What is the deal with not wanting to pull the trigger during takedown?

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

I keep hearing about how certain guns don't require you to pull the trigger to remove the slide and how this is a great feature. I don't get it. If you are so stupid as to not check the chamber before you take it apart you shouldn't be handling guns in the first place. I know mistakes happen, but seriously.

[TunnelRat]

Troll alert.

[+1k ammo]

I know logic just does not seem to be the absolute truth when dealing with humans.

How many people would still be alive if there were some type of very visible way to double check. (ok, say all guns were made with clear plastic and you could actually see the bullet in the chamber)

I don't know the stats, but there would be a lot.

And no one has ever pressed the gas when looking for the brake in a car and ended up running people over!

People make mistakes and the things we design (I am a designer) should rule out the possibility of making the mistake. That is good design.

I was brought up around guns so it is second nature, but people who have not just forget sometimes.

[greyeyezz]

[g.willikers]

Set to music:

"I didn't know the gun was loaded.
And I'm so sorry my friend.
I didn't know the gun was loaded.
And I'll never do it again."

From a very old song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJMtnRMpjM

[Fishbed77]

All troll alerts aside, the answer is:

Rule 3.

http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html

If you are so stupid as to not check the chamber before you take it apart you shouldn't be handling guns in the first place.

Maybe, maybe not. Last year, a man died at a local indoor range when disassembling a Glock pistol after failing to check the chamber.

http://www.thestate.com/2012/12/01/2...-shooting.html

He was not "stupid." He was a father of several childeren and a friend of my wife's boss. Why he failed to properly check the firearm, we'll never know. Was he careless? Was he distracted? Did his eyesight fail him? All we know is that humans are fallible and there was a failure to follow Rules 1, 2, and 3. Perhaps he would have survived if he only broke the first 2 Rules, but there is no doubt that a failure to follow Rule 3 is what killed him. Of course, some firearm designs require that Rule 3 be broken for disassembly.

This is not to say that these designs are inherently "less-safe" than others (the last thing I would ever propose are additional politician/lawyer-mandated "safety features"). But an adherence to the 4 Rules becomes even more critical when operating them.

[whippoorwill]

Well... if one were discussing a rimfire, then one might prefer not to have to pull the trigger to disassemble. But, I'm sure that for most, it's just one less thing that might allow a round to be fired unintentionally.

BTW... what's the significance of the bunny with the pancake hat? I don't get it... unless that's the new symbol for the International House of Pancakes... IHOP.

[dayman]

I've never had a problem with it. I always check the chamber - drop the mag then rack the slide a couple times as a matter of course. And, even still, I keep the gun pointed in a safe direction when I pull the trigger.
If not stupidity, anyone who manages to shoot themselves while field stripping a gun is certainly guilty of complacency. No matter how much experience you have with guns, you still need to remember that they have the potential to be very dangerous, and treat them like they might be loaded every time you pick one up.

[Technosavant]

It is that it is one potential place for things to go horribly wrong. Sure, checking the chamber first renders the act to be rather less problem, but it is still a potential problem area. If you get distracted, forget to check, or anything like that, people can be injured or killed. Even the most responsible person can have a bad moment.

I have one gun with that kind of design... I am always EXTREMELY careful when taking it down for cleaning. But the fact remains that it is a trigger pull that is NOT intended to fire a round. That by itself dangerous for the reasons mentioned. Not a danger that cannot be managed, but more dangerous than a design that does not require it.

I would not advise someone against such a design for that reason, but I would advise that the buyer be very aware of it.

[Technosavant]

Originally Posted by whippoorwill

BTW... what's the significance of the bunny with the pancake hat? I don't get it... unless that's the new symbol for the International House of Pancakes... IHOP.

It's an internet meme.

It usually appears with the text "I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head."

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pancake-bunny

[ShamrockArmory]

"I have no idea what you are talking about, soo...... Here is a bunny with a pancake on it's head."

It's a common way for people on forums to say that they don't see the point of the OP. lol

[Bart Noir]

I am one of those people who think that the "you gotta pull the trigger" method of field-stripping, is less than optimum.

