The OPP adopted the same model as the FBI: the 17M. Which is basically the Gen 5 with different slide markings and steel Ameriglo night sights as standard.
Want to buy the Glock that lost the Army handgun competition?
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
The OPP adopted the same model as the FBI: the 17M. Which is basically the Gen 5 with different slide markings and steel Ameriglo night sights as standard.
yohann160 said:
Sounds about right. And makes sense why their SOFCOM went with the G19. The Sig compact is a beautiful little pistol (fits me much better than a G19) too bad it wasn't tested. I think it would have gave the G19 a run.
Striker fired guns are ready for use but still completely safe in the holster unless it's a SIG 320.
You do realize the US Army got a different trigger set up then the Commercial models you speak of...right. No probably not. Not sure what issue the 430 has while in the holster the other striker fired guns don't share. Striker fired guns go bang if a shirt or jacket cord gets caught in the trigger area while holstering. Pistols with the manual safety applied don't.
Yes the different trigger is the one that prevents ND's when the gun is dropped but thanks tips. Not sure what a 430 is either, perhaps you've forgotten what is being discussed here which is the SIG 320 and the Glock 17/19. The holster issue with the commercial 320 is the stark reality that they are not drop safe. The MIL versions being exempt.
Why handicap the soldier more with a manual safety?
You do realize anyone armed with a manual operated safety is not going to be handicapped. The US Army seems to have done quite well using pistols with either manual operated safeties or safety/decockers since 1911.
Go take a class Bob as you're way out of your lane. Extra steps between drawing and firing is 100% equatable to being handicapped.
You clearly don't shoot enough or train enough to understand this. It's clear you don't pay attention to other shooters either as you would also observe this.
If you read all the posts in this thread, have a look around online, even watch some videos you will see the military personnel are poorly trained on handguns and more controls/more steps is a huge handicap. The US army(and others) used to use revolvers with no manual safeties either and did so for many many years.
So by your logic we should stick with revovlers over anything else.
You're right, regular force soldiers will carry a pistol a whole lot more than they will ever use one. The more switched on and highly trained personnel will use their pistol and they deserve the best option for their needs and a manual safety is not a wanted or needed option.
That is why up until recently the pistol of choice was the SIG 226 using a decocker. Still lots of pointy folks using them. Weight is the biggest issue not the safety or lack of one.
The old pistol of choice for those who could choose what they want was a SIG226, average grunt got stuck with the poorly designed Beretta.
Notice the choice was a pistol that lacks a POSITIVE safety? Decocking is done AFTER the shooting stops, a safety is disengaged BEFORE the shooting starts.
When do you think you're under the most stress before you neutralize the threat or after?? The pointy end team is using Glock 19's now, and that would be all of them in SOCOM, the Navy was the last group to officially adopt it whereas most others have been using it for the better part of a decade.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen shooters at the range or at a match or at a class fail to disengage their safety and attempt to fire. This is closely followed by forgetting to apply the safety or activate their decocker prior to reholstering.
You are discussing trained combat soldiers are we not or are you on about your week-end pals. IPSC Open shooters and IDPA CDP and some ESP competitors do quite well every week at major matches using their manual safety style guns.
Trained soldiers equals one or two days of primitive instruction on a handgun, just read the accompanying quotes from those directly connected to the system. Regardless I have both shot and trained with MIL folks and witnessed many fail to disengage a manual safety before attempting to pull the trigger. Can you guess which crowd didn't have that problem?.... The striker fired users and the DA/SA users. Can you guess who had faster first round hits?.... The same two groups of users. Can you guess which group didn't have issues on the reholster?... That would be the striker fired users only. The same issues have been witnessed by the much more experienced competitive shooters as well. The same folks who shoot several hundred to several thousand rounds a week. These folks shoot paper and steel and have never been shot at during a match and yet they still fail to disengage the safety prior to pressing the trigger.
You talk about the manual safety is being a non hinderance as the "trained" individual by proxy remembers to disengage/re-engage it. The use of a mechanical safety is learned step in the manual of arms. The same is true for ensuring your holster is clear of obstructions before re-holstering. We've already established that re-holstering is done after the threat is neutralized(for the most part) and we know that manipulating the safety like ensuring the holster is clear of obstructions are both learned steps in our manual of arms. We also know that there is more stress before firing rounds(as in drawing to engage) than after the engagement(reholstering). SO if we have to learn a step why would you focus on adding complexity to the draw, the most stressful point of the gunfight where time is finite and success is critical. As opposed to learning a step AFTER the fight where time is less critical and the stress is reduced?? You can't worry about safely reholstering until after you've survived the fight.. I'm sure you already knew that.
