had them tuck in their shirts before I allowed them to holster their pistol. I teach that in our safety Officer classes to watch for shirts hanging out over the holster when shooters come to the line. Does it happen frequently...no. Does it happen...yes.
I know folks will say the shooter should be aware of this or the shooter is at fault if the gun goes off when it shouldn't. I know guys who buy their first Glock, M&P or Xd, instantly become safe, attuned to any and all issues that may result in an accident but sometimes even these experienced shooters or ones who have been shooting most their adult life make mistakes and injuries occur.
If I was head of a company or organization where I was in the process of spending $100,000 or more on training a 19 year old how to survive in warfare or just run a $40MM tank I sure as hell don't want him to be invalided out due to a bullet taking out his knee because the handgun he or his buddy was using didn't have a manual safety.
Just because a pistol doesn't come with a manual safety doesn't make the manual safety obsolete. It just means pistol doesn't come with one.
Take Care
Bob
ps Rather than posters asking others to post stats to prove their point of view why not just do some googling on their own and list all their data to illustrate a contrary view.
Last edited:
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
I will bite. Below is what I googled, the link, and the first paragraph from each site.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Glock+Leg
1. Urban Dictionary: Glock Leg.
"A condition where a person shoots himself (or herself) in the leg while holstering their Glock pistol.
This can happen with any weapon yielded by a careless user, but it is common among Glock pistols due to the lack of a manual safety, relatively light trigger pull, and lack of a proper hammer to push on while holstering."
2. Alloutdoor.com: Glock Leg, a condition you don't want.
"It is a reality of life that firearms will go off accidentally. Most, if not all, of the reasons this happens are due to user errors or a fundamental disregard for basic firearm handling safety procedures. Many of these discharges result in nasty wounds and an embarrassed ego."
3. Alloutdoor.com: Is DA/SA the cure for Glock Leg Syndrome?
"Bob Owens at Bearing Arms remarks on what he sees as a growing trend among shooters: a move away from striker-fired pistols and back to double action/single action pistols for concealed carry. The reason is the extra margin of safety these guns give you with that first stiff trigger pull."
4. Calguns.net so how many times has "GLOCK LEG" actually happened?
This is another forum where people debate/dispute the prevalence of glock leg and its causes. I will not quote another forum here.
5. bearingarms.com Maryland Man Discovers "GLock Leg", Public Shame.
"A constant refrain at every gun school I’ve ever attended is that no one ever won a fight or a shooting competition for getting back to the holster faster than everyone else. What these instructors mean is that you should be slow and deliberate in re-holstering your handgun, and that if you feel any resistance at all, you should withdraw the gun entirely and then visually see what is obstructing the holster.
Sometimes that might include body parts."
So using all this unscientific data from the research methods you suggested:
Glock Leg is always caused by poor weapons handling, (inherently a training and competency issue), and is SOMETIMES caused by, hammerless firearms, Light Triggers, Clothing/Body Obstructions, and Lack of a Manual safety.
Its perfectly reasonable to assume that it would usually take a combination of factors in order for an accident to result, and that there would be no one simple solution to the problem of people shooting themselves upon draw/holstering.
Some here have suggested that a manual safety will reduce accidents. The presence of a manual safety does not guarantee its use any more than the attendance of a training course guarantees the eternal perfect execution of the lessons learned. Manual Safeties can be just as prone to the user errors that invariable result in virtually every other firearms accident. The mandatory requirement for a manual safety for the purpose of reducing accidents presumes that the lack of a safety is always the cause, and there are not any other, or better ways to reduce NDs. This is obviously a false assumption. And a dangerous one if you believe that simply adding safeties, while ignoring the rest of the factors that play a part. If so then you are probably worse off then you were before, but possibly feeling a bit better wrapped in your nice cosy false sense of security.
If you address the critical factor first, poor handling, then the manual safety becomes almost irrelevant.
"I shot myself in the leg when holstering my pistol. My finger was on the trigger because I thought it was unloaded, and it got snagged in the holster and tripped the trigger. Clearly my not paying attention to what was going on, lack of awareness of the state of my pistol or my finger being on the trigger was not the problem. If only I had used the safety this would not have happened", said no one, ever. # ridiculous.
You missed the key factor in your own post... NEGLIGENT discharge. That would include the user doing something stupid/dumb/ignorant/dangerous that results in the firearm going off UNINTENTIONALLY. Manual safety or not dumb people will do dumb things, like ignore the safety and play with the trigger. ND's can only be reduced through proper training.
Examining the bore via the muzzle is ONE method that the poorly administered PAL course suggests, it is not THE way nor is it the ONLY way.
By the same token, Glock's "safe action" safety becomes irrelevant too. Why not have a short and light 1911-style trigger with no safeties of any kind whatsoever. With 100% proper handling, you will never have an issue.
The problem is that it's easy to talk about proper handling in the abstract. In real life, things get complicated. When people are under stress (i.e. in battlefield conditions), proper handling goes out the window. If you are exhausted, getting shot at, maybe even wounded, and running for cover, the last thing you're going to worry about is making sure your clothing does not accidentaly get stuck in your pistol's trigger guard.
