kbm6893
Member
Rifles have a safety and nobody has an issue with them.
Why do you need a safety?
- Thread starter amcline82
- Start date
- Status
ThrowinRocks
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 123
As do shotguns
kbm6893
Member
The military requires a safety on all their weapons. SIG even put one on the new 320 to get the contract.
kbm6893
Member
Really? Tell that to the soldiers carrying them and those who
Keep a long gun under the bed or in the closet.
I get the reason why people don't want a safety. It's their choice. But the truth is that the odds of using a weapon in self defense, plus not disengaging the safety, are much less likely than a brain fart while
Routine handling. Nearly 600 people killed a year unintentionally. God knows how many shot and not killed. Especially children.
Last edited:
ThrowinRocks
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 123
Never recall reaching for a handgun when under fire. It's a last resort. At home that's a different story.
kbm6893
Member
Not enough to matter. Military guys come under fire unexpectantly and they react. No different than the guy grabbing a handgun when his door is kicked in. And many of them
Aren't in combat roles. So the corporal working in the motor pool is still able to
Handle his M4 or M9 just fine.
Last edited:
We are getting way off topic, but..
When would a soldier ever have to do anything remotely similar to using unarmed skills to defend against a contact range assault and transition to drawing a concealed handgun or have to access a pistol from a bedside micro-vault and quickly move through a residential home to defend their children during a home invasion?
When would a soldier ever have to do anything remotely similar to using unarmed skills to defend against a contact range assault and transition to drawing a concealed handgun or have to access a pistol from a bedside micro-vault and quickly move through a residential home to defend their children during a home invasion?
kbm6893
Member
We're not off topic at all. The OP asked why people need a safety. You stated that a safety can be an impediment to defending yourself. I disagree. Millions of people carry a semi auto with a safety. Cops did for many years until Glock became so common. Soldiers still do.
I'm not looking to ban safety-less weapons. But what you want. Just don't twist whatever scenario you have to to make it fit your criteria. Manual safeties do prevent ND's. No denying it. play the odds the way you want.
My home defense gun is a 5903. Mag loaded, safety on, not chambered.mag disconnect too In a gun vault. I don't feel at a disadvantage.
Last edited:
I check in every 10 minutes or so, for your comeback response, but I do feel that soldiers & police officers are not always engaging in their work, and basically become what many of us are. I do know that my soldier son, isn't always on duty, so to speak. And when he's not, he's much the same as I am, defense wise. I don't see this total separation of military and police officers, versus the public, as you seem to.
I agree it does make the gun safer, but it is still a potential impediment in effectively using it in the context of reactive close-quarters, because I've seen it. Numerous other instructors who conduct such training say the same thing.
Answer me this... Have you ever participated any type of ECQ force-on-force training to actually test if it's an issue?
I'm not twisting any scenario. Close-quarter assaults with fists/blades /impact weapons aren't exactly uncommon.
No, that's not what the OP said at all.
Why did you choose a safety.
Don't want to know why othersshould have a safety.
Pretty specific statements
kbm6893
Member
My last response to this since we're just going round and round. Somehow, I have managed to get through nearly a half a century without being attacked my multiple knife wielding opponents. I carry a weapon to protect myself in the highly unlikely event that I will ever need to use it. I practice flicking off on the draw so often that it is intuitive.
So when I weigh the odds of that safety getting me killed versus it preventing an ND, I choose to have a safety. I recognize that I am
Not infallible, so "my safety isn't between my ears" and I don't "keep my booger hook off the bang switch". So when handling an object that can take a life, I choose to err on the side of caution.
kbm6893
Member
The title of the thread is "Why Do You Need a Safety?" Pretty specific.
Biggfoot44
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,060
- Reaction score
- 1,596
I * prefer * to have a safety on bottomfeeders. I started bottomfeeders with safeties, and have always used and trained with the safeties. But its not a dealbreaker if a semi that I otherwise fancy is not available with one.
The reasoning is NOT about preventing me from having an AD .
The reasoning is NOT about preventing me from having an AD .
Arc Angel
Member
No offense, but, I really do get sick and tired of all the inane back ‘n forth IGF arguments on this always contentious subject. In this particular thread, though, I feel as if I should thank you for stating the facts correctly! After all of the online ‘C-1 vs. C-3’ brouhahas I’ve been involved in it’s actually refreshing to discover someone with an accurate grasp on the past historical, and present tactical situation — including the attendant social perspective concomitant, thereto.
