PDA

View Full Version : On DA triggers- John Farnam Quips


OBIWAN
February 1, 2006, 03:51 PM
Sage comments on "trigger control" from my friends at ASTA:

"On the issue of trigger-cocking pistols, ASTA conducted an experiment not long ago. We constructed a darkened alley. At the end we put a group of actors, posing as of noisy, obnoxious, drunken miscreants. They were loud and verbally threatening at times but clumsy and disorganized, and none produced a weapon. All kept their distance. Each practitioner tried to make his way past the reprobates to the end of the alley, and an exit.

During the exercise, most practitioners found it necessary to draw a snubby revolver (loaded with Simmunitions cartridges) and engage perceived threats with verbal challenges. The revolver, issued to each practitioner, had a long trigger pull of fourteen pounds. The inexperienced had their fingers on the trigger immediately and kept it there through the entire confrontation. The sage, of course, kept their fingers in register. Our cadre of actors was instructed to conduct themselves in a way that made it unnecessary for practitioners to actually fire at them, and, in fact, no practitioner ever fired intentionally.

Leaning against a wall was a semi-conscious drunk, wrapped in a tarp, complete with a bottle in his hand. He periodically mumbled to himself but presented no verbal threat and did not make eye contact with practitioners. Our resident 'bum' was scarcely noticed by most practitioners, as they were far more interested in what they perceived as active threats. When each practitioner passed the 'bum,' without a word, he reached out and grabbed them by the ankle!

During the 'grabbing' phase, most practitioners already had the pistol in their hands. Our survey quickly noted that nearly all practitioners who had fingers inside the trigger guard at the moment they were grabbed fired a shot unintentionally as a result. Practitioners who kept their finger in register almost never experienced an ND when grabbed.

What we were trying to evaluate was the premise that long, heavy trigger pulls were, or were not, useful in preventing NDs during pernicious confrontations. The inescapable conclusion to which we all came was that THE ONLY RELIABLE PREVENTOR OF SUCH NDs IS THE PERSONAL DISCIPLINE TO ADHERE TO CORRECT PROCEDURES OF PRIMARY COMPETENCY IN GUN HANDLING. Obviously, triggers that are long and heavy were of little use therein, in and of themselves.

Our dispute with the mistaken premise that long, heavy trigger pull weights meaningfully contributing to the reduction of NDs is that there is little credible evidence to support it. In fact, what believable evidence there is suggests exactly the opposite! It is a false assumption, promoted by big-city police executives and mayors who are motivated neither by officer welfare nor public safety but are desperately motivated by the fearful specter of seeing their own names prominently displayed on case captions!

This situation is likened to the current dispute within the police community over the 'design flaw' in the Glock system that does not permit take-down of the pistol without first dry-firing. This 'flaw,' so goes the trumped-up argument, results in NDs. Removed from this curious equitation is the conspicuous violation, by the operator who experienced the ND, of primary competency skills, basic gun-handling rules one learns on his first day at the range!

Modern pistols are designed and manufactured so that they are as 'safe' as they can be and still reasonably function in the role into which they are cast. As with all 'nanny-state' ideology, THE MORE WE EXCUSE BANEFUL, STUPID BEHAVIOR, AND INDEED FUNCTION AS FACILITATORS BY FABRICATING DELUSIONAL, ILLOGICAL 'CURES,' THE FASTER WE, AS A CIVILIZATION, DESCEND INTO CHAOS!"

Comment: Any gun that can be made to fire at all can be made to fire (1) at the wrong time, (2) in the wrong place, (3) in the wrong direction, and (4) for the wrong reasons. The fool's errand of attempting to manufacture 'safe' guns invariably results in the creation of impotent guns. It is akin to attempting the manufacture of 'safe' rat poison! So long as it is genuinely functional as rat poison, it cannot be made inherently 'safe.' Guns are currently as safe as they're ever going to be! Issuing guns that are unusable, because they are nearly unfireable, may make some police chiefs sleep soundly, but it does nothing to promote officer or public safety. So long as good people have operative guns, bad/stupid people will have them too. Welcome to Planet Earth!

smince
February 1, 2006, 04:32 PM
I Agree!

buzz_knox
February 1, 2006, 04:43 PM
Just goes to show that double action trigger pull will provide some protection from "administrative" NDs but little to none from a panic induced ND.

exar
February 1, 2006, 04:46 PM
that's why i carry a Sig 228...only safety on it is the one carrying it

Sir William
February 1, 2006, 06:04 PM
Idiotic! I have not thought much of quasitactics but, this IS over the top. If the "students" had kept their weapons holstered and simply disengaged, there would have been 0 confrontations, the ankle grabbing drunk would have been avoided and no NDs. IOWs, avoid trouble by staying out of dark alleys with obnoxious sots, armed or not.

