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

[JN01]

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

You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

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.

But somehow it IS hard to deliberately check the chamber before your field strip a striker fired pistol?

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

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."

While I certainly feel for his family and friends, I can't imagine taking a pistol pointing it at my chest and pulling the trigger, even if it was empty. He may not have been stupid in general. But his actions are almost the definition of stupid. We all do stupid things. I've had my share; some pretty good ones too. But I can't top his example.

[Bart Noir]

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

Was that a sign of 'Perfection'?

Heck, the Colt Single Action Army has been around for 140 years. But it still has an unsafe characteristic, as in you just don't want to carry with all 6 chambers loaded.

Bart Noir

[Technosavant]

Originally Posted by JN01

But somehow it IS hard to deliberately check the chamber before your field strip a striker fired pistol?

Think about it.

Takedown for cleaning is generally a routine task. Think about it- if you clean the gun after shooting you've been to the range, you drove home, you may even be thinking about the tasks you'll do when you're done. You might even have thought you cleared the weapon at the range before packing up. Easy to be distracted and forget.

Dry fire practice is not generally done in the same state of mind (at least, that's not when I do it). One is thinking "I need to practice, but I don't want to actually SHOOT something. Let's double and triple check everything." Your mind is on the task and you're actively thinking about it.

Different mindsets. Cleaning can be done in a less attentive frame of mind than actual practice.

But still- is it your position that pulling the trigger when NOT intending to fire a round (but rather performing disassembly) is every bit as safe as never having to pull the trigger? Or is your position that it is a potential problem that can be managed but requires extra attention to safety?

If you believe the latter, we are in agreement. It does indeed require very detailed attention to safety- attention that should be given anyway, but has in the past presented a danger to those who have been distracted.

If you believe the former, we disagree. I don't see how there's any way an additional pulling of the trigger could ever be considered as safe as not needing to do so.

[WiscBuckmaster]

Regardless of what mind set you're in, are distracted, or whatever someone's excuse may be, accidents don't happen when handling a firearm safely, it's that simple. The whole deal with the remington 700 and a faulty safety being blamed for deaths, which I agree that shouldnt have ever left the factory with that trigger assembly but just look at the cardinal rules of hunter safety, 3 in particular: keep firearms pointed in a safe direction at all times, treat every firearm as if it was loaded, and, firearms are man-made devices prone to failure. If you can't follow those then do everyone a favor and wait to buy or handle a firearm until you can intelligently handle and respect a firearm. All of these urban cowboys that buy guns and think they are so "cool" because they have a gun, are the people at the range looking down the end of the barrel after their gun jams, and shooting one handed as fast as they can like they saw in the movies, if that applies to you please give your guns to a state buyback program because thats why my 2nd amendment rights are at stake, because stupid city folks cant keep their head on straight. Yuppies with guns scare me more than criminals with guns, thats for sure.

[Fishbed77]

While I certainly feel for his family and friends, I can't imagine taking a pistol pointing it at my chest and pulling the trigger, even if it was empty. He may not have been stupid in general. But his actions are almost the definition of stupid. We all do stupid things. I've had my share; some pretty good ones too. But I can't top his example.

Jayhawk, If you had "quoted" more of my post than just a "sound bite" you would see that there could have been a lot more to the situation than just "stupidity."

As soon as we humans start to believe we are incapable of making mistakes (even ones that look totally avoidable) is when the most tragic incidents can occur.

[Gaerek]

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

Not misreading, just going with what's being said. Read on...

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.

And why is it so hard to do this when taking down your gun. YOU ARE PULLING THE TRIGGER. This is not a difficult thing to do. There is no difference between pulling the trigger to take down your gun, and pulling the trigger to dry fire. Saying there is because with dry firing you're intending to practice, or you know you're going to pull the trigger is disingenuous. You know if you're going to pull the trigger when you're taking the gun down. You are still pulling the trigger when you are not intending to fire. You are still breaking rule #3, either way. Both actions are "inherently more dangerous" than not pulling the trigger.

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

I never disagreed with this. But my point (that you apparently misread) was that anyone with an ounce of common sense, and respect for the power of the object they have in their hand will make sure the gun is unloaded before pulling the trigger, when the intention is not to fire a round. If you fire off a round for any reason that wasn't intended, it is not because of the design of the gun, it's because you were negligent. Period.

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.

