CF small arms trial completed

[Cameron SS]

Glocks get a fail because disassembly requires a dry fire....bad juju

This. And with all the respect to the Glock lovers out there, this is properly a deal breaker for CAF because the requirement to dry fire on disassembly will result in lots of negligent discharges, especially on operations where the immediate supervision and control measures typical of shooting ranges and formal training environments is not in place.

 

[Cameron SS]

funny how Glocks are the most common issued pistol to Law enforcement across NA and countless others in civilian hands, yet soldiers can't clear a firearm before disassembly.

in all fairness, one of the biggest flaws I have seen though is that they have tendency to dryfire as part of the proving safe process. That right there is bad juju and poor policy.

Boltgun

Its not funny. Your average police officer has a university degree or college experience, a drivers license, numerous other certifications. The average age of a police officer getting hired in Canada is 25+, in some municipal forces its over 30. All officers are full time employees, trained and certified regularly. The pistol is their primary weapon system.

IN the CAF, they hire people at 16 for the reserves and 17 for the regular force. Grade 10 is the minimum education requirement. There are no other educational or professional prerequisites. The pistol is no ones primary weapon system, and the CAF has produced entire generations of soldiers who were never taught the service pistol on any of their career courses, and many units go years without every requalifying anyone. The state of the service pistol fleet is so degraded that many units, especially reserve force units, do not even hold enough pistols to conduct annual refresher training.

And of those units that do train on the pistol regularly, I am not aware of any that would embark on a training plan that actually lets people get proficient. The only soldiers I know in the Canadian Forces who are actually good with a pistol are good because of extensive civilian and/or personal experience elsewhere.

The Service pistol is probably the most neglected, misunderstood, and under appreciated weapon system in the entire fleet of CAF weapons, and there are many generals and senior leaders who see them as a relic of the last century, useful only as a symbol of authority, or as a convenient excuse to not carry a rifle.

The attitude and approach to a service pistol between CAF and other law enforcement agencies couldn't be more stark, and the people who are writing the requirements for CAFs service pistol understand this.

The problem isn't the Glock. The Glock is a great gun and while it wouldn't be my first choice, I'd be happy to throw my Browning into Clement Lake and carry a Glock 19.

The problem is the CAF, and we would need to fundamentally rewrite our approach to service pistols before something with a dry fire on disassembly was suitable for mass issue to the entire force.

 

[Boltgun]

This. And with all the respect to the Glock lovers out there, this is properly a deal breaker for CAF because the requirement to dry fire on disassembly will result in lots of negligent discharges, especially on operations where the immediate supervision and control measures typical of shooting ranges and formal training environments is not in place.

I will respectfully disagree with you here. Every Profession that carries a firearm has a basis of training to prove the firearm safe prior to disassembly. Having been around firearms since 1984, recreationally and professionally since 1988, the need to prove safe prior to disassembly has been universal. what hasn't been universal is the need to "relieve" spring tension and dryfiring as part of proving safe. That is the problem.

 

[Boltgun]

Its not funny. Your average police officer has a university degree or college experience, a drivers license, numerous other certifications. The average age of a police officer getting hired in Canada is 25+, in some municipal forces its over 30. All officers are full time employees, trained and certified regularly. The pistol is their primary weapon system.

IN the CAF, they hire people at 16 for the reserves and 17 for the regular force. Grade 10 is the minimum education requirement. There are no other educational or professional prerequisites. The pistol is no ones primary weapon system, and the CAF has produced entire generations of soldiers who were never taught the service pistol on any of their career courses, and many units go years without every requalifying anyone. The state of the service pistol fleet is so degraded that many units, especially reserve force units, do not even hold enough pistols to conduct annual refresher training.

And of those units that do train on the pistol regularly, I am not aware of any that would embark on a training plan that actually lets people get proficient. The only soldiers I know in the Canadian Forces who are actually good with a pistol are good because of extensive civilian and/or personal experience elsewhere.

The Service pistol is probably the most neglected, misunderstood, and under appreciated weapon system in the entire fleet of CAF weapons, and there are many generals and senior leaders who see them as a relic of the last century, useful only as a symbol of authority, or as a convenient excuse to not carry a rifle.