KidX the SIG 320 won the largest pistol contract in the free world....Glock lost. Get over it, I am sure Glock has already moved on albeit with a couple less marketing executives. I would not be surprised to see Canada follow suit, if and when the Liberals come around to realize they have to eventually properly fund our forces.
They won a non contest, they won on price. I buy the cheapest toilet paper I can find, that doesn't mean it is the best performing toilet paper. Claven2 already pointed out(repeatedly) the Gov's own report indicating that the testing was far from complete and some creative interpretation was used to select the CHEAPER 320 before all testing was complete. The FBI who does the most rigorous testing on firearms has determined that the 320 is a poor performer and the Glock is superior. Apparently a completed set of testing is not as valid as the incomplete testing you seem to cling to.
Take Care
Bob
Me in the Green above
Very sad that the folks who need the training aren't getting it.. Hey Bob, read the above from OntarioTim.
Absolutely!! The whole point to testing is to see who/what performs best. Failing to test before awarding a winner is akin to a participation ribbon..
It's not the brand vs brand issue that boggles us. It is the ignorant beliefs and completely bogus information that is the problem. Facts are facts and some here either can't read or simply don't care to participate in the real world.
Soldiers are hard on gear as is anyone who uses stuff that isn't theirs. I'm not sure the 320 is any less robust than a Glock or anything else as far as abuse goes. Only time will tell.
True words..
Last edited:
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
And you know this how? Stats stats stats. Anything less is just amusing and unscientific personal anecdotes and fairytails.
Here are some amusing anecdotes from MY personal experience.
The vast majority of pistols issued to CAF members in theatres of operations will not see combat because they are primarily issued to people whose jobs will never take them into combat. So if that is what you meant by the pistols will not be used in combat, I am inclined to agree.
For the people who are not leaving the wire, and will not see combat, their pistol is NOT there for emergency reasons. It is there to free them of the burden of carrying a rifle while remaining compliant with camp policy that all CAF soldiers be armed with SOMETHING. I would rather see these people carry a whistle, as anyone who considers a firearm in a combat zone to be a liability doesn't have their head in the game. I have personally observed more than one person remove the firing the pin from their pistol/rifle so as to make their rifle incapable of firing, and thus incapable of a negligent discharge. These people determined that the repercussions of a negligent discharge was a greater threat than the enemy, and to be fair, they were probably right. But these are the same people who claim that being tied to their staff duties was a sufficient excuse for ducking out on range days during pre deployment training, and later blamed their lack of training on their poor skills and poor confidence with the weapons. In any event, these people don't even load their pistols, let alone chamber a round, so the safeties won't be getting used regardless. Lastly, a gun that is never going to get used is no more of a liability than a car that isn't going to get driven. It is the misuse and mishandling by the operator that is the liability, not the gun itself. The likelihood for needing is a justification for taking those peoples pistols away, not changing the firing mechanism on the pistol to make it more difficult to fire.
It is entirely possible that the US army was thinking of these people when they decided that they needed a safety on their pistol, but in my experience this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
As for soldiers in combat, their pistols also have a relatively low likelihood of being fired, but this is primarily because they always carry a primary, and our service rifles happen to be really really good. Few front line soldiers get a lot of pistol time, so most are more familiar/comfortable/proficient with their rifle, and in the event of a failure, they are more likely to work the stoppage on the rifle than transition to their pistol like they should. Obviously this is more common in the green army, SOF guys not being burdened by world war 2 dogma that says pistols are a sign of leadership, as opposed to a life saving back up gun.
