The Aristocrats! Er, sorry, I mean “America!”
5 Likes
What we need here is a good dancer with a gun. FBI dude has no rhythm.
—
In related news…
https://twitter.com/bdherzinger/status/1003639222320812033?s=21
3 Likes
OH holy shit that would hurt. Though I am curious how the hell that happened. Civil War rifles are usually pretty long, how do you shoot your arm? Says a bad slip, I guess so 
2 Likes
“Welcome to colorful Colorado…”
2 Likes
That idiot’s reaction reminded me of this:
2 Likes
To be honest, even in countries with a sane health care system (or perhaps especially there), the person responsible for such an idiotic injury would ultimately be the one to foot the bill.
1 Like
In what backwater country can you shoot someone and not pay the bill?
3 Likes
Thank you for taking the time to help me understand.
I obviously know little about handguns! My military experience was with rifles and machine guns, although I do recall firing a 9mm pistol for familiarity. My memory tells me there was a safety, but now I doubt myself. 
I’m still amazed. Weapon safety was beaten into me hard. The idea of chambering a round until just before firing seems so wrong.
If I understand, the “safety” on these type of weapons, that many (most?) are carried with a round up the spout, is a longer pull on the trigger. The same trigger used to make it go bang?
I read elsewhere some triggers have a smaller embedded trigger; in order to pull the real trigger, the embedded trigger must be depressed in a very deliberate way. My understanding is this prevents accidental pulls on the trigger.
My idea of a safety is one that’s independent of the trigger. When in the “safe” position, no-way-no-how can the firing pin be struck. Maybe I expect too much?
Great advice on pointing and trigger discipline. But if trigger discipline is the “safety”, it fails too much.
Here’s a thought… of all the gun-related deaths, how many would not have happened if there was no round in the chamber and/or the safety was on?
Sorry if I sound snarky. Not at all my intention. Love learning from the smart happy mutants here!
1 Like
You must not have spoken with @Mister44. I’m just waiting for him to tell you that handguns are basically perfectly safe since most of the fatalities caused by them are intentional suicides and not accidents.
1 Like
Yes the M9 has a safety and a decocker - so it has some redundancies and is a pretty safe pistol in that respect. The predecessor M-1911A1 also had a standard safety and a grip safety - you had to be hold it, depressing the grip safety for it to fire.
I don’t know what capacity you were in the military, but if you were on an actual armed patrol I imagine you had it loaded and on safe. I imagine too the MPs carried loaded and on safe.
I know carrying loaded is SOP for cops. Though they keep them holstered and generally in retention holsters. One can carry safely in holsters and like I said millions of people do every day now. And while a lack of a safety on Glocks seems odd, since the late 1800s with revolvers they were carrying loaded with no safeties. Though there was some getting used to the new Glocks and new safety procedures for carrying them. You can look up “Glock leg” to see that there were fails in that area and it is why NYC has their Glocks with extra heavy triggers (so heavy they are hard to shoot with out pulling the shot.) Personally I weigh risk likelihoods, and I figure I am more likely to have a negligent or accidental discharge vs need to use one for defense. Thus if I were to carry I would prefer a mechanical safety.
SOME have a mechanical safety in the trigger, but that isn’t to prevent accidental pulls, per se. Glocks and most (all?) striker fired guns have a metal bar that prevents the striker from moving forward enough to hit primer. This has to be moved out of the way and does so as the trigger is pulled. The trigger is raising that bar, cocks the striker, and releases it at the end of the pull. The point of the little “safety” lever on the trigger is that if you dropped the gun, and it landed with enough force that the trigger might move enough to fire the gun, it couldn’t actually, because the little safety on the trigger wasn’t actually depressed. I don’t know if this is technically called a safety or not - I don’t own Glock. I guess we could google a parts diagram.
That is the traditional idea of a “safety”. There are also internal parts to make a gun “more safe” in that it won’t fire when it isn’t supposed to.
Unfortunately, one of the most common causes for accidental death is either assumptions of an empty chamber, or a failure to properly clear the chamber. So in that respect you’re right - but in those cases that was their intent, they failed. In some “knew it was loaded” accidents, yes you’re right. It sort of depends on the situation.
Everything else is conjecture. I suppose in your mind you may be thinking someone pulled the trigger to murder someone, or themselves, and glad it didn’t go “bang” - to be able to “take it back”. Which is a nice idea, but probably not likely in most cases.
No worries.
Well - that IS true. Though there are “safer” designs than others - just like anything. One can have degrees of safety and still have it be over all “safe”. In this case it is less the tool failing to be safe, but the “tool” failing to be safe.