The attitude and approach to a service pistol between CAF and other law enforcement agencies couldn't be more stark, and the people who are writing the requirements for CAFs service pistol understand this.

The problem isn't the Glock. The Glock is a great gun and while it wouldn't be my first choice, I'd be happy to throw my Browning into Clement Lake and carry a Glock 19.

The problem is the CAF, and we would need to fundamentally rewrite our approach to service pistols before something with a dry fire on disassembly was suitable for mass issue to the entire force.

So I have had the privilege to train both reserve and reg force types who became cops either after/during their military career. The one thing that stood out very obviously is manual of arms training sticking out loud and clear during carbine training. It made no sense for me to "retrain" reasonable skills out of them (ie using bolt catch on AR to cause BCG to go forward vs using Charging Handle). The only time I "changed" anything is when it was unreasonable....ie dryfiring after proving safe. Young people 16-17 can actually be easier to train when it comes to repetitive skills.

the only thing that needs to change is to remove the need to dryfire upon proving safe. There we agencies that did that exact thing, and had ND's, then when they adopted the no dryfire policy as part of the proving safe process, the ND's disappeared for the most part.

I have reviewed many ND events. I examined pistols/shotguns/rifles involved in ND events...in EVERY case, none of the guns malfunctioned. ALL guns functioned as they were intended. EVERY case was operator error. some included rem 870/Beretta 96D/Glock.

Boltgun

 

[Cameron SS]

I will respectfully disagree with you here. Every Profession that carries a firearm has a basis of training to prove the firearm safe prior to disassembly. Having been around firearms since 1984, recreationally and professionally since 1988, the need to prove safe prior to disassembly has been universal. what hasn't been universal is the need to "relieve" spring tension and dryfiring as part of proving safe. That is the problem.

I agree that every professional user of firearms is taught to clear the firearm prior to disassembly. The same is true for every civilian firearms safety course I have ever seen.

I don't think anyone is of the view that you don't need to prove the firearm safe before disassembly. The issue is what happens if you don't.

I have yet to see any research report on this issue, in any format from any jurisdiction in the world, however it is a common understanding, and perhaps annecdotally true for most firearms users, that the failure to PROPERLY prove a firearm safe before disassembly is a leading cause of negligent discharge.

I agree readily that if you prove the firearm safe, there is nothing at all wrong with the requirement to dry fire as part of disassembly.
The problem is you can not assume that simply because the firearm NEEDS to be proven safe, that a all users at all times WILL prove the firearm safe.

A firearm with a requirement to dry fire as part of disassembly will be unforgiving to a user who fails to properly clear the gun, and the CAF is all about additional lawyers of risk mitigation. Another way to mitigate that risk would be to simply invest properly in training people how to use the equipment, and not issuing the pistol to soldiers who have no business carrying one. But simply buying a pistol without that feature is a far cheaper proposition.

I'm not sure we are very far apart in our positions.

 

[Boltgun]

I agree that every professional user of firearms is taught to clear the firearm prior to disassembly. The same is true for every civilian firearms safety course I have ever seen.

I don't think anyone is of the view that you don't need to prove the firearm safe before disassembly. The issue is what happens if you don't.

I have yet to see any research report on this issue, in any format from any jurisdiction in the world, however it is a common understanding, and perhaps annecdotally true for most firearms users, that the failure to PROPERLY prove a firearm safe before disassembly is a leading cause of negligent discharge.

I agree readily that if you prove the firearm safe, there is nothing at all wrong with the requirement to dry fire as part of disassembly.
The problem is you can not assume that simply because the firearm NEEDS to be proven safe, that a all users at all times WILL prove the firearm safe.

A firearm with a requirement to dry fire as part of disassembly will be unforgiving to a user who fails to properly clear the gun, and the CAF is all about additional lawyers of risk mitigation. Another way to mitigate that risk would be to simply invest properly in training people how to use the equipment, and not issuing the pistol to soldiers who have no business carrying one. But simply buying a pistol without that feature is a far cheaper proposition.

