Firing without a magazine

[James K]

The original reason for a magazine safety (or magazine disconnect, if you prefer) was that in an earlier day, many people thought that removing the magazine emptied the gun, not realizing there was a round in the chamber. Too often, the result was tragic. So, like many other safety devices on products, the machine was changed to make up for human ignorance.

Jim

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

What army was your grandfather in, and when? The U.S. M1911A1 never had a magazine safety. As far as I know, the Beretta M9 doesn't have one, either. Your grandfather never learned gun handling like that in the Army (at least, not in the U.S. Army).

M9 does have magazine safety.

I don't mean to disrespect our veterans, but I shot with a few previous members of our armed forces. The way they handle firearms may not make me feel comfortable to go to the range with them again. I believe part of the reason is the difference in doctrines then and now. For instance, before one is supposed to shoot a pistol single handed.

Anyway there is no mechanical danger to shoot a semi auto without a magazine. There is no definite answer whether magazine safety is safe. I personally don't like it. I may disable it but I will make damn sure nobody but myself will use the gun. Wrong assumption is the danger.

-TL

[RX-79G]

M9 does have magazine safety.

No, it doesn't. I wouldn't feel comfortable going to the range with someone who thinks it does.


The other issue that no one mentions is that the round chambering buffers the slide when going into battery. While frame battering gets a lot of discussion, the slide returns to battery with all the force the recoil spring absorbed from firing. The take down pin (or latch) and the lower barrel lug are not necessarily built for that sort of impact.

This is the same reason it is considered poor form to drop the slide on an unloaded gun.

As with most gun things, you can get away with it for awhile. But frequently operating the pistol outside the designed manual of arms is asking for trouble, long term.

[James K]

A specific requirement for the M9 was that it NOT have a magazine safety. They didn't want anyone killed because he lost or accidentally dropped the magazine. Maybe not bad thinking for civilian pistol owners, either.

Another requirement, for both the M9 and the M1911, was that the pistol could be loaded with a single round if the magazine were lost or defective. Same reason.

Jim

[tangolima]

OK I had a Beretta 92 that I think has Mag safety. I assume it is the same as M9. I once had fail-to-fire at the range. The guy on the next lane pointed out my Mag was not all the way in. When I tapped it in the problem went away.

It was possible that the the Mag wasn't all the way in when I released the slide, so no round was chambered. In which case I stand corrected. Thanks.

-TL

[44 AMP]

The original reason for a magazine safety (or magazine disconnect, if you prefer) was ...

It was requested by the ...French!

While I can't point directly to a document, I have heard that the origin of the magazine disconnect was from a French request to FN, who included it in the final design of the High Power, after Browning's death. Apparently FN expected to sell a lot of them to the French, and were eager to please them by adding this feature. One should also note that despite FN's compliance, the French never bought many High Powers.....go figure...

I don't know if its true, or not, but if you are going to blame anyone for the idiocy of a magazine disconnect, it might as well be the French.

As to firing a pistol with the mag out, the only thing that is going to happen is after the round fires, the slide won't lock back on the empty mag (because its not there).

[bledsoeG19]

Extractor is one thing that I could see taking the abuse, but what about the slide to barrel hood fit? With no magazine, there will be nothing keeping the slide from slamming into the barrel when it cycles. Seems abusive to the firearm. Shtf scenario.... sure..... everyday practice. .... not this guy.

[gyvel]

I don't know if its true, or not, but if you are going to blame anyone for the idiocy of a magazine disconnect, it might as well be the French.

Magazine disconnect safeties were around long before the French got involved with the Hi-Power. The FN Models 1906, 1910 and 1922 had them long before that, as well as Colt pocket autos.

Magazine disconnect safeties were experimented with on Luger pistols in the 1920s.

Mauser Models 1910/1914/1934 had magazine disconnect safeties.

Czech CZ 22, 24 and 27 had magazine disconnect safeties.

Some Spanish Ruby types had magazine disconnect safeties as well in the 1920s.

So...

No need to blame the French for anything here.

If you want to lay blame, place it on careless lackadaisical people who forgot to check the chamber after the magazine was removed and shot someone.

Then, after that, you can blame the lawyers.

[HiBC]

"All attempts at foolproofing are folly,as the genius of the fool is infinite"
William Blake.

[pgdion]

James beat me to it but on the Beretta 92FS / M9 both firing without a magazine and loading single rounds directly into the chamber are listed as features of the gun.

[gyvel]

"All attempts at foolproofing are folly,as the genius of the fool is infinite"

That, as a rule is true, but I can see some benefit to a magazine disconnect; It keeps the idiot who is too absent minded or distracted to check the chamber of his gun from killing his friend. Nothing is perfect.