Nnobby45
February 1, 2006, 06:20 PM
Idiotic! I have not thought much of quasitactics but, this IS over the top. If the "students" had kept their weapons holstered and simply disengaged, there would have been 0 confrontations, the ankle grabbing drunk would have been avoided and no NDs. IOWs, avoid trouble by staying out of dark alleys with obnoxious sots, armed or not.




Ah Jeez, Sir William:rolleyes: A few more like that and you could be Willy.

It should be obvious that the excercise had to be done in a way that stopped short of justifiably shooting while still producing the stress that could produce an ND by those not proberly trained to keep their finger off the damn trigger.

The excercise succeeded brilliantly. Had they withdrawn, as real world would have dictated, there would have been no excercise.
cool:

OBIWAN
February 1, 2006, 08:36 PM
Exar...you missed the point:D

( hint:sigs are trigger cocking handguns- the DA first pull is a form of "safety")

SW...you got too wrapped up in hindsight;)

Sir William
February 1, 2006, 09:19 PM
The problem for me is that responsible CCW license holders should avoid confrontation. The scenario encourages idiotic chest beating and the general "I am armed, I can go anywhere and handle anything as I have a gun!" mindset. Irresponsible behaviour from my POV. I could have faulted the "students" for still having drawn weapons even though the perceived threat was past. What were they doing, clearing the alleyway? I see the purpose of the training scenario, I fail to see any responsible lesson in it.

pax
February 1, 2006, 09:52 PM
Sir William ~

He did not call it a training scenario. Training wasn't the purpose of the exercise.

He called it an experiment. As an experiment, it did exactly what it was designed to do.

pax

Sir William
February 1, 2006, 10:32 PM
I understood that pax. My POV is that this experiment was fundamentally flawed and that nothing constructive or emulative can be derived from it. It was demonstrative of macho and improper actions to avoid. Perhaps that WAS the purpose?

BreacherUp!
February 1, 2006, 10:36 PM
This experiment does show 2 good points:
1) **** poor training in weapon handling (should be subconscious to keep trigger finger off the trigger)
2) **** poor training in the legal and proper use of a firearm, and when to use it.

Nnobby45
February 1, 2006, 11:14 PM
I see the purpose of the training scenario, I fail to see any responsible lesson in it.

The lesson would be for thousands of shooters who have mistakenly believed that, because they had a heavy trigger pull, they wouldn't be subject to an ND under stress.

Another valuable lesson might be that, while each knew (probably) that the finger should be in register, under some stress they weren't as properly trained as they thought they were , and that maybe some of us who think we are, aren't either.

Conclusion: It made me stop and think. It didn't do anything for you. How the majority see it is more important.:cool:

Sir William
February 2, 2006, 01:13 AM
I will give it a OK, BUT rating. I appreciate what breacher up pointed out.

Mikeyboy
February 2, 2006, 09:30 AM
During the 'grabbing' phase, most practitioners already had the pistol in their hands. Our survey quickly noted that nearly all practitioners who had fingers inside the trigger guard at the moment they were grabbed fired a shot unintentionally as a result.

I think this "experiment" is a good example of why you should leave your finger out of the trigger guard, but it is a poor example of if your threatened enough to draw your weapon you should not get to the point of being grabbed and not "Intentionally" shooting the guy. The guys in the experiment who failed to pull their trigger should also get a failing grade.

OBIWAN
February 2, 2006, 10:41 AM
I believe what some are missing is this;

1. The experiment was designed to teach people avoidance.

Some of the people DID NOT draw their weapon. It is good training IMHO to put people in situations where they are required to be nervous (get through the alley) but not required to engage. How much would really have been learned by those that simply "refused to play the game their way" ??
Run the same simulation on a street in broad daylight if you must...I think the results would be similar.

2. Situational awareness is huge...most of the participants tunneled in on the obvious threats and ignored the "drunk"

3. A 14 lb trigger is more than most people have on their carry pistols and
yet the startle response easily resulted in a ND

4. Those that think shooting someone simply for grabbing their ankle is a "good idea" should consider having a really good attorney on retainer:D

DAVID NANCARROW
February 2, 2006, 10:52 AM
Wonder how many times the simulated drunk had his simulated body stomped on?

stephen426
February 2, 2006, 11:46 AM
I have to fully agree with keeping your finger off the friggin trigger NO MATTER HOW EXPERIENCED YOU ARE!!!