I will presume that you know: Nowadays, Israeli Shin Bet security units have adopted the habit of carrying their pistols (all pistols) in C-1 or, in the case of striker-fired pistols, in C-0.
I’m not saying this currently allowed carry practice is right; nor am I saying it’s wrong; but, since the successful 1995 AMBUSH ASSASSINATION of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli security details (like those of Shin Bet) have been allowed to adopt a sudden close quarter ambush mentality; and today’s younger generations of soldier/guardians seem to have, ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’ and now prefer C-0 carry of their striker-fired pistols.
(So far, though, I haven’t heard of a single instance where C-0/C-1 carry has made even the slightest difference; but, as I hope to make clear, there’s a good reason for that!)
The only comment I’ll offer on Rabin’s murder is that, after repeatedly and carefully reviewing the details of this presumed (Because there are those who have their doubts!) ambush assassination, I remain convinced that no form of pistol carry might have saved Rabin’s life. He was destined to die that day; and die he did!
The American handgun-user mentality I encounter most often on internet gun forums is what I would describe as a remarkably myopic and ill-informed, ‘ambush mentality’; and, ‘the thicker’ the board membership’s mentality is, then, the more of it you’re going to see! Basically, the underlying rationale seems to be that: If a gunman isn’t, somehow, instantly ready to draw and fire his pistol with one hand then it is popularly assumed — very popularly assumed — that the individual gunman is NOT ready to deal successfully with any largely unexpected CQB exchange of gunfire.
The primary focus of most (but not all) American pistol carry is for a gunman to be instantly ready to engage with as few physical body movements and in the shortest amount of time possible. In many other parts of the world, though, emphasis is equally divided between BOTH user safety, as well as upon the (too frequently presumed) personal ability to skillfully perform lifesaving handgun self-defense procedures at a moment’s notice!
Yet, these procedures ARE very difficult for a great many gunmen to correctly perform; but, ya got ‘a remember, ‘The world is full of half-baked wannabes!’ For more than 30 years, now, I’ve carried my own semiautomatic: Colt 1911’s, Browning P35’s, and Glock pistols in C-3; and, miracle of miracles, a ‘dirt magnet’ like me is still here!
During these years there WERE occasions when C-3 carry saved either myself, or someone in close proximity to me from being placed in unexpected jeopardy from the pistol I was carrying. (Like the time I was tripped, and my pistol was pulled out of its holster as I fell forward. Unexpected events like these can and DO happen!)
Early in life I had the advantage of associating with several individuals who had served in more advanced details of the IDF. They learned a lot of different things from me; and I learned a lot of different things from them, too. I’ll share a few of those lessons now:
Is C-0/C-1 carry, in any kind of holster, actually worth the risk? Quite possibly not! The usual popular rationale for C-0/C-1 carry is for the carrier to be able to achieve as near-as-possible instantaneous, one-handed control over his ready-to-go, ‘pure combat pistol’.
(Give me a break, Marshall Dillon; will ya, please!)
The problem, then, becomes: What good is gaining rapid, almost instantaneous one-handed control over your ‘pure combat pistol’ going to do if you’re suddenly caught up in an unexpected CQB pistol or knife ambush? Voilà, for a majority of civilians who seem to take some sort of machismo delight in carrying in C-0/C-1 it’s now ‘Fredo Corleone time’!
Fredo had one of them there, ‘pure combat pistols’ with no user-applied safety on it, too; didn’t he! (The only difference is that Fredo’s firing pin wasn’t 80% + pretensioned; and his revolver had a 10-12 lb, true double-action, trigger pull.) Is the average gun-toting civilian going to do any better in real life than Fredo did in the movie? Well ……, let me be blunt: Not from anything that I’ve ever seen; and I’ve seen a whole lot of gun-toting civilians — A high percentage of whom never did much more than to, on occasion, frighten me!
(I hate having to stand in front of, on the left-hand side of, or to have to turn my back on one of these people! The very first thing I do whenever I use anybody’s public shooting range is to try and get a firing lane on the far right-hand side of the line. ‘Why?’ Because these guys are just so good with their pistols — That’s ‘Why!’)
OK, all kidding aside, the real (correct) answer to this problem is that, more than likely, C-0/C-1 carry is going to do most people no particular good at all! The most viable solution to the problem of suddenly having to face an unexpected CQB knife or pistol AMBUSH is NOT to allow yourself to be caught unaware in the first place! (No matter what, this is going to be your smartest and safest move!)