I don't like seatbelts in cars, either, but they do have benefits.

[RX-79G]

You can invent many scenarios for and against mag safeties. Use the gun in the normal way and you'll never know if you have one or not.

Mag safeties are an issue in IDPA. They require extra screwing around to show clear.

[James K]

The Colt Model 1903 and 1908 pocket models and the Model 1908 vest pocket models did not have magazine safeties until the problem I mentioned above began to show up. Lawsuits were not invented last Monday at 9:00 AM, so Colt added that Tansley-designed safety around 1916.

Jim

[leadcounsel]

Yes, in fact it could potentially hurt the extractor. It's not at all like the last round in the mag. If you drop a round in the chamber of a gun, then release the slide, the extractor has to snap over whatever rim it holds on to. In most, if not all, pistols the "rim" of the cartridge slides under the hook of the extractor. Forcing the extractor over an already chambered round could cause damage, especially in such pistols as 1911s, etc.

Huh??

Any bullet, whether taken from the magazine or put in the chamber individually, will have the extractor engaged. When you pull the trigger, the explosion causes the slide AND extractor to pull the shell back and kick it out.

How does it matter how the round gets in the chamber (manually versus from the magazine)? In either case, the extractor has to "snap" over the rim of the cartridge...


I do not like mag disconnects. Sadly the SW Gen 3 have them as does the High Power.

I don't mind them in range guns, but don't want them in carry or defense guns.

[Walt Sherrill]

How does it matter how the round gets in the chamber (manually versus from the magazine)? In either case, the extractor has to "snap" over the rim of the cartridge...

That's not the question being addressed. In a subsequent reponse, the OP said he chambered a round in the usual manner and removed the mag -- he confirmed he wanted to know if FIRING the gun with the mag removed was an issue.

If there's a round in the chamber and the gun is fired, there's no problem at that point. The slide is closed and the round got there in the proper way. But with no mag in place, the slide won't lock back after the round is fired, and the slide will slam closed -- without the extra work of stripping a round from the mag and chambering that round. That extra force and speed CAN damage the extractor on some guns.

The question about what happened AFTER the round was fired.

[James K]

FWIW, in a blowback pistol, the extractor does not pull the fired case from the chamber. The case is pushed out of the chamber by the pressure inside it. The extractor only acts as a pivot point for the ejector or to withdraw an unfired case from the chamber. (Note that some blowback auto pistols have no extractor.)

Jim

[tangolima]

True in direct blow back such as colt woodsman, but not true in locked breech pistols like 1911.

Most auto pistols have controlled feed mechanism. The cartridge's rim slips under the extractor claw during feeding. But I don't think letting the extractor snap over the rim would hurt anything in particular.

-TL

[Fugit1ve Wizard]

Funny, because my Glock will not accept a round unless chambered through the mag, but will fire once the magazine has been removed from the gun.

[RX-79G]

How does it matter how the round gets in the chamber (manually versus from the magazine)? In either case, the extractor has to "snap" over the rim of the cartridge...

Huh?

On most recoil operated guns the cartridge rim slides up the breechface to get under the extractor. That's why it isn't considered to be a good idea to direct chamber load some of them, like the 1911, which don't have the extractor flexibility or shape to pop over the rim easily.

Unless there's a foot at the bottom of the breechface, the extractor doesn't pop over.

Funny, because my Glock will not accept a round unless chambered through the mag, but will fire once the magazine has been removed from the gun.

It isn't funny. Those two have nothing to do with each other. One is a limitation on the extractor, the other is an added device that disables the fire control when the mag is missing.

[AK103K]

The mag disconnect is really just a crutch for unsafe gun handling practices(just my opinion), it helps keep the folks you hear about who put a hole in the dining room table(if they're lucky) from damaging their furnishings.

Those folks usually seem to accomplish that somehow anyway. Safeties have never been idiot proof, and I think in many cases, people over rely on them which causes more problems.

About the only point for the mag disconnect I can see, is often made by Mas Ayoob, as it relates to those who carry a gun and may end up in a struggle for it.

It can keep you from getting shot with your own gun, if you have the presence of mind to hit the mag release in the struggle, if you feel its a possibility you might loose it, which is always a possibility anyway. At the very least, it could give you time to try and get it back, or go for your BUG.

I don't mean to disrespect our veterans, but I shot with a few previous members of our armed forces. The way they handle firearms may not make me feel comfortable to go to the range with them again. I believe part of the reason is the difference in doctrines then and now.