I'm not sure we are very far apart in our positions.

We aren't very far off. just one thing,

"I have yet to see any research report on this issue, in any format from any jurisdiction in the world, however it is a common understanding, and perhaps annecdotally true for most firearms users, that the failure to PROPERLY prove a firearm safe before disassembly is a leading cause of negligent discharge."

I'm not so sure it is before disassembly. matter of fact I know it isn't. Matter of fact in ALL but one (and the one cannot be determined as no one owned up to it and no one was there - but there was evidence that a round had been fired) - disassembly was never happening. the ND occured because of improper proving safe. and the mistaken error of dryfiring occurred. Reach out to some of your local LE/MIL/Armed guards/ETC and see for yourself. You will likely be surprised. Heck even reach out to your own internal investigations on ND's and see how many occurred as a part of disassembly vs firing the gun when they thought it was safe. I am will to bet that the lion's share will be the latter and that hardly any were as a result of someone saying they were about to disassemble.

This is very much a case of the devil being in the details.

I will give you an example. When semi's were adopted in the province of Ont, the most common method to prove the pistol safe was to either draw or from holster/remove the mag/cycle the slide 3 times/lock open/check chamber and magwell for rounds/look down the barrel for dirt/damage/obstructions. The thinking behind the rack 3 times is that one would think the user would notice 2-3 rounds being racked out if they hadn't removed the mag......nope.....still had ND's.

The center that trains all police in Ontario changed the the process to draw or from holster/remove the mag/lock open the slide/check chamber and magwell for rounds/look down the barrel for dirt/damage/obstructions. Emphasis was on lock open the slide and check chamber as the training points. ND's went down. when they still occurred, it was usually someone who had been trained on the older method who made the mistake as they hadn't fully adopted the new methodology.

Boltgun

 

[Undergiver]

CZ now owns Colt Canada which as first rights on any new small arms for the CAF, So I doubt any other company will sell their TDP to a rival competitor. My bet is either on the CZ Shadow 2 or P-10. I have seen the CAF requirements for a new pistol and the Glock was automatically out because of the pulling trigger to disassemble feature, but so does the P-10 so who knows what they select. The requirement is also for a modular pistol so then the Shadow 2 is out. The Sig P320 seems to fit all requirements.

 

[Boltgun]

CZ now owns Colt Canada which as first rights on any new small arms for the CAF, my bet is either on the CZ Shadow 2 or P-10. So I doubt any other company will sell their TDP to a rival competitor.

they will be submitting a contender.

 

[Cameron SS]

So I have had the privilege to train both reserve and reg force types who became cops either after/during their military career. The one thing that stood out very obviously is manual of arms training sticking out loud and clear during carbine training. It made no sense for me to "retrain" reasonable skills out of them (ie using bolt catch on AR to cause BCG to go forward vs using Charging Handle). The only time I "changed" anything is when it was unreasonable....ie dryfiring after proving safe. Young people 16-17 can actually be easier to train when it comes to repetitive skills.

the only thing that needs to change is to remove the need to dryfire upon proving safe. There we agencies that did that exact thing, and had ND's, then when they adopted the no dryfire policy as part of the proving safe process, the ND's disappeared for the most part.

I have reviewed many ND events. I examined pistols/shotguns/rifles involved in ND events...in EVERY case, none of the guns malfunctioned. ALL guns functioned as they were intended. EVERY case was operator error. some included rem 870/Beretta 96D/Glock.

Boltgun

Your experience aligns very closely with my own. Even in cases where the gun malfunctioned, it was a result of operator induced error or damage.

I've observed/reviewed investigation/hear tell of numerous NDs, and despite the fact that rifle usage among the CAF is 1000 if not 10,000 times more person hours of use than the service pistol, the rate of NDs is almost equal. I've examined other nations who carry the M16ish platform who have very different operator drills, and very different rates of negligent discharges, but no way of comparing rate of ND per hours of use.

I'm sure you have seen many NDs related to a person readying the service rifle with the finger on the trigger, while the selector is set to auto. In the US Army, they actually #### the gun and place the weapon on safe prior to loading the mag and cocking the gun again, just to ensure that the weapon is on safe prior to chambering a round.

