Bad ideas

Gene L

I've seen a bunch, but the one that comes to mind today is the holster that was designed to carry a 1911 in Condition three. You charged the gun by pushing down on the butt of the gun while still holstered, and room was allowed for the slide to go rearward and and then forward to put a round in the chamber. You then drew the loaded firearm out of the holster and took care of business...drawing a cocked and unlocked gun from the holster doesn't seem safe to me.

Anyone remember these, or other not so great ideas?

Jayhawker

Yeah....stupid ain't a new thing...

BAMAAK

So most everyone that draws a striker fired gun is stupid? I have a couple with 3 lb triggers and no pretravel, I must be extra stupid.

Gene L

Never had a striker fired gun yet that doesn't have a safety on it. It's that thing in the middle of the trigger on most guns. You draw one of these and it's neither cocked nor unlocked. You have to activate the safety to fire the gun.

BAMAAK

Gene L wrote: »

Never had a striker fired gun yet that doesn't have a safety on it. It's that thing in the middle of the trigger on most guns. You draw one of these and it's neither cocked nor unlocked. You have to activate the safety to fire the gun.

Not true. The striker on some guns is partially loaded (cocked) and on others it's 100% loaded as long as you put one in the chamber. Sigs don't have the little trigger dohickey at all. And don't you have to squeeze the trigger on a 1911 as well as the grip safety? What's the difference?

Gene L

No way compatible. You're comparing a striker fired weapon where the gun is only half-cocked with a 1911 on half cock. That won't work. If you grip the 1911 in the way you must to cock, draw, and fire in the holster I mentioned, your hands are in the firing position, with zero safeties in operation. NO ONE recommends carrying a 1911 in that manner, whereas everyone recommends (almost everyone) recommends carrying a Glock as it's meant to be carried. I didn't mean to speak for ALL striker cocked weapons, only the ones I've owned.

BAMAAK

So in either sceniro all you have to do is squeeze the trigger but they don't compare?

early

The half cock notch seems like a bad idea sometimes. When I decided to hunt with my cap lock rifle, I knew I wasn't gonna tote it like that. Got me a cover for the cap and felt better. Aint no way I'd trust an old Colt hogleg or Winchester lever on that notch either. At least the notch on a 1911 serves as a catch if yer thumb slips as long as your finger is off the trigger, but it still a bit un-needed.

Jayhawker

BAMAAK wrote: »

So most everyone that draws a striker fired gun is stupid? I have a couple with 3 lb triggers and no pretravel, I must be extra stupid.

The concept of the holster that Gene is referring to is the stupid I am referring to...

Dr. db

Wasn't there a Texas Ranger who carried with the grip safety held down with a pace (or piece if you aren't from Texas) of rawhide?i

early

Dr. db wrote: »

Wasn't there a Texas Ranger who carried with the grip safety held down with a pace of rawhide?i

Charlie Miller IIRC.

Gene L

Yep, a long time ago for the clamshells. Back in the day, Model 65s and very high dollar holsters. Took some training to get used to, but it did offer weapon retention. Not too long after that I was no longer in uniform and not restricted to clamshell holsters. They were heavy and covered all but the grips.

snake284

Dr. db wrote: »

Wasn't there a Texas Ranger who carried with the grip safety held down with a pace (or piece if you aren't from Texas) of rawhide?i

Depends on what part of Texas you're from. Some parts like big cities pronounce it like a Yankee, Piece phonetically PEEEECE, then you have those more culturally affected areas where you will hear it pronounced Poace, or out west where you hear it pronounced with a shorter twang as Pace. Just depends on what kind a redneck or what part of Texas you're from.

LMLarsen

An old midwest detective I once worked with was very vocal about his opinion of clamshell holsters. His department issued them back when he was in uniform, and it seems that one day while climbing out of his old radio car, somehow the strap caught on something, the clamshell sprang open, and his S&W 27 went skittering across the pavement.

He like to say he invented some new words that day.

early

LMLarsen wrote: »

An old midwest detective I once worked with was very vocal about his opinion of clamshell holsters. His department issued them back when he was in uniform, and it seems that one day while climbing out of his old radio car, somehow the strap caught on something, the clamshell sprang open, and his S&W 27 went skittering across the pavement.