I heard my dog barking (Akitas don't usually bark unless there is something there) and I heard some noise in the backyard. I lived on a canal so I had no backyard neighbor. I went out investigate with my trusty Sig P229. I carried in DA mode but with my finger on the trigger feeling that I was "experienced" enough to not have an accidental discharge. I kept the gun at low ready to be safe (good thing too). I heard a loud bang and flinched. Guess what... 12 lbs. isn't that heavy when you have adrenaline coursing though your system. The gun went off and the round ricochet harmlessly into my exterior wall. I was carrying Magsafes so the round already broke up upon hitting my paved floor. I'm not sure what the loud bang was but it could have been some kids across the canal (about 25 yds wide) playing with firecrackers or a car backfiring. If it was a bad guy, he probably took off when he heard the shot. No one called it in so I guess I was lucky.

Don't make the mistake that your experience and a "heavy" double action trigger will prevent you from having accidental discharges.

BlueTrain
February 2, 2006, 12:07 PM
Although I'm sure some details of the experiment were absent, it sounds like good training to me, both for policemen or otherwise. It sounds like it is a little more suitable for people who are not policemen, however, since the police have more authority than other people (referring to uniformed police). Other than comments about the participants gun handling, I think there are other things worth noting.

For one thing, a real-life situation is messy and nothing at all like a range situation. On a range, the only solution to your problem is shooting and moreover, you are doing so under defined and limited circumstances. On the street or in the woods, you have no such limits--limits, yes--but not like the ones you have on the range, such as standing in a certain place and so on. Shooting competitions, including IPSC, are also unlike real-life and the citcumstances are even more defined. That is not to say they are without stress and of no value.

Who were the participants anyway?

281 Quad Cam
February 2, 2006, 01:19 PM
[deleted some upon re-reading and realizing there was no test that combined assault WITH battery.]

On the test where a lone drunk said nothing before simply making an ankle grab - WHY did the students have their guns in hand? During this instance there seemed to be little threat, and having your hand on the holstered weapon seems like more than enough. I just can't see why they would already have had their guns out AND fingers on the trigger. That seems to be whats at fault, not H&K, or Beretta's D/A triggers.

And....

Glock, Beretta, CZ, Walther or anybody else ever issued a new order to keep your finger on the trigger. I, nor any sensible person would ever have their finger on our D/A triggers any sooner than we would have the safety off, and finger on our S/A triggers. It reads to me that the experiment itself created the flaw by allowing inexperienced or poorly trained individuals to represent D/A triggers, if you ask me, D/A triggers performed exactly as designed!

Furthermore I fail to see how dry-firing a Glock to disassemble it is wrong. I dry fire my Glock - AND INDEED ALL MY GUNS - quite a bit, sometimes hundreds of times a night. Is this guy implying that dry-firing is unsafe period? One needs to be proficient with something as simple and basically important as UNLOADING a firearm! Don't most of us store our guns in the uncocked state anyway?! :confused: If you follow the more important rule of checking to make sure a gun is unloaded before handling, than there is no problem. Glock owners don't point the thing at their wives while they dry-fire it before dissassembly! :rolleyes:

OBIWAN
February 2, 2006, 01:47 PM
David....

Now that would be an appropriate response:D

281

sigh:rolleyes: maybe you should read it again...just a suggestion

1. The verbal assaults were by one group...and not everyone thought that they were sufficent to require drawing a weapon...I don't believe they ever touched the students (notice they were instructed NOT to require shooting)

2. The drunk was part of the same test....so those that drew earlier still had their weapon in their hand ...and their startle reflex blew right past the da trigger.

3. Nobody is saying DA triggers are responsible for the ND....the lesson is that they will NOT PREVENT A ND

The idea behind the long hard DA pull is to make a ND less likely. Many people make the point that DA handguns are inherently "safer" than DAO designs like Glocks because that DA pull will not happen accidentaly.

What the test points out.....quite well....is that the DA trigger is no replacement for finger placement. as I have long said....someone has to pull the trigger for something bad to happen...all the gizmos in the world can't stop human stupidity.

4. The mention of the Glock issue is made to point out the fallacy of arguing that needing to pull the trigger makes them unsafe...pulling the trigger on loaded guns is what causes problems

WYO
February 2, 2006, 02:25 PM
I don't see how the experiment can be deemed valid without running an equal number of equally "experienced" actors through the same scenario with lighter triggers, then see if there was a difference in percentages. Maybe they did do that, but this blurb doesn't say.