In this day and age, from a tactical point of view, there really isn't any difference between police and military in the possible uses of their firearms. The likelihood of either facing particular situations may change, but that is fairly marginal. BOth can find themselves in a wild west shoot out, both can find themselves in a situation where merely pointing a firearm resolves it without a shot fired. Police who dual carry rifle/pistol have almost no difference in their drills, and both are out there looking for trouble. Whether a cop drawing his pistol in the face of unexpected danger, or a soldier with a malfunction on his primary who needs to transition, both need their gun in a hurry. Neither would want to be encumbered by added devices that slow their ability to fire when needed. Your claim that a startled surprised person forgetting to disengage their safety is less of an issue for soldiers, is fallacious. A soldier can just as easily be startled or surprised and need a firearm. Having your primary fail when you need it to fire, is even MORE stressful, and given the elapsed time, the requirement that your secondary function immediately is paramount. Police can draw their gun at the first sign of trouble, and often resolve a situation without a shot being fired.
That depends on the mission/theatre, but historically pistols were issued for the traditional reason of making leadership more readily identifiable, and to support trades who work with their hands and rifles are an unwanted encumbrance. That is slowly starting to change, and more pistols are getting pushed out to the front, but there simply aren't enough pistols in the system for everyone who needs one to get one, unless the people who merely want one or are historically entitled to one give them up.
In my platoon most of the LAV crew drivers and gunners would hand their pistols off to someone else in the section more likely to be first through a door. Each unit would have had their own SOP.
I guess everyone's experience will vary. What trade you are, and what unit you are in, will have a huge impact. Currently in the CAF it is mandated that every single member has to qualify on their primaries every year. Any CO who fails to facilitate the re qualification will find themselves in front the brigade commander getting a talking to. My Reserve unit organized no less than 3 range exercises annually, and everyone was expected to attend at least two. But we often held additional less formal training events, plus CAFSAC/marksmanship stuff. And that is routine training. Once you are identified for a particular deployment marksmanship training goes up dramatically, but again, different jobs may vary. Anyone who manages to get deployed without being highly proficient with their firearm has only themselves to blame, and probably spent a considerable amount of time avoiding the range.
Hopefully the 100 million they saved by going with SIG will be spent on training for those who will be getting issued them.
Cameron SS not having served in the infantry I have to ask. When you are in theater and on patrol do you have your rifle and pistol on safe or off safe. I ask because you suggest, I think wrongly that time would be wasted flicking off a safety. When drawing a 1911 or CZ with safeties both are off before I get to a level sight picture so why would a soldier be any different. First if it is applied then the time to swipe it off is not an issue and if it is not on then the gun is in the same position as it would be if the safety were not there.
I suspect the safety requirement is as you suggest, there primarily for troops with little or no training armed with one or as I suggested during training exercises which in the case of the US Army, is significant in terms of volumes of recruits.
I have decided to start a new thread so I will restrict my comment to the above.
Bob
I suspect the safety requirement is as you suggest, there primarily for troops with little or no training armed with one or as I suggested during training exercises which in the case of the US Army, is significant in terms of volumes of recruits.
I have decided to start a new thread so I will restrict my comment to the above.
Bob
Last edited:
Edit to add: the condition of your weapon is dictated by the threat level and is also dictated by CoC.
As a general rule, in a hostile theatre when we leave the wire our rifles are cocked and locked.
As for the BHP's, we periodically get orders to ground our pistols until they have been individually checked by weapon tech's because of faulty sears releasing hammers inadvertently so it is generally not advised to carry those cocked and locked. I think I recall being ordered explicitly to not carry them cocked and locked for similar reasons.
Pistols and rifles are vastly different tools. The handgun is holstered and only leaves the holster when a threat is close and my/your rifle has failed or is otherwise unavailable. Carrying the rifle is the normal process and the mechanical safety is nothing more than an insurance policy should you lose control of the firearm. Far more repetitions are done with the rifle and the mechanical safety/selector than any amount of training with a handgun. You also start with your hand on the pistol grip and thumb positioned for rapid selector movement.
Thanks for the reply. I thought this might be the case. My experience at the Canadian Small Arms Competition a few years ago had all the pistol competitors starting loaded but not made ready until after the buzzer and the rifle competitions started loaded and ready with the safety applied.
I was amazed at the competence of the UK group. They were just back from the Falklands a year or so earlier. They were really a well trained bunch. I was impressed! If you want to see a RO stand with his mouth open, you should have seen the look on my face when one of their shooters had a jam with his rifle when doing a rifle/pistol stage. It was worth the trip just for that experience alone.
Overall, after the two weeks I spent ROing one of the pistol bays, I sleep well knowing who watches out for this country.
Thank you for your service.