Impossible, you might think? No, not according to what I’ve learned; AND, once again, very possible — very possible! — according to the most recent handgun combat research done by retired Sheriff’s Deputy Lieutenant Dave Spaulding. In his now famous article on, ‘What Really Happens In A Gunfight?’ Spaulding comes right out and frankly states the following several remarks about CQB pistol gunfighting.
THIS IS REAL WORLD, NOT INTERNET GUN FORUM, CQB PISTOL GUNFIGHTING, OK!
Here we go: ‘Awareness is as important to (successful)(Ed.) gun fighting as is(proper grip and)(Ed.) trigger control.’1.
‘For many years, we have been taught that armed confrontations occur at very close distances, (oftentimes at arm's length) that few shots are fired, and that the defender usually misses. These statistics were compiled from the FBI’s, ‘Officer Killed Summary' which is released on an annual basis. Note that the operative word here is, 'killed'. These are officers that lost their CQB gunfighting confrontation.’2.
‘One of the most interesting facts was the real gunfighting distances involved. While the FBI statistics show distances as being around ten feet, the PMA study showed the average distance being more like twenty feet! This finally makes good common sense because distance will favor the person with the most training. (Emphasis added)(Ed.) This revelation goes directly back to being aware of trouble as you enter into the fight. The sooner you see trouble coming, the more time (and opportunity)(Ed.) you have to get ready and mentally prepare for war.’3.
‘Those who were able to gain an initial control of themselves, and overcome their internal, 'startle response', also, found that it was easier to gain control of the external situation, as well, and win! Many of these folks reported that they were not surprised but were, instead, angered by the audacity of the person trying to attack them — They wanted (Emphasis added)(Ed.) to fight back!’4.
What is the correct translation, the correct conclusion, to be drawn from the above insightful remarks? (1) High personal awareness, (2) realistic anticipation, (3) having some sort of prearranged, ‘What if?’ survival plan or strategy in mind, (4) frequent practice with your handgun-of-choice, (5) as well as prior knowledge of both what, and what not[/U] to do are, ALL, paramount survival factors.
In my considered personal opinion: These five factors are worth much more and go a lot further toward helping to keep someone alive in a gunfight than does constantly walking around with a pistol that is ‘cocked and (maybe) locked’, flat-out ready-to-go’, and dangerous to everyone who’s within reach of an ND’d flying bullet.
Quite frankly I know of only one exception to the general precaution of not going about in either C-1 for most pistols, or C-0 for striker-fired pistols; and, a majority of the time, this exception does NOT apply to civilians: If a gunman’s daily life and routines are such that the probability of becoming suddenly caught up in an AMBUSH SITUATION is unusually high, then, and only then, is routine C-0 or C-1 carry: socially, empirically, and tactically justified.
Make no mistake, though: C-0 or C-1 carry and/or using a handgun that too many, ‘internet gun forum heroes’ like to describe as being a, ‘pure combat pistol’ (There is no such thing!
) is NO GUARANTEE that someone is going to survive a CQB pistol gunfight — No guarantee at all. (It takes a whole lot more than merely carrying a pistol in C-0 or C-1 in order to survive one of these events!) Alternatively the very real possibility exists that someone who keeps his, ‘pure combat pistol’ (I love that expression!) in C-0/C-1 all of the time might actually be constituting himself as more of a threat to: himself, his family, his friends, coworkers, acquaintances, and neighbors. (In short, EVERYBODY with whom he comes into daily contact, including himself!)
Just like the, ‘blooded’ (I love that word, too!) IDF soldiers I used to know, C-3 carry was NOT a life-threatening tactical anomaly to any of them; and neither should it be to anyone else who is even half as practiced with a pistol, but still every bit as alert as he ought to be. When used correctly and within the aforementioned physical and psychological parameters, the vast majority of the time C-3 carry should not produce any sort of tactical disadvantage, at all.
Now, does a C-3 gunman need to use two hands in order to draw and charge his pistol? Yes! You bet he does; but, at the same time, anybody who has already taken a serious wound to one of his upper limbs is, more than likely, going to be substantially out of the fight, anyway! The solution? Don’t take an early hit to any of your upper extremities.
Is time going to work against a C-3 gunman? .25 to .40 second? Probably not! Personally, I think that if a gunman has done everything else right, then, I very much doubt that a 1/2 second, or less, will make any sort of appreciable difference in the engagement’s outcome. (Accuracy might, though!)