281 Quad Cam
February 2, 2006, 02:32 PM
OBIWAN, I understand the first several points, I edited before you posted (score!) :cool:

Alright, I sort of took from it, that the author was implying that DA guns were meant to be carried finger on the trigger, and that made them inherently dangerous. Ofcourse you can understand why I thought that would be ludicrous... But if that isn't the focus of the experiment, I gladly take it back.

I really don't know if the experiment has an audience though.... We all know to keep our fingers off the trigger. So who reading it, is going to take soemthing from it? Many or all of us recognized the mistake before there was an easily predictable ND.

Indeed I think the specific officers on the NYPD and elsewhere know to keep their finger off the trigger. But if your personal freedom was threatened because of a mistake you made while holding a Glock on duty. I think quite a few of us would want to blaim the gun to take the spotlight off us.

"I was only standing there, and, it just went off!!!" :eek:

yorec
February 2, 2006, 02:53 PM
The inescapable conclusion to which we all came was that THE ONLY RELIABLE PREVENTOR OF SUCH NDs IS THE PERSONAL DISCIPLINE TO ADHERE TO CORRECT PROCEDURES OF PRIMARY COMPETENCY IN GUN HANDLING.

Imagine that. :D

tyme
February 2, 2006, 04:18 PM
Can the startle reflex be overcome with enough training? During special forces/SWAT/HRT room-clearing exercises, do their fingers remain off the trigger while they're making shoot/don't-shoot decisions, or do they decide while they're pulling the trigger?

Capt Charlie
February 2, 2006, 06:00 PM
Can the startle reflex be overcome with enough training? During special forces/SWAT/HRT room-clearing exercises, do their fingers remain off the trigger while they're making shoot/don't-shoot decisions, or do they decide while they're pulling the trigger?
Good question, Tyme!

Erick's the Man for this one. What say, Erick?

ATW525
February 2, 2006, 06:07 PM
I agree that a DA trigger won't prevent a ND. When you're startled or pumped on adrenylin, it doesn't matter if you have a 30 lb trigger, because you'll still manage to pull it if you're careless with your gun handling. I'm not sure how he got to this, though...

This situation is likened to the current dispute within the police community over the 'design flaw' in the Glock system that does not permit take-down of the pistol without first dry-firing. This 'flaw,' so goes the trumped-up argument, results in NDs. Removed from this curious equitation is the conspicuous violation, by the operator who experienced the ND, of primary competency skills, basic gun-handling rules one learns on his first day at the range!

The fact that the Glock requires the user to pull the trigger as part of the take down process is completely unrelated to the experiment and the issue at hand, so I'm at a loss trying to see the connection he's trying to make here. And let's face it, an operator who doesn't violate the basic gun-handling rules one learns on his first day at the range would never be able to field strip a Glock.

smince
February 2, 2006, 06:49 PM
When I was in the AF, my roomate and I lived off-base. She came to my room and told me she thought she heard something in the kitchen. I got my revolver(a then new-in-production GP100) and proceeded down the hall. I knew tactics better than gunhandling at this time. I had my finger on the trigger as I was slicing the pie checking out the kitchen. My roomate put her hand on my shoulder and it startled me enough that I very nearly squeezed off a round.

OBIWAN
February 2, 2006, 07:57 PM
"We all know to keep our fingers off the trigger"...

And yet people do it

Well....not me...but look at all the ND's that occur

I saw a fairly experienced guy on the last day of a class do a speed reload with his finger on the trigger...color him surprised:eek:

I think we have all seen the footage of the lady cop that accidently shot the guy she was holding at gunpoint...something that happens far too often

You can mitigate the startle reflex, but it takes a great deal of training.

Eliminate it...don't think so

I was part of a group that did some informal testing a while back using timers, and finger on/finger off did not make much difference

As to the Glock comments...the point is that the weapons mechanism will not keep you safe/make you less safe....if you cannot be trusted to ensure that the weapon is empty then you are an accident waiting to happen...blaming the handgun is poultry excrement.

Feeling complacent because your particular weapon does not require you to dry fire before stripping means very little....if you can't reliably clear the weapon you should not be allowed to load it

Trusting to anything other than training and serious attention to detail is a recipe for disaster.

I see lots of posts by people that are truthfully not all that comfortable with loaded weapons, but rather than training hard to gain the necessary proficency they trust to a certain weapon design, carry chamber empty, etc.