He like to say he invented some new words that day.

His boss probly told him to geta model 28 :jester:

stetson

Took care of a police station back many years ago and my office had a hole in a wall from ad from Smith&Wesson revolver.Go figure cops monkeying around put a hole in their boss's office.if you don't handle safely any type of firearm while go off.I carry my kimber in half cock with safety on.If I need to engage I can move safety and hammer back in same motion. I tried carrying with hammer cocked with safety on but humans make mistakes and I figured it's better to safe not sorry.

Gene L

I had to draw once from a clamshell, and did it pretty fast, or fast enough. A woman pointed a gun at me, which turned out to be a phony gun, which I didn't know at the time, so I'm glad I didn't shoot her which may have been justified. She was crazy. She tossed the phony gun as I drew; her reactions were pretty fast too. Not quite as fast as mine, but I saw her hand moving backwards as I drew and the gun went from pointing at me to an arc downward. I was pissed (as you might understand) but didn't charge her; she was crazy and I was thankful I hadn't shot her and it wasn't a real gun. One of those things a cop runs into. Gabriella Kidd was her name. Her sister was Murdell Kidd, both of them were crazy "Characters" in Athens, GA.

I can't remember getting into a struggle down on the street with one where security was called for, but they were kinda neat looking and did protect the revolver. I kinda went with the flow when we were issued them, as did everyone else. This was in 1977 or so. Who knew?

I wasn't in uniform all that long...long enough.

As for "warning shots" a friend of mine was getting his ass kicked down with a bad guy. He was on his back with a 220 guy on top of him pounding him. My buddy cranked off a round beside the assailant's head which ended the fight, so it's not always a bad choice, even though it was against policy where I worked.

Back when I was working, a prisoner went to a medical call in Athens (outside our county) for a medical problem, which of course we paid for. He was in cuffs, but the nurse insisted on him being freed. He promptly escaped, knocking over the nurse and the doctor. It was pre-planned, btw, a girlfriend was waiting for him. The deputy guarding him fired a warning round which didn't do any good, but did get some complaints, which I ignored or explained (Athens is in a different county.) The metro liberal LEO called me to half-heartedly complain about it since a citizen had beefed and askd if we were going to take any action for a discharge of a firearm in their jurisdiction. I said no except for a counseling. It filled out their report.

Anyway, we caught the bastard and his girlfriend about four hours later in a cheap motel. Meaning warning shots do not always stop the action, but sometimes they do. Example 1.

Pardon me for straying.

R51MAN

Gene L wrote: »

Never had a striker fired gun yet that doesn't have a safety on it. It's that thing in the middle of the trigger on most guns. You draw one of these and it's neither cocked nor unlocked. You have to activate the safety to fire the gun.

BAMAAK wrote: »

Not true. The striker on some guns is partially loaded (cocked) and on others it's 100% loaded as long as you put one in the chamber. Sigs don't have the little trigger dohickey at all. And don't you have to squeeze the trigger on a 1911 as well as the grip safety? What's the difference?

BAMAAK,
Thought we were talking about "striker fired" guns. Does not apply to 1911s. That is what that pointy thingy is above the "lemon squeezer".
Called a hammer.

BAMAAK

Read for context much?

coolgunguy

BAMAAK wrote: »

Read for context much?

It's a lost art.

Danoobie

Gene L wrote: »

Never had a striker fired gun yet that doesn't have a safety on it. It's that thing in the middle of the trigger on most guns. You draw one of these and it's neither cocked nor unlocked. You have to activate the safety to fire the gun.

...and a "safety" which you use in the same motion, with the same finger as the trigger just doesn't seem to scream
"BAD IDEA!", to you? What if somebody called the edge of a precipice with a 5000 foot drop a "parachute"?

Zee

cpj wrote: »

No. Don't want it to fire? Don't pull the trigger. Rocket science!

Amazing. Isn't it?

Danoobie

Well, you make it sound simple, until the same
piece of debris contacts the safety, and also
depresses the trigger.

I "don't want it to fire", and that's why I use an
external safety which is separate from the trigger.

Please, let's not have the patronizing "training"
discussion, because a lot of these folks having these
NDs are very well trained LEOs.