OK, then, how about that much ballyhooed, ‘loss of fine motor control’? (Ooooh, another internet gun forum, ‘biggie’ — Right!)
Know what? At risk of appearing to brag, I’m going to speak, now, with complete candor: When I first met my Israeli friends, they didn’t teach me anything about guns that I (and a whole lot of other gunmen) didn’t already know. They didn’t teach me anything about using a knife that I hadn’t seen before, either. What they taught me was,
THE RIGHT WAY TO (INSTANTANEOUSLY) READY ONESELF TO ENTER INTO MORTAL COMBAT.
My Jewish friends clearly understood the necessity of having finely honed survival instincts much better than I did; and, once I realized this, I began to carefully observe how they, both, thought and moved. It was also evident to me that we had each, respectively, grown up under very different home circumstances and in very different cultures. Compared to these former kibbutz youths, my own home life had been quite secure; and, early in life, my own personal survival instincts were not all that well developed.
Before I met these fellows I thought I knew how to fight; but, as things turned out, I was seriously mistaken. Simply being skilled to whatever degree with a weapon isn’t enough. Being focused and determined to, ‘get the job done’ isn’t enough. Neither is having a mean and nasty attitude, a ‘willingness to do harm’, sufficient to guarantee your survival; moreover, you can’t even rely upon being better with a weapon than the other guy is because sometimes — ‘pure combat pistol’, or not — the other guy is going to be better, quicker, more accurate, or maybe even just plain luckier than you are!
So, …… what is important? What is enough? What is likely to genuinely improve your chance to survive? I’ll tell you, now:
NOT STEPPING INTO, OR PROMPTLY GETTING OFF OF ‘THE X’ IS IMPORTANT — VERY IMPORTANT! GETTING, ‘AHEAD OF YOUR OPPONENT’S REACTION TIME’ AND, THEREBY, DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS PREFERRED METHOD (OR ABILITY) TO ACT — ALL OF THESE THINGS — ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO SUCCESSFULLY SURVIVING EVERY CQB PISTOL GUNFIGHT ENGAGEMENT.
Exactly, ‘How’ does or should a combatant accomplish each of these confrontational goals? Because circumstances vary I am unable to offer a precise answer to this question. Each person is going to have to correctly anticipate and analyze his own particular dilemma, and subjectively discover and apply his own answers. (I will add, though, that: Surprise, subterfuge, and MOVING FIRST often help!)
What I’m going to say next is sure to shake some people up. It’s information that NOT everybody is going to be either ready for, comfortable with, or willing to accept. Any presumed, ‘Loss of fine motor control’ is (Ready?) complete internet gun forum (and contemporary medical) bullhooey — BULLHOOEY! To believe this sort of rationale is little different from handing a fully loaded, ‘machine gun to a monkey’. ‘Why?’ Because, sooner or later, something is going to go wrong!
ANY ‘LOSS OF FINE MOTOR CONTROL’ IS NOT INDICATIVE OF THE CORRECT WAY FOR A SAVVY COMBATANT TO EITHER THINK, OR FIGHT AT CLOSE QUARTERS — IT IS NOT!
What am I saying? I’ll try to clear away some of, ‘the fog’. Have you ever watched an athlete perform on a subconscious level? Did you notice: the smoothness, the grace, ease, and flow of his body movements? Alternatively, have you ever watched an athlete give a very conscious, very stiff and deliberate, ‘wooden’ physical performance?
Both athletes might perform well; but it’s only the one who’s moving his body on a relaxed, more or less unconscious, level of physical movement that seems to be the most natural, the most well coordinated, the quickest and smoothest performer.
THIS is what I’m talking about! I watch performances like these all of the time in ice skating events and, sometimes, on a football field. The same fluid, committed, unworried and unconcerned, (unconscious) control that works to win football games and figure skating contests can also work to win gunfights. The physiological AND the psychological reactions are the same — the same!
(Yeah, I know! Neither ice skating, nor football games are likely to kill you; but, hey, let’s keep things real: Anyone who isn’t able to accept the possibility of having his body damaged, or having to confront the experience of his own death, really shouldn’t be PLAYING with guns; now, should he!)
Fear responses are NOT fight responses. Fear responses inhibit the body and require very deliberate and intense conscious control in order to be overcome. On the other hand, fight responses require little or no conscious control at all. (Only knowing ‘When’ to stop is about it!)