A lot of those same people gravitate towards DA/SA handguns or (adding insult to injury) DA/SA with a safety AND decocker (belt and suspenders)

And then they fire maybe one shot per range session DA...

I have seen posts by people that chose a DA revolver because it "felt safer" and then they got wigged out by a wierd noise and cocked the darn thing.

"What do I do now" :confused:

Law enforcement agencies went to Glocks in large numbers from revolvers and had more ND's.........

Because they had always trusted to that long pull...they got lazy...

Not because Glocks are so incredibly dangerous...because the operators were

Complacent and/or careless people are dangerous

Hanguns are just another way for them to hurt themselves (and others)

CarlosDJackal
February 2, 2006, 08:16 PM
This is an excellent article that should reinforce the importance of keeping your finger out of the trigger guard. As far as being able to train the "startle response" out of someone, anything is possible. But the amount of time and effort that you have to put into circumventing something that is ingrained into our subconscious. It's like trying to train our propensity to blink and flinch when someone suddenly throws an object at us.

What really blows my mind is there are so-called "Professional Firearms Instructors" who actually advocates training people to run around with their finger on the trigger (to include cops on duty). It is their opinion that since, people who are under stress inadvertently put their fingers on the trigger anyway, they might as well be trained to do so "safely". :rolleyes:

But what these "experts" fail to understand is even if we were able to train the startle reflex out of ourselves, there is still the "parallel reflex" we have to worry about. The really disturbing thing is, there are actually individuals out there who have actually pay him good money for that sort of crap and they carry guns!! :eek:

But that's justs my 2 cents worth.

BreacherUp!
February 2, 2006, 08:21 PM
During special forces/SWAT/HRT room-clearing exercises, do their fingers remain off the trigger while they're making shoot/don't-shoot decisions, or do they decide while they're pulling the trigger?
Finger is off the trigger until the decision to shoot is reached.

Sir William
February 2, 2006, 09:40 PM
Apparently NOT alwaya done. Fairfax County, VA police SWAT officer described as highly trained accidently killed a suspect with a HK USP45 this week.

pax
February 2, 2006, 09:55 PM
Obiwan ~

Good post.

Carlos ~

Who? Name some names, please.

pax

smince
February 2, 2006, 09:56 PM
Not because Glocks are so incredibly dangerous...because the operators were

Complacent and/or careless people are dangerous


OBIWAN gets it;)

Shooters may not agree with everything John Farnam teaches, but go through his "quips" and he makes a lot of sense on most topics.

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/quips.html

ATW525
February 3, 2006, 11:28 AM
As to the Glock comments...the point is that the weapons mechanism will not keep you safe/make you less safe....if you cannot be trusted to ensure that the weapon is empty then you are an accident waiting to happen...blaming the handgun is poultry excrement.

Feeling complacent because your particular weapon does not require you to dry fire before stripping means very little....if you can't reliably clear the weapon you should not be allowed to load it

Trusting to anything other than training and serious attention to detail is a recipe for disaster.

I agree whole heartedly that it's the sole responsability of the operator to know the functioning of thier pistol and handle it safely, including making sure to clear it before disassembly. If somebody has a ND because they pulled the trigger without clearing thier weapon, then it is not Glock's fault.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the Glock take down is flawed from a human engineering standpoint, since it runs contrary to the basic rules of firearms safety. Compare it to a weapon on the opposite end of spectrum like a Sig, which allows the user to disassemble the weapon without putting their finger inside the trigger guard and even requires the operator lock back the slide as part of the take down procedure. The latter pistol shows logical thought around the basic rules of firearm safety which the Glock design is clearly lacking.

That being said, it's not really related to the idea of a long, heavy DA pull. The long and heavy trigger pull comes at a sacrifice of shootability. It takes much more work to shoot to same level of accuracy one can obtain from a gun with a short, light pull. The short, light pull offers a distinct advantage in this case, and neither option violates the rules of firearm safety.

The Glock's take down offers no such advantage. There's no benefit to the Glock's disassembly procedure over that of the Sig, and there is the very definite drawback of the fact that it requires the operator to put their finger into the trigger guard when they are not ready to fire. That's poor human engineering. It means when teaching a new shooter to shoot a Glock pistol you have to say, "You must follow these safety rules at all times... oh... uh... except when you're disassembling your pistol."

