Cameron SS - send a note to the US Army and explain to them they don't have any idea what they are doing. Let them know how deficient their selection process was and how utterly useless their requirement for a manual safety was. Let us know when they get back to you. Until then SIG won the contract, Glock lost. No matter how deficient the selection process might be that is the end result.
When it comes time to replace the Inglis my hope is the the selection is based upon price buying anyone of a half dozen or so mainstream polymer 9MM pistols with or without safeties. The decision will not affect my next purchase of a firearm.
Take Care
Bob
According to the US Army the average age of a new recruit was under 21 in 2012. In that year they processed 155,000 new recruits the lowest in decades. You still don't want a manual safety on a pistol? That number is almost 3x more than the Canadian Army and some here feel we should lecture them on how to manage their training. Let us know when they phone you.
When did I ever suggest that the US Army has no idea what they are doing?
When did I ever suggest that their selection process was deficient.
When did I ever suggest that their requirement for a manual safety was useless.
When did I ever comment on the outcome of the tender, SIG vs Glock?
Lets take a breath shall we? You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I respect your right to disagree, but the attitude and putting words in my mouth is not required.
What is it about being young or inexperienced that makes you think a safety is required, necessary, or even beneficial, given what I have shared above? You seem to ASSUME its necessary, but why?
Most professional instructors will always tell you to never trust the safety anyways. Unlike other weapon systems, the pistol is the secondary. The back up. The SHTF go-to gun. No one wages war with a pistol. It is for immediate close range self defense and moving through tight spaces. The safety is just one more thing in between you dying for your country or making the other guy die for his.
In my experience, The age of the shooter does not matter in the least. Whether you are 8, or 80, if you are learning something new, best to start simple. The number of recruits they processed also doesn't matter. Whether one person, or one million people, you need the right tool for the job. Quantity of shooters only affects the quantity of pistols needed. I highly doubt the cost of adding a safety would have affected overall contract price much, and regardless, being a competitive tender, I doubt the US military would have cared about what the added cost would have been, because at the end of the day they still would have chosen the lowest cost compliant/best value tender.
I have no idea why the US army needed a manual safety. I don't care. It might be part of a larger training methodology preference. Are you familiar with the SOP for loading an M4? by the book? M4 is functionally identical to the Canadian C7/C8, but the two militaries have very different handling drills.
Canadian Load/Ready drill:
Insert Magazine. Cycle Action. Place weapon on safe.
American Load/Ready drill:
Cycle Action. Place weapon on safe. Insert Magazine. Cycle Action again.
Any opinions on why that is? Some might say that the US way is a safer way to load the rifle, because the safety is on BEFORE a round is chambered. Sounds good in theory, but I would like to see the stats, if they exist, between Canadian and US basic training courses and the rate of negligent discharge. Even if there was a notable difference, like I said before, the equipment is only one factor.
Maybe the US army wants to have a standardized set of weapons drills that transfer across as many weapon systems as possible, and putting a safety on the pistol brings it into line with the rest of the fleet. I can see the value in that, regardless of objective need for the manual safety.
Even if the firearm was inherently less safe without a manual safety, this difference could easily be mitigated through better, or more training. Some bean counter may have been the one who sat down and said manual safeties are PRESUMABLY cheaper to buy than adequate training (because good training is always expensive), and that alone was responsible for the requirement.
Whats your theory? I've re-read all your posts, and you seem to take for granted that the presence of a safety guarantees a reduction in accidents. Do you have any science you would like to share that supports this? I wouldn't for a second assume that just because the military wants a manual safety, that there is a direct and measurable affect on accidents. Lots of things that were commonly accepted as self-evident and not needing evidence are being turned on their head every day.
So I find your insight on the competition and tender issue interesting, and informative. I have no particular issue with who won or why.
Still doesn't make me want a manual safety, or convince me that its beneficial.
Kindly,
Cameron
I've seen a ton of this too, particularly on the rifles, even people "tapping" their triggers as a kind of fidget. Now back in civvie life, I worked in professions where the first and only handguns handled by new recruits/employees are typically striker-fired Glocks and M&Ps. A lot of emphasis is placed on "keep your finger away from that trigger or it'll go off!" and lo and behold, everyone is real careful about their handling practices.
Ditto. Manual Safeties are usually a crutch that no one needs, but when you have one, you are more likely to lean on it.
If anyone could actually produce some robust and compelling data to show controlled studies that demonstrated a clear decrease of accidents directly from the presence and proper use of manual safeties, I would quickly change my mind, but for the time being I remain skeptical that they have anything to do with actual safety, and maybe the appearance of safety.