I bolded the important part. No mechanical safety is foolproof. Is it bad design to require a trigger pull to take down? We could argue that, I suppose. At the time that was the norm, likely there wasn't another way people knew how to do it. Would I be against, say, Glock doing that to any new guns they make? Not at all, as long as it doesn't affect the operation of the gun. But they haven't. Many manufacturers haven't. And it doesn't bother me at all, because I don't rush when I'm taking down my gun. I make sure it's safe before I pull that trigger.

Here's a question for you, is it a good idea to chamber check any firearm before you take it down? Regardless of whether you have to pull the trigger or not? If you answer anything other than yes, I'd really like to see an explanation (and I highly doubt you would say anything other than yes, you seem like a level headed person).

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.

It's because the thought that some mechanical device can make a gun safer gives us awesome regulations like California requiring the idiot unloading safety (aka magazine disconnect safety). Safe handling is what makes a gun safe. Mechanical devices DO NOT.

I'm not ridiculing you. I'm not against designs that don't require a trigger pull to take down a gun. I'm simply an advocate of safe firearm handling over trusting mechanical safeties. I'd rather stand next to someone with, say a Glock with great firearm handling than an idiot who isn't safe with a gun with 100 safety devices.

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.

I agree with you here. My primary point was that you don't blame the gun when someone fires off a negligent round. That's all.

[ET.]

Personally, I like the bunny with the pancake on it's head the best and the cat wearing the tin foil hat with tin foil ears second best. Between the two, they say everything that I was thinking about this thread...Well except for this: People have a problem pulling the trigger to take down a pistol because almost all ND's happen when a trigger is pulled. Of those, most are thought to be empty guns.

A high school friend of mine was shot & killed in our high school parking lot by another of my friends my freshman year when he pulled the trigger on an empty gun... except it wasn't so empty! The friend who pulled the trigger killed himself some years later because he never got over killing his friend.

Because of that experience in the 9th grade I am kind of OCD when it comes to being sure a gun is empty before I pull the trigger on a gun to clean it. I always assume I'm going to hear a "BOOM" every time I pull it. It sure makes me think twice & look 4 times!!!!

[Technosavant]

My primary point was that you don't blame the gun when someone fires off a negligent round.

Then we agree. You are also correct that no mechanical safety is foolproof. No amount of mechanical safety can overcome unsafe practices. It's the meatware safety that is most important. And unfortunately, it's also the most fallible.

It isn't the gun's fault that a negligent round fires. One should ALWAYS be sure of a clear chamber before any takedown procedure, whether the trigger must be pulled or not. I'd hold short of ridiculing someone who has an ND like this, mostly because any of us can be distracted, but it is certainly the fault of the operator.

It's up to the owner to know the ins and outs of a firearm. 1911 owners need to understand that the short and light trigger pull makes it VERY easy to launch a round. Glock owners need to understand that if the trigger is pulled with a round in the chamber it WILL fire. Every design has its peculiarities. It just so happens that this particular peculiarity is one that is highly unforgiving of a failure to clear the chamber properly, and that's something owners must keep in mind.

My Sigma is like this. I always, ALWAYS double and triple check before stripping it. It's way too easy to get distracted.

[alienbogey]

As far as I'm concerned it's a design flaw.

Yes, people SHOULDN'T make this mistake, but they do. A fair number of people would still be around today, and a friend of mine wouldn't have a hole in his leg, if Mr. Glock had designed his pistol so that pulling the trigger wasn't required for disassembly.

Given that any number of people have accidentally/negligently discharged rounds due to this characteristic, then that characteristic should have been changed long ago.

(Perfection? Pfffft.)

Should you put the clutch in and put a manual transmission out of gear before starting the car? Of course you should, but some people don't and run over things they don't intend to. So, modern cars won't allow the starter to engage unless the clutch is in, and as a result fewer things get accidentally/negligently run over.

And for everyone who swears that THEY are too smart and careful to EVER make such a mistake—well maybe you are, but the guy a few lanes over at the range may not be as good as you, and you may absorb the round he discharges when he pulls the trigger on a loaded chamber during disassembly.

It's an outdated, flawed design characteristic that should have long since been changed.

[JohnKSa]

There is no deal--or at least there wasn't...

It was a total non-issue for many years as part of the takedown process of one of the most popular .22LR pistols on the market in the U.S.

Then a particularly polarizing polymer pistol became common and it also used a trigger pull as part of the takedown process. Suddenly the need to pull the trigger during takedown became problematic and dangerous.

Frankly, I think it became a convenient way to villify a particular pistol that many strongly desired to villify. If there is a deal, that's about the long and the short of it, as far as I can see.