Will proper training and vigilance compensate for Glock's design? It certainly should. Does that excuse the lack of thought that Glock put into the procedure? Not in my book... it's still a poorly engineered design in that regard when compared to other designs available on the market. Are Glocks bad guns because of that? Nope. They're pistols with strengths and drawbacks just like any other pistol on the market.

smince
February 3, 2006, 12:08 PM
the Glock take down is flawed from a human engineering standpoint, since it runs contrary to the basic rules of firearms safety...

"You must follow these safety rules at all times... oh... uh... except when you're disassembling your pistol."

I don't see a major problem as long as the other rules are in play. Do you tell students not to practice "dry fire" because it violates a basic safety rule? The principles of Glock take-down are the same principles that should be followed for dry practice. Sure, #3 is violated during dry practice, but the other three will cover it if followed.

1. All Guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

As OBIWAN said "Complacent and/or careless people are dangerous"!

ATW525
February 3, 2006, 12:25 PM
I don't see a major problem as long as the other rules are in play. Do you tell students not to practice "dry fire" because it violates a basic safety rule? The principles of Glock take-down are the same principles that should be followed for dry practice. Sure, #3 is violated during dry practice, but the other three will cover it if followed.

1. All Guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

As OBIWAN said "Complacent and/or careless people are dangerous"!

All four rules should be in force during dry fire practice. Saying, "Oh... we can skip one of those rules, because the others will cover it," is the very definition of dangerous complacancy. You should treat the gun as if it's loaded, you should not let the muzzle cover anything you're not willing to destroy, you should not have your finger on the trigger until the gun is pointed at the target you've chosen and you should be absolutely sure of that target and what's behind it.

pax
February 3, 2006, 12:44 PM
Nonsense. Rule #3 is not violated during safe dry fire practice, nor during the Glock breakdown procedure -- unless the person doing either of these is too arrogant or ignorant to follow the rules.

A target is anywhere you deliberately aim, where you would not mind sending a bullet. A backstop is anything which would stop a bullet.

During dryfire, you might aim at a conventional target or a non-conventional one. But either way, it is still a target, by definition. And you'd darn well better have a good backstop; if you don't, you're an accident looking for a place to happen.

Same thing for Glock disassembly. You find a safe backstop before you pull your firearm out of your holster or out of its box. You carefully point the muzzle on a spot where you wouldn't mind sending a bullet, behind which is something which would prevent the bullet from travelling any further. You unload, check to be sure it is unloaded, check again. And then you disassemble your gun. At no point do you put your finger on the trigger unless the muzzle is lined up with a bona fide target and a good backstop.

You can and should follow all the safety rules every time a firearm is in your hand. Even if it is a Glock. :rolleyes:

pax

Handy
February 3, 2006, 01:00 PM
This "study" shows that the stress reaction is strong enough to defeat any normal weight trigger.

But it does not show that there is no handling safety difference between different trigger systems in ALL situations, just this one.


A firm DA trigger is still less likely to ND when handling, holstering and grabbing a firearm than one with a much lighter trigger.

OBIWAN
February 3, 2006, 04:28 PM
Sure.......no question.....but........

"less likely" is hardly a quantitative measure

That is like saying an 7# trigger is safer than a 6# trigger is safer than a 5#

You get the idea:barf:

rubber guns are safer than real guns;)

I could go on...and on....

Once again...the real lesson is that there is NO remedy for poor gunhandling....except training

Handy
February 4, 2006, 08:31 AM
And there is no remedy for the unlikely, but a well designed safety system.


A good driver benefits just as much from having ABS as a bad one - even if he only used it ONCE.


A good shooter might only make a mistake in handling his handgun once in lifetime. Sometimes, the type of gun is going to be the difference between "oh, that was dumb" and a loss of life.


Other professionals know that safety comes from training, procedures AND well designed equipment. The training does-it-all attitude of some gun owners is absurd and juvenile.

BlueTrain
February 6, 2006, 06:54 AM
As I read over these posts, I can understand better the attitude that Fairburn had with regards to safeties on handguns. He didn't like them and even had them pinned in place on the Colt automatics his police force used (though not the grip safeties). He probably would have loved Glocks, especially in .45 ACP.

On the other hand, his gun handling methods included chamber empty carry and a threat response of draw, chamber and start firing--as fast as possible. His officers also turned in their firearms at the end of every shift and handed over the next shift, so they went through the weapons clearing drill every day. He also had holes drilled in magazines so the cartridge count could be verified.

OBIWAN
February 6, 2006, 08:23 AM
We are simply going to have to agree to disagree Handy

I personally find the DA/SA trigger to be a net loss since it negatively impacts the primary use of the weapon....shooting fast and well.