There are distinct psychological and physiological differences between human FIGHT, AND FEAR reactions. One type of response (fight) will help you; and the other type of response (fear) will hurt you. The one reaction does NOT produce the same, ‘body chemistry’ as the other.
This — THIS – is, in part, what those Israeli soldiers taught me. The desire and personal ‘will to win’ have to be greater than the contest itself! Once a combatant has entered into this state-of-mind all he have to do is to, ‘visualize’ his opponent’s defeat in order to greatly increase the probability for it to actually occur!
A FRIGHTENED MAN WITH A GUN IN HIS HAND WHO’S, ‘LOST HIS FINE MOTOR CONTROL’ IS NOT THE SAME THING AND IS NOT GOING TO MOVE AS WELL AS AN ANGRY MAN WITH A GUN IN HIS HAND WHOSE MIND IS MADE UP THAT HE IS, AT THE VERY LEAST, GOING TO TAKE HIS OPPONENT (OUT) WITH HIM — NO IF’s, NO AND’s, AND NO BUT’s!
Dave Spaulding’s seminal and now famous analysis of gunfighting: tactics, psychology, and the comparative results of numerous confrontational events he obtained, actually touch upon the validity of what’s just been stated. Spaulding comes right out and articulates much of what my Israeli friends taught me about how to effectively engage an opponent (or opponents) in deadly physical combat with a much higher than usual chance of success; and,
THESE THINGS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE’S, ‘PURE COMBAT PISTOL’ IS IN: C-0, C-1, OR C-3 BECAUSE WHEN A GUNMAN, OTHERWISE, HANDLES HIMSELF PROPERLY IT’S NOT GOING TO MATTER!
A savvy pistolero is either ‘off the X’, or he is not. He is either ‘ahead of the time continuum’, or he is not. He is either able to prevent an opponent from successfully gaining a tactical advantage, or he is not.
No matter the odds, no matter the presumed impossibility of the situation, it’s next to impossible to experience any sort of ‘loss of fine motor control’ if: (1) Your mind is (deeply) focused to the point where your emotions become subject to your will;* and (2) your ‘conscious being’ (the ‘real person’ who lives inside your body) is fully involved. (3) You’re adept with your weapon(s); and (4) you’re either offended, and/or angry (very angry)!
(5) Then, there’s that other absolutely vital personal fighting ability that every genuinely talented combatant really MUST HAVE if he truly wants to prevail; and, this winning talent has absolutely nothing to do with the silly idea of being ready for CQB pistol combat by simply carrying a pistol around in C-0 or C-1 all day long — Nothing!
This imperative psychological characteristic is an intensely internalized, ‘STONE-COLD RAGE’. The kind of intense personal rage where everything seems to move in slow motion; and people, instead of being seen as people, look like nothing more than mere targets, and should be struck as quickly as possible.
This, ‘frame-of-mind’ is what I think can best be described as a WHOLEHEARTED DESIRE to destroy an opponent BEFORE he’s able to destroy you. Emotional fear, physical pain, opponent numbers, and rational uncertainty remain outside the realm of consideration. I, also, know from close personal experience, from actually watching it happen, that any fighter who: thinks, feels, and behaves this way is going to be very difficult to defeat; and he, ‘sure as shooting’ isn’t going to be bothered by any silly so-called, ‘loss of fine motor control’. That is a FEAR reaction, and NOT a FIGHT response!
THIS WAS, IS, AND REMAINS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON I HAVE EVER LEARNED ABOUT CQB KNIFE OR PISTOL GUNFIGHTING IN MY ENTIRE LIFE; AND I KNOW OF NO BETTER WAY TO SURVIVE.
Unless you’re caught up in a sudden CQB ambush — An event in which the victim will have little or no chance of surviving, anyway — or you get, ‘taken out’ by an unseen sniper from 100 + yards away, C-0/C-1, or C-3 carry and weapon deployment is not going to make a critical difference in a savvy gunman’s ability to survive.— It is NOT! Other things and other considerations are going to be much more important.
(OK, Marshall Dillon?)
Yes, there ARE specific exceptions to this general rule; but, the majority of the time, none of these exceptions may be correctly applied to an armed (and largely unwitting) civilian whose C-0/C-1 pistol is as much a danger to himself as it is to anyone else!
Moreover, and unfortunately for anyone else who might genuinely want to learn, it always seems to be the ‘IGF Cowboys’ and the tuff guy ‘Glockeroos’ who are always the most vocal, the most aggressive, the most confrontational, and the most likely to launch an ad hominem attack against the respondent rather than against his argument who almost invariably start these threads and then lie in wait for anyone to reply who disagrees with them.