It would be an interesting study to actually measure the effect that a change in drills has on incident rate of negligent discharge, but that would be an expensive study and probably wouldn't reveal any surprises.

 

[Cameron SS]

CZ now owns Colt Canada which as first rights on any new small arms for the CAF, So I doubt any other company will sell their TDP to a rival competitor. My bet is either on the CZ Shadow 2 or P-10. I have seen the CAF requirements for a new pistol and the Glock was automatically out because of the pulling trigger to disassemble feature, but so does the P-10 so who knows what they select.

Actually, the whole point of this tender is that Colt Canada does not have first rights to supply a service pistol, nor is there a requirement for Canada to transfer the bidders TDP to the CC under the MSP. Canada already tried that and the result was no one even submitted a bid. This bid has been completely rewritten to avoid the requirements of the MSP. If Canada was interested in sole sourcing a contract to Colt they can and would have done so.

If the P-10 requires firing to disassemble then yes it out, but also the more stringent requirement is the requirement for a self contained fire control unit that is removeable from the grip module.

 

[OkayShooter]

Your experience aligns very closely with my own. Even in cases where the gun malfunctioned, it was a result of operator induced error or damage.

I've observed/reviewed investigation/hear tell of numerous NDs, and despite the fact that rifle usage among the CAF is 1000 if not 10,000 times more person hours of use than the service pistol, the rate of NDs is almost equal. I've examined other nations who carry the M16ish platform who have very different operator drills, and very different rates of negligent discharges, but no way of comparing rate of ND per hours of use.

I'm sure you have seen many NDs related to a person readying the service rifle with the finger on the trigger, while the selector is set to auto. In the US Army, they actually #### the gun and place the weapon on safe prior to loading the mag and cocking the gun again, just to ensure that the weapon is on safe prior to chambering a round.

It would be an interesting study to actually measure the effect that a change in drills has on incident rate of negligent discharge, but that would be an expensive study and probably wouldn't reveal any surprises.

Yeah a few times American gave us flak for our guns being on "semi" As they cannot be placed on safe, if the hammer isn't cocked.

Honestly I cannot wrap my head around the requirement, of not pulling the trigger to disassemble. I think the main choice should be. Picking a gun without a stupid mag safety. As most NDs I've witness/heard. Were due to putting a mag back in and muscle memory taking over while being tired.

 

[Cameron SS]

Yeah a few times American gave us flak for our guns being on "semi" As they cannot be placed on safe, if the hammer isn't cocked.

Honestly I cannot wrap my head around the requirement, of not pulling the trigger to disassemble. I think the main choice should be. Picking a gun without a stupid mag safety. As most NDs I've witness/heard. Were due to putting a mag back in and muscle memory taking over while being tired.

You can't wrap your head around it, but yet you are almost there.

Think about how much that magazine safety TOGETHER with improper drills, results in an ND.
All you need to get an ND with the Glock is to attempt to disassemble with a loaded magazine fitted.

And even further, and this just dawned on me, CAF will buy a new pistol and probably do an atrociously bad job of retraining people on the new pistol, and so you have soldiers who have spent 2 to 20 years struggling with magazines on the unload and function test, and these same people are now going to have to fire on the disassemble. Imagine if someone confused the old drills with the new.

Training scars are a big deal. Pistol training in the CAF hovers between a dangerously inadequate amount of baseline training, horrendous skill fade and some of the worst training scars out there. And of course we haven't even talked about retention cords or that god awful universal holster the CAF uses.

It honestly wouldn't be that bad if CAF just got out of the business of teaching soldiers to use pistols altogether, and adopted a BYOPistol policy.
***No need to tell me the 101 reasons why a BYOP policy would be bad or wouldn't work. I know. ***

 

[Cameron SS]

Yeah a few times American gave us flak for our guns being on "semi" As they cannot be placed on safe, if the hammer isn't cocked.

Have you seen how they load their C6/M40B?

Mechanically, I understand it, but it makes me cringe every time.