Take Care
Bob
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Weapon readiness states are determined on a mission by mission basis, but assuming that its a high threat level area, and weapons readiness states support carrying with a round in the chamber this is how I observed people carrying:
First, The operators manual for the browning high power specifically dictates that the browning be carried loaded with no round in the chamber, uncocked.
Likewise, the proper drill for the draw includes cycling the action on the draw. Similarly the drill for holster the pistol includes a 'make safe', which is a complete unload followed by reinserting the magazine but not putting a round in the chamber, leaving the gun uncocked and off safe.
Many people, even combat arms soldiers, carrying pistols overseas were not what I would call highly trained on the pistol, or even specifically familiar with the proper drills. Most would be minimally trained, while a tiny percentage I would say are by and large untrained.
Personally, I followed the doctrine, as that is what my training taught me to do. Before deploying I would have had above average training on the pistol. I never conducted any audits, but just from watching guys in the rifle company get read for a patrol, I would suspect that:
50% carried it as per doctrine, BECAUSE its doctrine
10% carried as per doctrine because they don't trust the gun with a round up the spout.
35% carried with a round in the chamber, cocked and on safe, because that is what they do with their rifle, and for whatever reason they choose to do the same with the pistol.
5% carry it unloaded because they forgot to load it, or do not anticipate needing it and are carrying it because they have to.
The C7 is always carried on patrol with a round chambered and on safe, if carrying with a round in the chamber is authorized. Most soldiers can take the weapon off safe while bringing it into the shoulder without an observable difference between not using the safety at all. Unscientific controlled tests conducted at the infantry school in Gagetown determined that carrying with the weapon off safe and taking a shot was on average about 0.10 Seconds faster than if the safety is used and disengaged while bringing the gun into the shoulder/up to the eye. Safeties do slow people down, but in competent shooters, it is a marginal slow down, and considering the amount of time soldiers spend with a round in the chamber NOT shooting, the consensus is that the added safety is worth the delayed response. Similar tests were NOT conducted for the pistol, and there was no consensus as to whether or not that same conclusions would be found with the BHP, or any other pistol.
As an interesting side note, the both the Sig Sauer 226 and 225 do not have safeties, and when either one is carried in a holster, it is always carried with a round chambered (if permitted by readiness states) and the hammer forward. in 2015, no one at the infantry school could give a documented explanation for the difference in drills between the Sig and the BHP. Lots of theories. No evidence. As far as anyone can tell the manual for the BHP was largely drawn from manufacturers published data on the pistol, which was never independently verified or tested by the military. It could simply be the fact that in the 1940s no one liked carrying it chambered, or there could be some long since forgotten technical reason. I don't think anything about the CAF's current practice with the BHP is in any way related to the US Army's decision to require a safety on their new pistol. It will be interesting to see if CAF requires a safety on their new pistol, whenever they get around to figuring out how to buy them.
Old worn out pistols are not drop safe. There is a particular angle that you can strike the pistol that will drop the hammer. Barrel parallel to the ground, moving downwards so as to contact the magazine plate with a slight 30 degree ish rearward angle. This is the same direction necessary to move the safety to the off position as well as to depress the sear and drop the hammer. IN my opinion, any pistol so worn out that this is the case is unsafe and should be quarantined, and this may very well be what Yohann experienced. Many people actually prefer these older pistols because the actions on them in general are much smoother, less prone to stoppages, and have lighter crisper trigger pulls. About half the pistols i saw in Afghanistan were brand new cosmoline covered war stock, and the other half were 20+ years of service unit owned pistol that had been very well worn.
Getting back to your original discussion, the safety on the BHP is problematic. First, it is very small. 99% of people on patrol are wearing gloves. In training, many people struggle to feel, let alone disengage the safety on the BHP. Second, on brand new pistols, the safety is so stiff that many of the smaller handed soldiers lack the physical strength to disengage it from a typical grip position, and need to adjust their hand position or use their left hand to disengage it. On the older pistols they are so loose that a soft tap on the bottom of the magazine can move the safety. Third, there is a particular subset of pistols in the fleet, typically the newer less worn pistols, that have a fun quirk where by if you attempt to fire the pistol while it is on safe, the sear locks up completely and the safety can not be moved until you manually #### the hammer all the way to rear. (while it is cocked and sitting on the sear, it is only at 95% of its available rearward travel). You need to #### it back that last 5% before you can get the safety to release, and you can then disengage it. Not exactly something you want someone to have to struggle with under stress, while faced with a lethal threat, AFTER their rifle has already failed.
