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

Quote:

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

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

( 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) Piss poor training in weapon handling (should be subconscious to keep trigger finger off the trigger)
2) Piss poor training in the legal and proper use of a firearm, and when to use it.

Nnobby45 · February 1, 2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

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?!

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!

OBIWAN · February 2, 2006, 01:47 PM

David....

Now that would be an appropriate response

281

sigh

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!)

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!!!"

yorec · February 2, 2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

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.

**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

Quote:

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?

February 1, 2006, 03:51 PM	#1
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	On DA triggers- John Farnam Quips 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!

February 1, 2006, 09:52 PM	#9
pax Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2000 Location: In a state of flux Posts: 7,520	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 __________________ Kathy Jackson My personal website: Cornered Cat

February 1, 2006, 10:36 PM	#11
BreacherUp! Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2005 Posts: 566	This experiment does show 2 good points: 1) Piss poor training in weapon handling (should be subconscious to keep trigger finger off the trigger) 2) Piss poor training in the legal and proper use of a firearm, and when to use it. __________________ Life's tough. But it's tougher when you're stupid.

February 2, 2006, 11:46 AM	#17
stephen426 Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2005 Posts: 3,840	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. __________________ The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!

February 2, 2006, 12:07 PM	#18
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	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? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

February 1, 2006, 04:32 PM	#2
smince Junior member Join Date: October 9, 2004 Location: Northeast Alabama Posts: 2,580	I Agree!

February 1, 2006, 04:43 PM	#3
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	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.

February 1, 2006, 04:46 PM	#4
exar Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 224	that's why i carry a Sig 228...only safety on it is the one carrying it

February 1, 2006, 06:04 PM	#5
Sir William Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2004 Posts: 3,261	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.

February 1, 2006, 08:36 PM	#7
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	Exar...you missed the point ( hint:sigs are trigger cocking handguns- the DA first pull is a form of "safety") SW...you got too wrapped up in hindsight

February 1, 2006, 09:19 PM	#8
Sir William Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2004 Posts: 3,261	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.

February 1, 2006, 10:32 PM	#10
Sir William Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2004 Posts: 3,261	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?

February 2, 2006, 01:13 AM	#13
Sir William Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2004 Posts: 3,261	I will give it a OK, BUT rating. I appreciate what breacher up pointed out.

February 2, 2006, 10:41 AM	#15
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	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

February 2, 2006, 10:52 AM	#16
DAVID NANCARROW Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,761	Wonder how many times the simulated drunk had his simulated body stomped on?

February 2, 2006, 01:19 PM	#19
281 Quad Cam Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 937	[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?! 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! __________________ "Whats the first aid procedure for consumption of coolant?"

February 2, 2006, 01:47 PM	#20
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	David.... Now that would be an appropriate response 281 sigh 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

February 2, 2006, 02:25 PM	#21
WYO Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2001 Posts: 365	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.

February 2, 2006, 02:32 PM	#22
281 Quad Cam Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 937	OBIWAN, I understand the first several points, I edited before you posted (score!) 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!!!" __________________ "Whats the first aid procedure for consumption of coolant?"

February 2, 2006, 04:18 PM	#24
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	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? __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)