2 Likes
It seems like you should probably mention the empty chamber thing when you’re saying that.
3 Likes
Hmmm, since he’s an FBI agent:
But if you’re intoxicated, then you don’t get the protection of this act (18 USC 926B c 5). That means that, in addition to whatever other laws he broke, he’s concealed carrying without a permit.
1 Like
That’s why I said the late 1800s, although I might be a bit off and maybe it is the early 1900s, as they developed a transfer bar or some other mechanism with the advent of double action revolvers that were drop safe and one could carry with a full chamber.
But yes, the old single action style, for sure, you carried with one chamber empty. (I did mention this in another comment above). All of the new versions of these old style guns have newer safety features and you can have a full cylinder.
ETA - and while most revolvers didn’t have safeties, there were of course some that did. There are always exceptions to generalities.
1 Like
Local news is about to interview the gunshot victim…
Oh, he got damaged! He can’t work because he can’t stand all day at the Amazon warehouse. He has to get vascular surgery to fix the damage, and will be suing the agent and the FBI, but not the bar.
1 Like
Sorry, can’t provide a direct link. Click “Listen to the full episode”. Set the time to 44:00 for considerable dry snark.
2 Likes
TL;DL: … at least the shooting victim can drink for free for the rest of his life!
1 Like
Again, thanks for the detailed reply. I’ll be looking into this more… challenge: am Canadian, so putting my hands on a handgun might not be worth the effort. The last handgun owner I knew gave up the sport many years ago… too dangerous. Not the weapons, mind you… he was too afraid of making a mistake when transporting from home to range and back.
My military service was 1981-1986, Canadian infantryman. Intimately familiar with FNC1, FNC2, and Sterling SMG; competent with 30-cal and 50-cal, and assorted grunt weapons (grenades, mortars, M-72 an 81mm anti-tank, etc). I understand the… fascination… of things that go boom. Shit’s fun, yo! More so when it’s on the governments dime!!
Never saw real action, but many live-fire exercises, range work, etc. So I’ve never been under a real threat, although live-fire stuff was scary-fun. Perhaps this lack of a true threat to my person diminishes my standing in a discussion about how carrying “cold” (no round up spout, “real” safety ON) doesn’t cause so much delay as to be life threatening. The common argument I hear: “I have to carry ‘hot’ so the bad guy doesn’t have a 1 second advantage over me”. I just have a hard time believing shit goes down that fast.
Scenario: riding in the back of an APC, weapon is “cold”. Even if you’re in the lead vehicle. Contact! As you exit the back door, cock the weapon, but still on safe. Run to your assigned position, hit the dirt, roll, sights up, safety off, aim & fire. Perhaps, if you’re taking direct fire, safety off and squeeze off a few rounds in the general direction of the bad guys. Supposedly, this is how I was to do it when the bullets were real.
'Course, that was 35 years ago, weapon has changed (M16 variant, I think…sniff, sniff… how could they replace the FNC1?). Doctrine might have changed too. I left the forces as a dope-smoking peace-loving hippy freak, so I’ve not kept up with the modern army. Not mad, just not my cup of tea.
Scenario: police officer walking the beat, weapon “cold” in holster. Bad guy does something worth drawing weapon; in one smooth motion, holster release, draw, cock, safety off. This motion should be practiced until second nature. I’d say if you can’t do that without delay, more training required.
Scenario: CCW dude walks into McDonalds, weapon is “cold” in out-of-sight holster. Shots fired! In a few well-practiced motions, holster release, draw, cock, safety off. These motions should be practiced until second nature. I’d say if you can’t do that without delay, more training required, or no CCW permit for you.
I see the timer on this thread is coming to a close… let me leave you with this: The featured video is ample proof that whatever “safety” this handgun had, it didn’t work. If it had a safety trigger that must be pulled just so, it failed. If it had a grip safety, it is poorly designed. He casually (incorrectly?) grabbed the gun and it fired.
Completely preventable by carrying cold. Which in this case, he should have been. He’s an idiot multiple times over and should be charged, fired, and never allowed to carry a weapon again. But I suspect the defense will be “He’s in the line of fire and must carry hot at all times, these sorts of things can happen when you have to be prepared to return fire at any time with no delay”. A trip to the range, demonstrate he actually does know how to handle his bang stick, and back to work, occifer.
I’m rambling. Done for now. Glad the injury wasn’t fatal. Off to see how bad Doug Ford plans to mess with my otherwise happy future.