If having the ABS made it even slightly more difficult to steer the car or encouraged the driver to take stupid chances then we would have a good analogy (IMHO)

Kind of like the argument that a 30 mph max speed limit would greatly reduce fatalities...sure it would but I live in the real world where we need to get there today!

I happen to think guns are (and should be) dangerous...and I actually believe that danger helps keep people focused

And I get real nervous when the "if it stops one accident" is raised...kind of like "if it saves one life"

Because we could go to 25# triggers for the first pull, but resourceful idiots would never train with the DA trigger and/or practice "prepping" it so they could hit the target

Too many of the "safety first" crowd want to make handguns so safe that they won't actually fire:rolleyes: ...so I fear a slippery slope

*NOTE*- If the DA/SA trigger makes sense to/for you...enjoy...I was expressing a personal preference....just don't count on that DA pull to prevent a mishap

Handy
February 7, 2006, 09:18 AM
I think the crux of this is the idea that safety systems cannot prevent an accident.

They do. ACCIDENT. Not negligence, not lack of training, not stupidity. A DA trigger MAY save you on that one occasion when everything else went wrong. That's worth it to me, because everyone only gets one life.


As to "I personally find the DA/SA trigger to be a net loss since it negatively impacts the primary use of the weapon....shooting fast and well", this is a training issue. Anyone who has witnessed professionals shoot DA/SA autos knows that a DA trigger is very accurate at typical handgun ranges, and the gun can always be cocked if you want to shoot beyond that range.

I understand that you see it as decreasing performance for a minor bump in safety. But I see it as an increase in safety with only the most insignificant decrease in performance; one not even measurable at combat ranges.

With something like a deadly weapon, I'm inclined toward decreasing the chances of a screw-up, and practicing more to deal with learning to pull a trigger. That way, when my performance is at decreased capacity, I'm only more likely to miss with the first shot, rather than shoot myself.

281 Quad Cam
February 7, 2006, 01:09 PM
A heavy DA trigger does not mean walk the streets with your finger on the trigger like this test showed. Therefore, thats why I felt this test had no real audience. It shows, that if you carry with your finger on the trigger, your gun can go off if you are startled - gee thanks?

DA trigger safety is more in the range of - Holstering the gun, when you feel slightly too much force being required. You remove the pistol to find some shirt tail or foreign object has bunched up in the trigger guard.

OBIWAN
February 9, 2006, 08:40 AM
281...it is easy to be glib....which is why I do it a lot:D

But the thing to remember is that these people did not start out with their weapon in their hand and their finger on their trigger.

They progressed to that point and then something bad happened

I have seen it a lot in realistic(streesfull) training...and in those people trying to "shave a few seconds"

I am certain some/all of the participants would have probably made the same/similar comments sitting at their computer;)

But then when their pulse rate and adrenalin increased they steadily moved into a dangerous condition

I see it a lot....people with poor muzzle awareness and wandering trigger fingers and the defense is ...."it isn't loaded/that 12# pull makes it safe...it is not pointed at anyone"

I hear the same things about safeties.......

I hear it from people that stage that first DA pull..."I was on target and pretty sure I wanted to fire"...(hope so:o )

I hear it from people that buy weapons with manual safeties and then don't use them.

And it is always the same..."I am careful (enough?)"

So I would respectfully disagree.....the audience for this is everyone who is at risk of being complacent...which is every gun owner drawing a breath.

And especially.....anyone counting on any "safety" device to save them from what some see as "inevitable accidents... "

Incidently , I disagree with that term.....calling them accidents in some small way excuses them...at least in many minds...accidents are born of negligence..pure and simple

Anyone who sees that DA trigger as being even marginally safer and is therefore even marginally less vigilant should take this to heart.

lefteye
February 9, 2006, 03:41 PM
If I understood the first post, the experiment was intended to determine if a long, heavy trigger pull actually helped prevent NDs:

"What we were trying to evaluate was the premise that long, heavy trigger pulls were, or were not, useful in preventing NDs during pernicious confrontations."

The experiment showed that long, heavy trigger pulls did not prevent NDs.

By doing so, the experiment also showed that proper gun handling is necessary to prevent NDs.

OBIWAN
February 9, 2006, 10:37 PM
Golt Star for lefteye:D

smince
February 10, 2006, 04:08 PM
Accidental Discharge (AD)

Incidently , I disagree with that term.....calling them accidents in some small way excuses them...at least in many minds...accidents are born of negligence..pure and simple


+1. I agree. And so does Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, Mas Ayoob, etc.