 

[OkayShooter]

Have you seen how they load their C6/M40B?

Mechanically, I understand it, but it makes me cringe every time.

Honestly I cannot remember.

You can't wrap your head around it, but yet you are almost there.

Think about how much that magazine safety TOGETHER with improper drills, results in an ND.
All you need to get an ND with the Glock is to attempt to disassemble with a loaded magazine fitted.

And even further, and this just dawned on me, CAF will buy a new pistol and probably do an atrociously bad job of retraining people on the new pistol, and so you have soldiers who have spent 2 to 20 years struggling with magazines on the unload and function test, and these same people are now going to have to fire on the disassemble. Imagine if someone confused the old drills with the new.

Training scars are a big deal. Pistol training in the CAF hovers between a dangerously inadequate amount of baseline training, horrendous skill fade and some of the worst training scars out there. And of course we haven't even talked about retention cords or that god awful universal holster the CAF uses.

It honestly wouldn't be that bad if CAF just got out of the business of teaching soldiers to use pistols altogether, and adopted a BYOPistol policy.
***No need to tell me the 101 reasons why a BYOP policy would be bad or wouldn't work. I know. ***

I mean it isn't rocket science. But it is what happens, when people outside the military, that has no knowledge of firearms, get trained to teach people. And your TOETs are from the 40s.

Lost a someone on tour by a "pistol" incident. Kevin probably would still be alive if the Hi Power had no mag safety. Dad has some stories from being on Base Defense, and I got some other stories. All revolving around pistols. Alot by people that don't carry them much. But like I said.. It isn't rocket science.

 

[Cameron SS]

Honestly I cannot remember.

To load - ready the MG they:
#### the gun
Put it on safe
Stuff the belt into the feed pawls without opening the feed cover, until the feed pawls engage and grab the belt. The belt will not be up against the cartridge stop.
Take the gun off safe.
Fire the action. *Click*.
#### the gun. Advancing the belt against the cartridge stop.
put gun on safe.

Weird.

 

[OkayShooter]

To load - ready the MG they:
#### the gun
Put it on safe
Stuff the belt into the feed pawls without opening the feed cover, until the feed pawls engage and grab the belt. The belt will not be up against the cartridge stop.
Take the gun off safe.
Fire the action. *Click*.
#### the gun. Advancing the belt against the cartridge stop.
put gun on safe.

Weird.

Inserts that disbelief meme...

 

[Undergiver]

You would not believe how many officers cannot even install the barrel on the HP. I show them once take it out have them do it for themselves and they still have difficulty. Lack of training is a big factor, some reach the rank of Capt and still never even fired the 9mm.

 

[Boltgun]

Your experience aligns very closely with my own. Even in cases where the gun malfunctioned, it was a result of operator induced error or damage.
I'm sure you have seen many NDs related to a person readying the service rifle with the finger on the trigger, while the selector is set to auto. In the US Army, they actually #### the gun and place the weapon on safe prior to loading the mag and cocking the gun again, just to ensure that the weapon is on safe prior to chambering a round.

fortunately no. Majority of LE on't use FA, and majority load with selector on safe.

 

[maxman1]

To load - ready the MG they:
#### the gun
Put it on safe
Stuff the belt into the feed pawls without opening the feed cover, until the feed pawls engage and grab the belt. The belt will not be up against the cartridge stop.
Take the gun off safe.
Fire the action. *Click*.
#### the gun. Advancing the belt against the cartridge stop.
put gun on safe.

Weird.

I wonder if that's a hold over from the M60, which, prior to the M60E3 redesign, the bolt had to cocked to close the feed cover because the cover could not shut with the bolt forward, which is believed to have caused a lot of machine gunners (and the other troops they were covering) killed in Vietnam when they couldn't get their guns back up.

 

[greentips]

You would not believe how many officers cannot even install the barrel on the HP. I show them once take it out have them do it for themselves and they still have difficulty. Lack of training is a big factor, some reach the rank of Capt and still never even fired the 9mm.

This problem will go away on its own once we have the the wonderful striker plastic gun.

BHP needs to go, like right now.