2 Likes
Sooo - just transport in a case with ammo separate? I was raised on rifles and shotguns and barely shot hand guns before I got my first. The thing is, in the city shooting handguns at an indoor range is much easier to do in all kinds of weather. Its closer and faster to get there and back. Rifles, if you want to shoot at any real distance, requires you to leave the city limits, usually. It is a different set of skills to use them, that is for sure.
Oh, sorry, I just assumed US. Looks like Candian use(d) FN Hi-Powers and Sig P226s for pistols - both are very great designs and two I’d like to get someday.
Star Wars Stormtrooper and some Rebel blasters are based on the Sterling. I have a Japanese metal replica of the Canadian version that has been converted to one. The stock works and everything. It is supposed to be able to shoot special caps, but I won’t try that. The also used this exact model for at lease one hero blaster for Return of the Jedi.
IIRC that is a FAL variant and I always liked its lines too. But they are doing away with the large 7.62mm round for infantry, so you can carry more ammo of 5.56mm… In the US the AR10 predates the AR15, and it was similar to the FAL in that it used the 7.62 round (as did the M-14 before it, and replaced the .30-06 used in the Garand and Springfield rifles).
I am not a tactical expert, I just know what is commonly taught. There are people who carry cold and they practice the draw, cock, fire move (Israeli draw, I think they call it.) With a good holster, though, it should stay secure and neigh impossible to hurt someone through normal use (assuming you don’t have a mechanical issue.) You’re right that method is one more level of safety to carry it like that, but I suppose the reasoning is that that level of jackassery is so rare that if one has the proper caution, then everyone will be fine. It is just like any thing potentially dangerous, a momentary slip up or distraction can cause a serious accident. Like chain saw juggling!
I wasn’t clear… not the rules on storage (in trunk, locked box, ammo in seperate locked box, etc.), but the rules on travel: most direct route from home->range->home, no stops for any reason when transporting, etc. Very easy to make a simple mistake and lose the permit or face charges. This was at least 20 years ago, maybe things have lightened up, although I doubt it.
Yup, that’s the one! Wicked simple mechanism, wicked pull up and right. Awkward for me as a lefty; had to switch hit or get a faceful of hot 9mm cartridges.
The change happened a few years after I left. My company did some testing of one of the possible 5.56mm replacements. As FNC1 carriers, it seemed like such a toy. And targets looked weird with all the sideways bullets. Just our grunt prejudices against something new.
I always wondered if doctrine changed with the extra rounds you could carry. With the FNC1, most shots were intentional, if not fully aimed. I think we carried 140 rounds (3 x 20 mags: 1 in the rifle, 1 in each front lower pocket, 4 x 20 cardboard boxed clips: 1 in each front lower pocket, 1 in each front upper pocket). It did not take long to run out. This is one of the things I always mention when I get in “helmets on” mode: ammo is heavy and there’s never enough. Next is water. 5 gallons is something like 40 pounds and an incredible pain in the ass to carry.
We were always taught how US soldiers, who had already switched to 5.56mm, fired with much less concern for aiming. As all military units do to each other, we mocked this undisciplined approach. Perhaps now Canadian infantry do the same? Next time I see a CAF demo unit I’ll ask.
We better stop. People are gonna start talking…
Er - “keyholeling” isn’t something that is supposed to happen. It means the bullet is not stable when traveling. I wonder if you used too light or too heavy of bullet for the rate of twist of the barrels rifling. It can make a significant difference.
“Everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face.”
Of course everyone trains to shoot at targets, but evidently their analysis from WWII and Korea is that a lot of shooting is just return fire in a general direction. Of course this greatly differs on the type of fighting you do and where. Vietnam especially they often couldn’t see through the jungle. I remember a combat vet came to our school once and said that almost all the time, you couldn’t see what you were shooting at. You could see the leaves move so you know something was over there from the bullets coming at you.
Anyway, yes, starting with the German St44, which is what inspired the AK-47, they moved to shorter, smaller rounds to allow each soldier to carry significantly more ammo. The Russians further scaled their AKs down to the AK-74 which uses a 5.45x39mm. IIRC standard load out for the US is 210rnds, but often they would carry more.
Your opinion is not alone, and there was A LOT of resistance for the switch in the 60s/70s. Couple that with the fact that 1) they used the wrong powder and didn’t chrome line the barrels and 2) didn’t tell troops how to properly maintain their new M-16s, and you were left with a very negative opinion of the new rifle who were introduced to the M-14 first. Even today I have read some modern reports that complain that the 5.56mm is anemic in performance. But given it is either 7.62 or 5.56mm for NATO standards, it is either/or until they decide to standardize something else.
Feel free to follow up with a PM.