I am sure with modern combat pistols featuring a safety, these issues would not be present and it is entirely likely that removing the safety on the draw can be achieved with a comparable or less delay in response as seen in testing conducted on the rifles. I would sure love to see the result. I would also love to know how many of the worlds fastest competition shooters use guns with safeties. I don't believe for a second that there could ever be a NO-TIME-COST safety, but Armies strike a balance between speed and a variety of other factors. For the guys who are trained and carrying a pistol as their last ditch insurance policy, speed should really be the only consideration, as long as it doesn't compromise their safety. I would never accept putting my life at risk by an added 1/10 of a second just so that some hesco hobbit at the airfield can be 2% less likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
The people who write the matches for CAFSAC are familiar with the manual for the BHP, and the matches are probably written to reflect the doctrinal TTPs for the pistol. I always smile to myself when new competitors to CAFSAC complain about having to rack off the draw, as "thats not how we did it overseas".
Most of the guys I have seen from the UK that come over to CAFSAC are coming in from a rotation at BATUS, which is where they do a significant amount of small arms training. The UK teams always do well at CAFSAC. Brit performance at Canadian Patrol Competition performance is a bit more dodgy, but 36 hours in Wainwright in November is not something that you can really be prepared for, unless you have already been there.
Tragically, a UK soldier was shot and wounded in Ottawa this week, after a drive by shooting in the wee hours outside a bar. Current information is that he is recovering with serious but non life threatening injuries.
Cameron SS thank you for your reply. As indicated in my reply to another yohan60 you are confirming what I thought was the case but with no first hand information.
I can answer some of your questions. The SIG 226/225 when decocked is in the same condition of readiness as a striker fired pistol. The difference is the striker fired pistol striker has very little rearward movement before the sear is tripped and the gun fires. The SIG 226/225 in service have heavy, long trigger pulls before the sear is tripped. I think one can argue reasonably there is a safety factor involved when your pistol has the long heavy trigger. Both the Glock and M&P exhibit some rearward movement of the striker when the trigger is pulled. The XD has none as the striker is fully set when the slide is racked. For all practical purposes, neither the Glock or M&P have any safeties when the trigger is pulled upon inadvertently. The fall back that you should depend on what is between the shooters ears makes little sense if indeed someone puts a bullet in their leg.
The Cdn Army's Inglis is a 1935 design from a whole different era. The fact it remains in service tells you more about how little reliance the pistol plays in the Army as well as how much real support the Army gets from the Cdn taxpayer via their elected representatives. The manual of arms for the gun reflects the designs age and the period the manual was written. I suspect it hasn't changed since my days marching around HMCS Nonsuch in Edmonton back in the early 60's.
As to the draw with a safety applied this occurs every week by competitors shooting 1911's in CDP Division at IDPA events and by competitors in Standard Division in IPSC. From watching the top competitors I can tell you with certainty there is no time lost in swiping off a manual safety. From my own experience shooting my 1911's in competitions swiping the manual safety off and in my case on has no effect on the time to draw and shoot. It all becomes a bit 2nd nature. Assuming the US Army is in the same relative state the Canadian Army is as regards to those serving in the infantry the need for a safety is readily apparent probably more than the need for a fast draw. Given the amount of stuff you are carrying while on patrol, I would think the latter would be almost impossible to achieve in any event. What is clear is the requirements of the modern infantry are not exactly those encountered in the civilian marketplace. A fast draw by the top shooters would be in the .5 to 1 second range I would think from concealment. I am pretty average type shooter who is in his salad years and I manage from concealment about a 1.4 - 1.60 draw for comparison. I'll let the young Turks argue over the times. I doubt there would be any way such a draw could be achieved when fully kitted out for one of your patrols.
While still supported a lot of the top IDPA CDP shooters have moved on to the Glock and M&P in 45acp. The lighter guns with a higher degree of reliability now pretty much dominate the sport. Too, they are less expensive on average combined with their light weight makes them attractive to the CCW market in the US where most of the IDPA members reside.
My prayers go out to the UK soldier who was wounded in Ottawa. I hope they catch the bugger who shot him. The social scene in Ottawa in the early hours of the morning would seem to be the same as they are everywhere else these days.
