quote:

Originally posted by Madgoat:
Actually p-dog, most semi-auto holsters would not allow for the finger to be touching the trigger while holstering.

Cops are trained not to have their fingers ON the trigger unless they are going to fire the weapon. I still don't buy this unintentional discharge deal.

I wish either were true. Almost all of the cases where Glock was getting sued because of a lack of safety were law enforcement folks having their finger on the trigger while holstering.

Unfortunately, no gun is fool proof, nature has created increasingly foolish fools to foil our fool proof designs. Who would have thought it would ever be acceptable to sue a manufacturer for having your finger on the trigger with significant pressure for it to go off and call it an accident.

As for glock safety, there are two really important passive safeties, one is the trigger, the other is an uncocked striker. Between these two, it is very hard to cause the gun to fire without pulling the trigger.

The firearm safety is to prevent the gun from going off when you are not putting pressure on the trigger, not to prevent the gun from going off when you pull the trigger.

John

I repectly disagree I would say on most holsters one can start the barrel into them with ones finger on the trigger.

Anyone who has their finger on the trigger except for when they are actually shooting something needs to be pistol-whipped and sent for remedial training, no matter what kind of holster they're using.

quote:

You seem to be taking my arguments as anti glock they are not.

I'm not getting personal or directing my replys to anyone in particular. I just call it like I see it from behind my trigger finger. It works for me!

Personally I also agree with the sentiment that says if the guys aren't trained enough to keep a finger off a trigger, they shouldn't carry a gun! In this PC world I realize that departments are frequently forced to take less qualified people in the name of dversity, as well as cut budgets to keep manpower up...but that excuse doen't go far with me!

Like was mentioned before, most of us on this site individually do more shooting than most random 10 person segments of any police squad. Luckily I've never been shot at (intentionally and with malice) but I dang sure know that the last thing I want to fumble with when rubbing the sleep from my eyes at 3AM and faced with a charging drugged out goblin is a side safety. But hey, my G22 is a bedroom/truck gun, not an EDC.

CDH

During the last 30 years I have trained a lot of cops to shoot. For most it is just part of the job.

Most cops never pull their gun in anger.Sure when the shit hits the fan we would all like them to be top shots.

But shooting is only a very small part of the job.

For some like me it is more. That is why I shoot thousands of rounds a year. I would have no trouble using carrying a single action auto I have done it for years. Never had to worry about taking the safety off when needed (training pays off)

Never had trouble carrying double action revolvers or simi's again training pays off.

Sure I would like some of the poorer shots to take it more seriously. But with any job not every body is a expert in all parts of a job. Most do the job very some excel in one aspect more then other aspects.

I excell in the firearms part of it. Ask me to do the math on a crash recon. good luck Are recon people do many a crashes a year .

I know of none of them getting into a shooting in many years.

So what part of the job is more important we firearms people think firearms are others think theirs is.

Firearms is high risk high libilty but so is driving we have more officers hurt every year by vehicles then guns. I have been closer to dieing or seriously hurt a lot more standing along the road then I have ever been with a firearm

So where does one put their training dollars into.

Does one fire or not hire a very good employee because they do not excell in just one very small part of the job.

quote:

So where does one put their training dollars into.

Does one fire or not hire a very good employee because they do not excell in just one very small part of the job.

2 critical questions as you seem well aware. You put your training $$'s into the high risk issues. Firearms handling is waaaay up there IMO. Driving is obviously up there too, but I'll venture a guess that all the 'close calls' you allude to with cars were from other, civillian drivers, not fellow officers.

The crash reconstruction guy doesn't really even need to carry, much less draw a firearm in his job. The front line grunt does. Again, IMO. The military figured out that problem many years ago and started issuing carbines...maybe police forces need to look in a similar direction.

Hire or fire based on firearms ability? No. Hand them a pistol for EDC if their job doesn't require it??? Not hire them if they can't qualify (and safely continue to use) and their job required EDC of a pistol? Yes!