I know exactly where youre coming from here, and Ive seen this a lot, and regardless of doctrine or era. From personal experience, Ive wondered sometimes if they had any training at all, and especially with full auto fire/weapons.

That's why it isn't considered to be a good idea to direct chamber load some of them, like the 1911, which don't have the extractor flexibility or shape to pop over the rim easily.

With the 1911's, especially those using the internal extractor, it is a bad idea. Ive personally seen two 1911's loose the claw on the extractor when having a round dropped into the chamber, and the slide dropped on the round.

I dont think its as big a deal with most of the external type, but still probably best to load from the mag.

Funny, because my Glock will not accept a round unless chambered through the mag, but will fire once the magazine has been removed from the gun.

All my Glocks will allow the round to be dropped into the chamber and the slide closed on it. And they better shoot without the mag!

If yours isnt allowing it, perhaps its time to strip the slide and give it a good cleaning.

[Walt Sherrill]

I know exactly where youre coming from here, and Ive seen this a lot, and regardless of doctrine or era. From personal experience, Ive wondered sometimes if they had any training at all, and especially with full auto fire/weapons.

Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean he or she is a firearms expert. Or that he or she has all that much firearms-handling experience. If you assume otherwise that probably suggests you aren't a vet, yourself. <Grin>

Except for periodic (sometimes ANNUAL) qualifications, a very large portion of all vets didn't use or handle weapons much after basic training was completed. For every G.I. who had duties that required the regular use of weapons in a combat context (or related training), there were 6-7 (or more) who worked in support functions with duties that didn't require regular use or handling of weapons, especially handguns. The ratio between use/non-use is probably even higher in the Navy and Air Force.

For most G.I.s, access to weapons is very controlled, with somebody telling you what to do every step of the way. And once ammunition is available, things get REALLY controlled. You aren't really taught good gun-handling skills -- you're just given few opportunities to do something stupid.

In many respects , a majority of veterans, are probably little different than most other folks you know when it comes to gun-handling skills. Just as you must assume that every gun is loaded, you must also assume -- until you have reason to think otherwise, that anyone handling a loaded weapon is a novice.

[44 AMP]

The guy who spend his duty as a finance clerk, and after basic fired a weapon once a year, and carried a (unloaded) rifle twice on guard duty in Illinois is just as much a veteran as the guy who was point man house clearing in Baghdad.

But its unlikely the clerk (unless its his personal hobby) knows much about firearms.

My nephew spent the entire Gulf War on an aircraft carrier, putting bombs on planes. Never touched a firearm after boot camp. Both my kids are Staff Sgts, one spent a tour in Baghdad, the other, coming up on 13 years in service, has never left the states.

Being a veteran means you served, somewhwere, some time, and nothing else. I am a veteran (Vietnam era), and was a Small Arms Repairman. One thing that always amazed me was how few people in the service, INCLUDNG the ones who's job involves carrying a firearm, know much about guns, beyond what their job requires.

I'm glad that today being a veteran again carries a degree of respect. Quite different from when I served. I know what makes them heroes (although I never did understand what made us "babykillers" ).

to me, anyone claiming veteran status means gets both a thank you for their service, and a close eye on their gun handling skills, until they have demonstrated their personal competence.

Being either a veteran or a cop implies that they ought to know what they are doing with a firearm, but reality is that each individual is different, with personal skills ranging from none up to expert, and their former (or current) job means nothing other than they did it, despite what we usually assume.

[AK103K]

Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean he or she is a firearms expert. Or that he or she has all that much firearms-handling experience. If you assume otherwise that probably suggests you aren't a vet, yourself. <Grin>

I well understand that, but "basic" handling proficiency, is to be expected, is it not?

And while I dont normally "assume otherwise", youre right, Im not a US military vet.

I have had a good bit of interaction over the years (both social and weapons wise), with both 'actual' combat vets, and 'vets', who have been in various military organizations, and I fully understand your point.

Unfortunately, the number of times the later will have you believe they were the former, at least skill wise, has popped up more than a few times.

Not knocking their service, but either way, the BS always stops at the firing line.

Just as you must assume that every gun is loaded, you must also assume -- until you have reason to think otherwise, that anyone handling a loaded weapon is a novice.

No doubt, and to do otherwise, is just dangerous.

Things are usually quickly weeded out, in the initial, 'empty', "here, check this out" familiarization. Just watching how they deal with that, is usually a good indicator of what to expect. Sometimes though, how you proceed after that, can often be "delicate".

[RX-79G]

With the 1911's, especially those using the internal extractor, it is a bad idea.

Yup. That's exactly what I said.

[AK103K]

Yup! Believe it or dont, for once I was agreeing with you.

Unless of course, you want to change your stance since I did.