Thank you for your service as well. You serve a rather ambivalent lot.
Take Care
Bob
I can answer some of your questions. The SIG 226/225 when decocked is in the same condition of readiness as a striker fired pistol. The difference is the striker fired pistol striker has very little rearward movement before the sear is tripped and the gun fires. The SIG 226/225 in service have heavy, long trigger pulls before the sear is tripped. I think one can argue reasonably there is a safety factor involved when your pistol has the long heavy trigger. Both the Glock and M&P exhibit some rearward movement of the striker when the trigger is pulled. The XD has none as the striker is fully set when the slide is racked. For all practical purposes, neither the Glock or M&P have any safeties when the trigger is pulled upon inadvertently. The fall back that you should depend on what is between the shooters ears makes little sense if indeed someone puts a bullet in their leg.
The Cdn Army's Inglis is a 1935 design from a whole different era. The fact it remains in service tells you more about how little reliance the pistol plays in the Army as well as how much real support the Army gets from the Cdn taxpayer via their elected representatives. The manual of arms for the gun reflects the designs age and the period the manual was written. I suspect it hasn't changed since my days marching around HMCS Nonsuch in Edmonton back in the early 60's.
As to the draw with a safety applied this occurs every week by competitors shooting 1911's in CDP Division at IDPA events and by competitors in Standard Division in IPSC. From watching the top competitors I can tell you with certainty there is no time lost in swiping off a manual safety. From my own experience shooting my 1911's in competitions swiping the manual safety off and in my case on has no effect on the time to draw and shoot. It all becomes a bit 2nd nature. Assuming the US Army is in the same relative state the Canadian Army is as regards to those serving in the infantry the need for a safety is readily apparent probably more than the need for a fast draw. Given the amount of stuff you are carrying while on patrol, I would think the latter would be almost impossible to achieve in any event. What is clear is the requirements of the modern infantry are not exactly those encountered in the civilian marketplace. A fast draw by the top shooters would be in the .5 to 1 second range I would think from concealment. I am pretty average type shooter who is in his salad years and I manage from concealment about a 1.4 - 1.60 draw for comparison. I'll let the young Turks argue over the times. I doubt there would be any way such a draw could be achieved when fully kitted out for one of your patrols.
While still supported a lot of the top IDPA CDP shooters have moved on to the Glock and M&P in 45acp. The lighter guns with a higher degree of reliability now pretty much dominate the sport. Too, they are less expensive on average combined with their light weight makes them attractive to the CCW market in the US where most of the IDPA members reside.
My prayers go out to the UK soldier who was wounded in Ottawa. I hope they catch the bugger who shot him. The social scene in Ottawa in the early hours of the morning would seem to be the same as they are everywhere else these days.
Thank you for your service as well. You serve a rather ambivalent lot.
Take Care
Bob
Does that include accuracy and reliability (FTF) tests?
Christ why do you think they put a safety on a handgun for? You are one remarkable dude.
Take Care
Bob
Glock and it's fans are kinda sore loosers
Did more people vote for the glock but the sig won anyway??...
Uh nope, and looks have absolutely zero to do with anything.
No bob, incorporating other drop safeties like a firing pin block is how the manufacturer prevents unintentional discharges when the manual safety is disengaged on a pistol. A double action firing mechanism is yet another passive safety that prevents firing should the gun be dropped. Your rifle is in your hands and is therefore in control at all times. The chances of dropping your rifle when you have mounted the rifle and aligned the sights with a target and then made the conscious decision to fire and thus disengage the safety is quite slim. If it were to happen I doubt the rifle would fire. The manual safety is more about losing control when the rifle is slung, or the rifle falls off a truck/table. foreign objects entering the trigger guard like weeds or tree branches or other pieces of gear.
When your thumb rests on the safety it takes no time to disengage it. When you have to first draw the pistol then play with a mechanical lever before firing it makes for a lot of wasted time and greater potential for failure. Remember, you drew the pistol because of an imminent threat, usually one who has initiated contact which puts your behind the OODA loop already. Adding steps when time is short is a dumb idea.
Oh snap
They never do. You never hear of shootings among the drug dealers in Vancouver that occur in the day time. After mid-night in Surrey and a few other areas in the Greater Vancouver area, a whole different story. Does it really matter where the shooting "actually" took place. I mean really.
Take Care
Bob