I don't profess to have all the answers to that line of questions...and we are way off the original topic. Bottom line for me is that blaming an otherwise servicable piece of equipment for guys shooting themselves in the leg (absent failure of a mechanical part) is looking in the wrong place. Again, IMO.

The crash reconstruction guy only needs to when he is driving by the bank being robbed. Or the guy in the crash he just responded to is a escaped felon ect.

No matter how many training dollars or how much training one has shit happens.

I always put the blame on the shooter for doing stuip things with there arms. There are very few true firearm accidents. Most of the time it is the person behind the trigger.

If you read by posts over you well find I haven't blame glock for anything expect making a simple useful firearm.

A hammer is simple and usefull people still keep hitting themselfs with them. Saying so dosen't place blame on the hammer.

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:

Hire or fire based on firearms ability? No. Hand them a pistol for EDC if their job doesn't require it??? Not hire them if they can't qualify (and safely continue to use) and their job required EDC of a pistol? Yes!

Most police academies require you to pass a basic pistol marksmanship test to graduate. Many departments have a qualification test you have to pass anually. The truth is, like any other skill, firearm utilization requires skill and practice. Most PD's only have a qual test and no additional training.

Having a sidearm carries a lot of responsibility, the least of which is learning how to handle it safely. It is a scary statistic, but understandable, most police shootings occur at 7 yards or less and it is likely that they hit the target less than 50% of the time. Whether it be for budget reasons, or political, most departments are doing their officers a great disservice by not providing ample firearms training, for an officer to become proficient, they usually have to go to an outside source to learn how to shoot in combat situations.


Most "accidents" are usually caused by complacency and poor gun handling skills. I would classify this not as a failure of a mechanical device, but rather an error in user software.

John

Joe 45: To see it illustrated, check out: http://www.glock.com/trigger_safety.htm

It seems that most of the posters here do agree on one thing. That firearms handling skills are very perishable. Unless you continually practice, you will not develop the proficiency to be able to deal with high stress situations.
As an example, I know of one Police force which requires annual requalifications, consisting of 30 rounds fired, under 'cold' range conditions.
The only people in that state who get anything like realistic training are the 'swat' types.

When I was still doing the job, it was not uncommon to fire 6,000 rnds during transition training, and another 500 per week when 'on line', just to stay in practice. That's just the handguns, not the longarms.

While no police force is going to fund that for their street cops (or maybe even their swat guys), training is too important to be overlooked.
One police firearms instructor (I beleive it was Sykes) wrote of having the officers rotate the ammo in their revolvers on a (?) monthly basis, by firing off the issue ammo (I think it was 18 rnds) that they had been carrying, in practice, and then issuing the new replacement ammo after practice.
Now 18 rounds isn't much, but it's way better than nothing! From memory his idea of practice involved firing from different postions, using barricades, partly obscured targets, and so on.
Perhaps it is an idea which bears looking at?
JMHO

Cheers, Dave.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:

Hire or fire based on firearms ability? No. Hand them a pistol for EDC if their job doesn't require it??? Not hire them if they can't qualify (and safely continue to use) and their job required EDC of a pistol? Yes!

Most police academies require you to pass a basic pistol marksmanship test to graduate. Many departments have a qualification test you have to pass anually. The truth is, like any other skill, firearm utilization requires skill and practice. Most PD's only have a qual test and no additional training.

Having a sidearm carries a lot of responsibility, the least of which is learning how to handle it safely. It is a scary statistic, but understandable, most police shootings occur at 7 yards or less and it is likely that they hit the target less than 50% of the time. Whether it be for budget reasons, or political, most departments are doing their officers a great disservice by not providing ample firearms training, for an officer to become proficient, they usually have to go to an outside source to learn how to shoot in combat situations.

John

That's why we used to offer free range time, ammo and training to any cop who wanted it. You'd be suprised how many took us up on it. Out of a force of 350 officers, 6 showed up in total, over the 12 month period we offered it.

Cheers, Dave.