As stated above, if nobody makes a mistake then all is well. But people do make mistakes. If they are trained to remove magazine and then operate the slide and check the chamber, to fully unload, then once in a while somebody does those two steps in the wrong order.

If that was a loaded magazine, then a gun which visually showed itself to be 'chamber empty' ends up loaded.

And the next step is the trigger-pull. With the accompanying loud sound. Possible with a tragic loud screaming sound.

So I don't like that design. And I praise the XDm design where the slide just comes off the frame without any need to de-cock the striker by any method.

Bart Noir

[tipoc]

This is very important! i like the bunny and the Andrews Sisters!



The Glock has been around near 30 years. It's an old design.

tipoc

[labhound]

Drop the mag, rack the slide, pull the trigger. Sometimes people get it mixed up and rack the slide, drop the mag, pull the trigger, BANG! Stuff happens and not always to someone else.

[dayman]

That's why I always rack the mag twice - if cartridges start popping out I forgot to remove the mag.

[SgtLumpy]

Pardon my ignorance - Which pistols require you to pull the trigger in order to field strip?


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq

[dayman]

A lot of the polymer striker guns; Glocks, XD's (with the exception - I think - of the XDm), and the Walther PPQ. As to others I can't say, but I think it's a fairly normal feature for striker guns.

[TunnelRat]

Does it make me cringe? No, but I handle firearms daily and one ND a few years back taught me a hard lesson. But if I can have a firearm that doesn't require me to pull the trigger for no added cost and I enjoy shooting it as much as one that does require me to pull the trigger, I see no reason why not.

[Technosavant]

Pardon my ignorance - Which pistols require you to pull the trigger in order to field strip?

It's part of many striker fired designs, namely the Glock and S&W Sigma (which is mostly a copy of the Glock). Reason being, the striker is partially cocked by the motion of the slide. Pulling the trigger allows the striker to be completely uncocked, allowing takedown.

The S&W M&P has a little lever inside that allows the user to move the striker off the sear to avoid having to pull the trigger. Since you have to retract the slide to get to the lever, it forces a person to check the chamber and even stick your finger in there.

[Gaerek]

I'm kind of with the OP here. Check the damn chamber. I check the chamber every single time I handle my gun, even if I "know" it's unloaded (or loaded) If you don't, well, at least there's the other firearm handling rules to follow before take down. If you (or someone else) are shot disassembling your Glock, it's not just one rule you broke, it's a bunch.

Ok, so taking the firearm down required you to pull the trigger. So, by necessity you have to break rule #3. But, what about #1? That one was broken, since you didn't chamber check. What about rule #2? Why was the muzzle in a direction that isn't safe...ESPECIALLY WHEN PULLING THE TRIGGER ON A GUN!!!!

I feel bad for the guy in the story above, but he was extremely negligent. It was not the fault of the gun. It was the operator...plain and simple. According to some people posting here, we shouldn't do dry fire practice in our homes because it required us to pull the trigger. Yet every expert shooter out there says that dry fire is needed to build up and work on skills.

There are almost zero cases of a true accidental discharge. Nearly every single one can be boiled down to gross negligence of the operator, regardless of gun design.

[Fishbed77]

A lot of the polymer striker guns; Glocks, XD's (with the exception - I think - of the XDm), and the Walther PPQ. As to others I can't say, but I think it's a fairly normal feature for striker guns.

The Walther P99 is striker-fired, but does not require a trigger pull to dissassemble.

There are hammer-fired pistols that require a trigger pull to disassemble. The Ruger Mark I/II/III rimfire pistols are a very common example.

[TunnelRat]

According to some people posting here, we shouldn't do dry fire practice in our homes because it required us to pull the trigger. Yet every expert shooter out there says that dry fire is needed to build up and work on skills.

Agreed. I dryfire for hours each night. A lot of it is for muscle memory but some of it is to build strength in my fingers for DA/SA pistols.

There are almost zero cases of a true accidental discharge. Nearly every single one can be boiled down to gross negligence of the operator, regardless of gun design.