In my early shooting days, I had two "accidents". One, a .22 rifle while hunting. I had my finger on the trigger, depending on a safety that I didn't know was broken at the time. When I stumbled, I tensed up and fired a round into the ground. Two, I put a round of 230grn ball through a closet door and into the floor.

I could "blame" the safety on #1, but it was my negligence that actually caused it, because I had my finger on the trigger. In #2, I violated RULE ONE. However, RULE TWO was in effect in both cases, at least as far as there was no physical injury. A heavy DA trigger wouldn't have prevented either of my ND's.

Retired
February 10, 2006, 05:31 PM
There is another aspect of role-playing exercises that I've always found interesting: It's amazing how much stress even well-trained people can feel when performing in front of their peers. Even though you know it's really just an exercise, you also know that all of your buddies are watching you. It tends to simulate the stress of a real fight.

I'm retired now, but a few years ago I was attending a Simunitions instructor course. After the classroom portion, we prepared for the first live-fire scenario. We were reminded that the coach/observers would be wearing bright orange vests, but were not part of the scenario.

On the first exercise, the first student entered the first door, and immediately shot a clearly-marked unarmed observer with a Simunition round. We all had a good laugh, but we learned a good lesson. The stress of being the point-man in the entry team somehow made him shoot the first guy he encountered.

I don't remember if this student had his finger on the trigger or not. But no reasonable amount of heavy trigger-pull would have made a difference with this stress-induced mistake.

Handy
February 10, 2006, 11:18 PM
I have no problem with this article, except for the fact that people will misrepresent the data to mean that a DA trigger is no safer than an SA in ALL situations.

That simply isn't the case, nor was it the factual point of the study.

OBIWAN
February 12, 2006, 10:08 PM
"I have no problem with this article, except for the fact that people will misrepresent the data to mean that a DA trigger is no safer than an SA in ALL situations"

I don't think anyone has said that...although there is plenty of room for discussion...although the term ALL throws a wrench into any subjective discussion:D

The point of the whole exercise was to guard against complacency...and to not trust that DA trigger too much...because perceived safety can make us careless.

For instance...razor sharp knife versus dull training blade.....

Which is handled more "safely":confused:

You don't generally see one instructor toss another one a sharp fixed knofe, but that training blade....no worries there....oops...wrong knife...thought it was the orange one:o

I, for one, think there is some merit to the idea that danger makes people careful.....not everyone, but as I said earlier there are some that will never be careful enough

I, for one have been amazed at the actual effort involved in getting a Glock to go bang...

I actually messed around this morning with a G19 on the range and despite some very cavalier gunhandling (with a safe backstop) it only ever went bang when I wanted it to.

This in 25 degree weather and wearing gloves...

And yet there are those that would have us believe that they are an accident waiting to happen.

I submit that there are people that are an accident waiting to happen and anything we do or say to make them feel more comfortable with their poor gunhandling is just fuel for the fire. Telling them that brand X is the perfect weapon for them since they don't want to train is doing them a disservice.

I happen to think that a properly used SA pistol is just as safe as a DA/SA handgun...maybe safer when improperly used...assuming they "do it wrong the right way"

Those guys in the alley could have been stopped by a manual safety...had they chose to employ it

But why argue the point when, in the final analysis , they still had to pull the trigger to make the weapon go bang

Alx
January 13, 2008, 02:48 AM
Why so many here have misunderstoood and re-defined the exercise to have all these other purposes is beyond my understanding.
It was stated that the exercise was designed to test the validity of the assumption that a long hard DA trigger pull would prevent accidental discharges when the gun-bearer is under stress.
It succeeded in providing valid statistical evidence that IF the finger is on the trigger, the long hard DA trigger does not prevent a stressed gun-bearer from accidently flinching or reflexively and unintentionally pulling the trigger.
IT was not about training, not about keeping the finger out of the trigger-guard, not about holstering until ready to fire, not about all those other mentioned things.

FM12
January 13, 2008, 11:36 AM
Finger was kept "in register"? Never heard that term before. Something else to be worried about. Excuse me while I try to find where my finger should be "in register".

novaDAK
January 14, 2008, 03:45 PM
Apparently NOT alwaya done. Fairfax County, VA police SWAT officer described as highly trained accidently killed a suspect with a HK USP45 this week.And this also shows how Fairfax has a nice variety of firearms...Police use Sig 9mms with Federal 9BPLE, Sheriffs use .40 caliber Glocks, and FXPD SWAT uses HK USP .45s