Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

TSiWRX wrote:^ We can't make any assumptions about our foe(s) in a deadly fight - we should never underestimate our enemies. We're Supermen until we die. Just as we should never underestimate anyone's capacity for violence ( https://www.policeone.com/close-quarter ... a-suspect/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) we should also not underestimate anyone's ability to execute that violence: maybe that homeless bum used to be in the military? maybe that old man fought in the Six Day War? we just don't know.

And as to the mechanical safety, again, there's been plenty of folks out there who've managed to "Glock" themselves with a 1911. Remember "Tex Grebner" from a few years ago? That's a well-known one that we can all see. On the flip (no pun intended ) side, we should also all realize that yes, while properly deactivating the safety is something that *should* be easy to do, under stress, this may not be true. How many times have we seen even on a recreational range-day that a fellow shooter forget to deactivate their safety and yet still try to fire? Just a couple of years ago, there was a rash of "tactical/defensive" handgun trainers who offered to waive the tuition of any students shooting 1911/2011s who were able to go the entire class without an instance of forgetting to take off or re-engage the safety: and even some very, very good shooters I know failed to meet this bar. And again, this isn't just limited to 1911s - the same can even be observed in carbine classes.

Yes, I get it - the mechanical safety is an additional measure of safety. But there's a reason why The Four Rules of firearms exists.

-----

carmen fovozzo wrote: Or even a High Point...

But maybe not the carbine?!

someguy wrote: The only thing we can be sure of is that he wasn't Israeli carrying.

Agreed. There had to have been one in the chamber - or one "next up" in the cylinder.

M-Quigley wrote: I relooked at the Tex video again, and had a question if anyone knows the answer. It's too blurry to tell, but did he have the safety on when it was in the holster? Even if you have a holster design where you can release the safety while in the holster, you're not supposed to release the safety until after it's cleared the holster. And even then you're supposed to keep the finger off the trigger until ready to fire. It looks like Tex committed a variety of mistakes.

M-Quigley wrote: I relooked at the Tex video again, and had a question if anyone knows the answer. It's too blurry to tell, but did he have the safety on when it was in the holster? Even if you have a holster design where you can release the safety while in the holster, you're not supposed to release the safety until after it's cleared the holster. And even then you're supposed to keep the finger off the trigger until ready to fire. It looks like Tex committed a variety of mistakes.

I wish I'd know of these free courses a couple of years ago for anyone who doesn't fail to release their safety. Are any still available?

My bet from having seen fellow students struggle with the locking SERPA under-stress is that the initial snag - just as Tex AAR'ed - caused him to just become more frustrated, and that his resultant clench of the weapon in trying to force-deactivate the release caused both the safety to be swept off by his thumb and his trigger finger to enter the trigger guard upon popping the lock. This type of stress reaction was what led to many training facilities, instructors, and institutions (FLETC, LAPD, etc.) to ban the use of the locking SERPA and other holsters that use a similar retention-release mechanism ("proximal to the trigger area").

qmti wrote:When it comes to my carry guns, all of mine have manual thumb safeties which are engaged at all times (like the 1911). You can call me "Old School" or worse but that's how I like it. Really, it doesn't take more than a nano second to disengage when pulling it from the holster. It's just another form of safety. Plus if someone would pull it from the holster it won't fire readily and gives me a chance to react (most criminals aren't gun savvy enough to disengage the safety, I think).

qmti wrote: I was at the gun range last night and talked to off duty policeman (9-21-2017) and was talking about the child that died. we talked about manual safeties. He carries a Glock with no manual safety on duty, trigger only, but his off duty carry gun, S&W has a manual safety.

qmti wrote: QMTI:
I was at the gun range last night and talked to off duty policeman (9-21-2017) and was talking about the child that died. we talked about manual safeties. He carries a Glock with no manual safety on duty, trigger only, but his off duty carry gun, S&W has a manual safety.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

M-Quigley wrote: I've heard some people say they think double action revolvers or DA semi autos might prevent young kids from pulling the trigger, but I wouldn't want to bet my life or theirs on that.

Good instincts. Gun people make the mistake of thinking children will attempt to fire the gun "correctly", as in, with a firm grip from behind and a single finger on the trigger. That's often not the case. Children aren't trying to establish a proper shooting grip, they're just being curious. They may use 2 fingers on the trigger, their thumb(s), hold the gun backwards, or even from the side.

A 1995 study by the Pediatric Practice Research Group found that

Twenty-five percent of 3- to 4-year-olds, 70% of 5- to 6-year-olds, and 90% of 7- to 8-year-olds have a two-finger trigger-pull strength of at least 10 lb

catfish86 wrote:The thought that occurred to me in reading this was if the gun in question may have been a revolver with a hammer. Could it have been a pull/release of the hammer on a loaded chamber on a revolver? It this most likely scenario in my mind.