Another discussion on a ND/AD event evolved/de-evolved talking about the safety of a striker fire handgun as a daily concealed carry. Concealed carry of course carries with it an added burden when holstering, carrying and presenting with clothing involved.

It appears from accident reports that many ND/AD events involve a disproportionately large number of striker fire handguns. That may be exclusively because of the number carried or it could be as a result of design and poor training. With striker fire having a much lower first round trigger pull than the typical wheel gun or DA/SA, seems the potential for ND/AD increases.

Sooooo what's the real world truth?

I would like to hear from p dog shooter as he has more real world experience than most of us combined...

I have been thinking about since you posted trying to come up with answer that would make sense.

I have to think about unintentional discharges and accidental discharges.

Unintentional when the operator was handling the firearm and pulls the trigger and the firearm discharges when they don't want it.

Accidental when the gun discharges with out the operator pulling the trigger both are unintentional but one is caused by pulling the trigger.

All types of handguns can and have suffered unintended discharges. All most always operator error


Accidental a classic is when horse stirrup drops onto single action revolver causing hammer is driven forward and discharges round.

Dropped firearm goes off when it hits, dog steps on firearm and cause firearm to discharge


Some designs like the older single actions were changed or carried with out a round chambered.

Even the early double actions revolvers and single action autos were subject to hammer strike discharges. something hitting the hammer driving the firing pin forward.

Modern handguns are very safe in this regards to these type of accidental discharges.

The more safeties the less likely either well happen but don't underestimate the stupidity of people handling firearms.

Firearms that do not have manual safeties that require the operator to take on and off are most likely the safest. As they take more operations to make them discharge.

Firearms with heavier triggers can be safer for the same reason. Up to a point where the trigger becomes to heavy causing the shooter to do stupide things to get it to go off.

Firearms with to light of trigger pull that one barley touches and they discharge can cause problems also.

All firearms require one handles them safety.

Those with out manual safeties require more attention.

If one carries a Glock type system one needs to make sure nothing including ones finger gets into the trigger guard causing ones firearms to discharge when you don't want it to.

Glock type system have fired when objects have gotten into the trigger guard and depressed the trigger. Like buttons, parts and pieces of clothing or holsters.

But so have double action revolvers but it takes a lot more pressure unless they are cocked. Yes people have tried and have holstered cocked revolvers.

For people you are very diligent they are all just as safe.

For those who are a bit more absent minded or do not pay attention to detail firearms the requires more the one action to get them to fire.

Would most likely be safer.

A long answer to what one would be a simple answer but isn't.

P Dog - Thanks for the response. Another question for you - In a perfect world, what design handgun would you/do you recommend the average lay person to carry and would you recommend or dissuade the same person carrying Condition 1/Condition 2 vs Condition 3 (I know, the most hotly debated subject ever)?

I recommend to many first time shooters and clients lets shoot 4 5 6 7 different handguns of all style, sizes and types. Then pick the size and type that best suits them.

Then we can go brand shopping to get the one that suits them best because one size or type does not fit all.

I tend to steer them from ultra compacts because they are harder to shoot.

Most agree after shooting the ultra small handguns.

Makes sense. But I try and steer folks away from striker fire anything.... ever...

I shoot with some very experienced folks, competition, LE,etc. A surprising number of them are going back to the small dao revolvers for every day carry. They work,are simple to use, and for older and/or arthritic hands, they are easier to manipulate. I am guessing that problems with striker fired autos are most common because there are just so many out there.
C.G.B.

The small semi autos are quite awkward to handle in terms of racking the slide etc. The revolvers, like my Ruger LCR are very easy to handle.
Peter.

Is there any data (FBI or other) as to ADs per product sold? Maybe humans cannot be trusted with Glock style guns?

If we only look at those incidents where the shooter depresses the trigger with something and discharges the weapon, I am not sure what can be done. If a person violates basic gun safety, I am not sure the answer is to give them a gun with a manual safety and then rely on them to engage it every time and to never disengage it when they should not.

I personally like both design theories. If a person feels they cannot trust themselves or if they decide that any risk is just too much, then I think the best answer might be pepper spray or not to carry with anything in the chamber. Then you can forget the safety on your 1911 or molest the trigger on your Glock to your hearts content.

Isn't there some engineering principle that no consumer product can be designed to be perfectly safe in the hands of a human?

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
Is there any data (FBI or other) as to ADs per product sold? Maybe humans cannot be trusted with Glock style guns?

If we only look at those incidents where the shooter depresses the trigger with something and discharges the weapon, I am not sure what can be done. If a person violates basic gun safety, I am not sure the answer is to give them a gun with a manual safety and then rely on them to engage it every time and to never disengage it when they should not.

I personally like both design theories. If a person feels they cannot trust themselves or if they decide that any risk is just too much, then I think the best answer might be pepper spray or not to carry with anything in the chamber. Then you can forget the safety on your 1911 or molest the trigger on your Glock to your hearts content.

Isn't there some engineering principle that no consumer product can be designed to be perfectly safe in the hands of a human?

In the hands of an incompetent human.


Glocks perform exactly as they are designed to perform. Go bang when you pull the trigger. They don’t go off when you drop them or buy themselves. They go off when you pull the trigger.

Mike

quote:

Glocks perform exactly as they are designed to perform. Go bang when you pull the trigger. They don’t go off when you drop them or buy themselves. They go off when you pull the trigger.

Don't I know it. I just bought another this week. That's why I read this discussion.

I was told by a safety engineer that in consumer product design, a safety feature that acts and exists independent of the consumers selection to use it, is better than a safety feature that doesn't exist unless the consumer chooses to use it.

If that is true then a manual safety is less safe because it relies on the monkey (me) to actually use it.

As I said before, I like both designs just fine, this is more of a intellectual discussion, rather than a practical one.