NEWS FLASH! Neither the loudest voices, nor the most often repeated opinions are necessarily true. (Remember: Obama was elected — not once, but— twice; and Hillary Clinton almost made it to the presidency; and if you believe the mainstream news media did, in fact, win the recent popular vote!)
Personally, at today’s rates of inflation, I’d like to have $100 dollars for every time I’ve seen one of these IGF tuff guys either start a thread, or make a remark to the effect that: (1) He’s a better pistolero than you are because he carries (and, of course, has carried for, ‘X’ number of years) his, ‘pure combat pistol’ in C-0/C-1; and (2) you’re either a sissy or inept because you’re not a good enough gunman to do the same thing too. (Ummm, …… only in cyberspace!)
The two above assumptions are grossly incorrect; and, yet, they get repeatedly played out, over and over again, on everybody’s favorite gun forum. As for myself? This has been a long reply; but, it’s also something that I think needs to be said. So I’ve said it; and, perhaps happily, I don’t see myself making another reply like this, again, anytime soon. Here’s my friend, former correspondent, and a fellow instructor David Armstrong on the same subject, but with a slightly different point-of-view:
‘The Thinking Gunfighter!’
1. Dave Spaulding, ‘What Really Happens In A Gunfight’, Guns & Ammo’s Handgun Magazine, September 2010.
2. Ibid, 3. Ibid, 4. Ibid
What Really Happens In A Gunfight?
* From the psychology theories of American: philosopher, psychologist, medical doctor, and author William James. Whose psychological theories are widely admired by martial artists all over the world; but, to the best of my knowledge, Wm. James, himself, was never in so much as a single fistfight! (Which causes some people — and, especially, the slower more obtuse minds in the group — to wonder, 'How' he knew?)
Last edited:
Most people will never fire their weapon in self-defense, yet they carry it everyday anyway because they believe they might have to someday. Low odds/High stakes. I like the good guys being as prepared as they can be should that time come and unless you've thoroughly pressure-tested your skills in reality-based training or have a lot of actual experience, you cannot be very certain in your ability to effectively respond. Most people don't train and have never trained in Force-on-Force, particularly the ECQ variety. That's their choice, but to dismiss and ignore the insight and lessons learned from those that do it on a regular basis doesn't seem prudent. All opinions do not carry equal weight.
"In reactive situations, drawing and moving FAST under pressure, that safety can be easy to miss. YES, even you guys who train religiously with 1911s. (Yes, even you guys shaking your heads saying "Not me!" Yes, you.)
Maybe you've never missed it in training. I find that unlikely, but let's say you've never missed. It's different when someone is shooting back at you. In EVERY force on force class I've done where guys are using guns with safeties, at some point they fail to disengage it. "
- S.I Instructor Brent Yamamoto
"In reactive situations, drawing and moving FAST under pressure, that safety can be easy to miss. YES, even you guys who train religiously with 1911s. (Yes, even you guys shaking your heads saying "Not me!" Yes, you.)
Maybe you've never missed it in training. I find that unlikely, but let's say you've never missed. It's different when someone is shooting back at you. In EVERY force on force class I've done where guys are using guns with safeties, at some point they fail to disengage it. "
- S.I Instructor Brent Yamamoto
kbm6893
Member
So in a moment of high stress you might fumble on the safety. Or you might shoot yourself in the foot. Both options have pros and cons. Pick whichever you're comfortable with. But 99.999% of us will never be attacked to the point that using a firearm is even legally viable. So unless somebody uses a knife or a gun is being used against them, using that gun is gonna get you arrested.
So I'm not gonna worry too much about sudden attacks by knife wielding assailants, and I'm surely not gonna pay some instructor to prepare me for that extremely unlikely scenario.
So I'm not gonna worry too much about sudden attacks by knife wielding assailants, and I'm surely not gonna pay some instructor to prepare me for that extremely unlikely scenario.
None of my revolvers have safety's????
My Smiths, Beretta's and Sig's all have decockers..............
My Browning HPs have safety's.... IMHO if I carry one "cocked and locked"...I want the safety!!!!
My Smiths, Beretta's and Sig's all have decockers..............
My Browning HPs have safety's.... IMHO if I carry one "cocked and locked"...I want the safety!!!!
- Status
Similar threads