But rude certainly is in style, this month. Have at it.
Wouldn't you like to call me some undignified name,
as you overtly infer that I have a single digit IQ?

Teach

Danoobie wrote: »

I have a single digit IQ?

"If it walks, quacks, and flies like a duck- - - - - -"

LMLarsen

cpj wrote: »

"Very well trained" means squat. Stupidity trumps good training.

As evidenced by the famous DEA agent who was the only person in the room qualified to handle his sidearm...

Jack Burton

-..--...--..-..!
-..--.-...--!
.--_--..---..--..-...-.--!
-..--.---.----.-..---!

I found this archival western union telegraph exchange circa 1913 of a SAA owner berating one of them newfangled 1911 owner for needing a add-on mechanism to "safe" their firearm. Fascinating stuff!

coolgunguy

Danoobie wrote: »

Well, you make it sound simple, until the same
piece of debris contacts the safety, and also
depresses the trigger.

I "don't want it to fire", and that's why I use an
external safety which is separate from the trigger.

Please, let's not have the patronizing "training"
discussion, because a lot of these folks having these
NDs are very well trained LEOs.

But rude certainly is in style, this month. Have at it.
Wouldn't you like to call me some undignified name,
as you overtly infer that I have a single digit IQ?

You seem a little 'touchy'... You should probably eat more fibre. Personally, I would recommend bran muffins, but any whole grain foodstuff will help. Add fresh greens, too.

Danoobie

"touchy", what an interesting way of phrasing it.
Sorry, when cellar dwellers who bought a used glock with birthday and
Christmas money, want to act all patronizing and sanctimonious,
because they refuse to face the fact they bought a gun which has one of the
world's worst safety records, I'm not inclined to take any crap.

You want to defend the incredibly poorly thought out safety design
on it's merits, fine. But inferring people's
diet's are wrong, and they are myopically stupid, because they refuse
to step into line, kowtow, and start sucking down the Perfection Kool
Aid has nothing to do with the topic, or the gun.

Consider the whole point of a safety is to avoid a ND. Giving people
a false sense of security, by putting that
safety in a position where it is integral with the trigger, is worse than
no safety at all. As, BTW, countless NDs over the decades, by the trained,
and the untrained will attest.

Better check this, LM, I'm sure I misplaced a preposition, or comma, somewhere.
I'm sure that bad grammar will make this whole post worthless.

LMLarsen

Nah, it's worthless all on its own.

coolgunguy

LMLarsen wrote: »

Nah, it's worthless all on its own.

BAM! :applause:

Danoobie, to paraphrase the former Soviet spec ops instructor when asked about his training techniques: They're supposed to be dangerous. They're pistols.

If somebody is allowing something (errant holster edge, loose clothing, booger hook) to come into contact with the trigger of their firearm at ANY time, for ANY reason... I guess they shouldn't be calling themselves 'highly trained', should they? I would bet a large sum of money (large to me, anyway) that the vast majority of those "countless" NDs were EXACTLY as you labeled them... negligent. I would also bet a larger sum of money that those same "countless" NDs were, in fact, countable... and FAR fewer than fearmongers and Glock haters alike would have us believe.

I have to let you in on a little secret, one you might have known had you been here longer than somebody waiting at a deli counter; I defend Glocks but I don't really like them. They feel funny in my hand. However, i have an appreciation for stuff that is designed well and does what it is supposed to. Glocks do what they are supposed to. Every time. The problem with Glocks is that stupid people forget that simple fact, as well as other pertinent safety actions... in short, they forget that they are handling an object that is supposed to be dangerous and treat it like it's a paperweight or a glass of milk.

If my "inferring" your diet offends you, this may not be the place for you. Just sayin'

Gene L

I'll have to add to the "safety" discussion. When LE agencies switched over from revolvers to automatics, there were a number of accidents. I was with a LE agency well after the introduction and NEVER saw a unintentional discharge so I have to credit training.

As far as accidental discharges, I think the 1911 has to be way up there because it's been around a lot longer and training on it was relatively short and the use of 1911s was more of an "occasional" thing rather than vast numbers of troops armed with 1911s. It was a secondary weapon, which pistols are in most of the services. Give a GI a 1911 and regardless of everything else, he's likely to have an accident.