I 100% agree (I have a mancrush on you right now ). To me the only "accidental" discharge is a result of a mechanical failure of the firearm itself, which in most cases is a result of a poorly maintained firearm and again a fault of the owner. Any time a human is involved it's negligence, pure and simple. I've had a ND. It was a result of stupidity on my part. But because I still obeyed Rules 2 and 4 no one was hurt.

There are hammer-fired pistols that require a trigger pull to disassemble.

Though that's much more rare.

[Gaerek]

I 100% agree (I have a mancrush on you right now ). To me the only "accidental" discharge is a result of a mechanical failure of the firearm itself, which in most cases is a result of a poorly maintained firearm and again a fault of the owner. Any time a human is involved it's negligence, pure and simple. I've had a ND. It was a result of stupidity on my part. But because I still obeyed Rules 2 and 4 no one was hurt.

I'm happily married, so, off the market, as it were!

I've read one story (might have seen it here, not sure) of what I would consider a true accidental discharge.

A police officer was going to the hospital to get an MRI. He was armed. He asked the tech what to do with his gun. He thought the tech had said to go into the MRI room with it. Apparently he had said something else. He pulled the gun out to place it somewhere so he could get ready to get his MRI. When the machine was turned on (it's a giant electromagnet), it flung the gun from where it was set and stuck to the machine, and at that moment, the gun fired. It was a 1911. Apparently, not only did the magnet grab the gun, but also moved the firing pin block out of the way. And it stuck with such force that the firing pin struck the primer of round in the chamber. Here's the full story:

http://www.ajronline.org/content/178/5/1092.full.pdf

One could say there was negligence in the miscommunication between the officer and the tech, but none of the 4 rules of firearm handling were broken, and it was just such a freak accident. So, obviously there are accidental discharges, but they are so incredibly rare as to be considered nearly non-existent.

I consider my Glock to be safer than guns that have more safety measures because I am more aware of the fact that there aren't as many safety measures to protect me. When I take my Glock down, I drop the mag, rack the slide. Rack again for good measure. Check the chamber, then check it again. Point the gun in a safe direction, pull the trigger, then disassemble. I follow this procedure each and every time. I'm not saying that we shouldn't design guns that don't require a trigger pull to disassemble, but it's not a dangerous procedure if you have to, as long as you're the one being safe. Someone replied to a thread I posted in earlier today and said something like, "There are no dangerous guns, it's just a hunk of inanimate metal, only dangerous users." There are few truer statements than this.

[Technosavant]

Originally Posted by Gaerek

According to some people posting here, we shouldn't do dry fire practice in our homes because it required us to pull the trigger. Yet every expert shooter out there says that dry fire is needed to build up and work on skills.

If you prefer to deliberately misunderstand what is being said I suppose you could come up with this.

When dry firing it is not hard to deliberately pause and check things over. You *know* you're going to be violating the rule about "keep the finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire." When you deliberately break a rule but pause and say "I know I am doing X, but here is why, and I have checked Y and Z, so things are safe" then things can be done safely.

You are ignoring what we are really saying- an unnecessary trigger pull is inherently more dangerous than never pulling the trigger.

Certainly, that danger can be managed. An aware person can indeed ensure that things are handled safely and no unintended round is fired. Of course that is the case. But it remains that it depends on everything working well... especially the safety between the ears. Unfortunately even that safety is not foolproof.

Or you can just ridicule us for being silly people more interested in safety than in being competent with the gun because if we warn people about a possible danger of a given design then we're obviously not out there dry firing or anything else to build experience.

Let's be serious and honest. Many people have touched off an unintended round because they failed to clear the firearm properly. A design requiring this step for takedown is one that is going to be more prone to this than one that does not. Does this mean the design is junk? Hardly. It means the owner of one of these types of guns absolutely must pay attention because there's that much less margin for error.

[tomrkba]

It's not a problem if the person clears the gun beforehand and removes all ammunition from the area.

Unfortunately, there is this common attitude that the manufacturer has to take responsibility for end user behavior.