GhostDog

But you don't know the secret hand shake. You'd probably just shoot yourself in the butt!

He just didn't have enough KoolAid before he shot the gun. Any Glock lover (like me) knows that! Keep that Haterade to yourself, Mars.

The best thing about that, is that it's pretty hard to argue with!

Last week, armed only w/ a small saw, a Dremel tool, and some sandpaper, I achieved perfection. I took a 2nd Gen G17 and cut the frame to accept G19 mags. Now it takes G19 and G17 mags as well as being a bit easier to conceal while keeping the longer G17 slide/barrel. It is truly perfect. Just a joke, Mars. Please don't spend 20 minutes explaining why it's not really perfect but your HK is!

about any mods on the pistol, but I like all the new kool-aid cartoons!

It's still unfortunate, especially for the officers.

There's knowing something in your head and knowing it in you "gut". The first you can get from a book. The second requires work and experience. That's what I mean by knowing how to handle the gun. The example you gave is a good one; it shows what can happen to any of us, but no one was shot because the guy knew his gun safety (when he made one mistake, he didn't compound it by doing something beyond the pale). I think we agree about the LEOs, and I don't blame them either except that it's their butts on the line and you might expect a little more concern on their part.

Some guns are slightly more tolerant of poor handling (group A). These also require more work/practice to use effectively in "serious social situations (SSS)". Conversely, some are less forgiving of poor handling (group . These are easier to use effectively in "SSS". It comes down to what you want vs what you can live without. You make the argument (rightly so) that "A" guns can be used just as effectively as "B" guns if the user is willing to work harder to learn to shoot the gun. I say that "B" guns are just as safe as "A" if the user is willing to work harder to learn to handle the gun (just as "right" as your argument I believe). Ain't freedom to choose a wonderful thing? I disagree about LEOs. What you point out is true of some but not most of these cases (IMHO). The level of training and experience varies greatly from one LEO to the next and from one PD to the next, as does the level of professionalism. Just keep in mind what the minimum standard is and you'll see what I mean. You may know and mingle with those who are near the top but I KNOW that there are plenty of "minimum" types out there. It's like the straight "C" students in high school (who think that is just fine); and even the straight "D" students all graduate, right?

What's bad is that there are far too many people (including trained professionals) who won't practice enough with ANY DESIGN, which makes the whole argument of which type is "safer" kind of a moot point. This is what I've been getting at all along. See there, I can agree with you Mars.

Once you get used to the "feel" of the trigger, they're hard to beat. I will say though, they're not for everyone. Some (usually 1911 guys, but not always) find the grip angle and trigger "feel" to be too different from they are used to. I like the grip angle because, for me, it makes the pistol point a little higher.

They (striker, DA/SA, DAO, SA) all have their own unique characteristics, I was talking about the "safer techniques" for their use. Some of the techniques you describe using might not be a good idea for a pistol "newbie". It's not about the gun, it's about the user. Hope this doesn't sound caustic, I'm just trying to explain what I meant.

I'm sure you don't advocate some of the techniques you use w/ a DA pistol for everyone, do you?

Mmmwaahahahahah (maniacal laughter)

We just disagree about what constitutes "sufficient" trigger pull weight.:D Had you going w/ the title, didn't I?

This thread has been "civilized" and I like that way! Your YMMV comment was on target. My experience has been that the striker fired guns are better in a high stress/crush grip situation as far as getting hits is concerned. I guess we're all different. I also suspect that we all perform better with the equipment we use and practice with all the time (which prob explains the different results).

Is the holster you're taking the one you use for day-to-day carry? I would suggest that you use your "carry set-up" and not a "range set-up". It might slow you down a little but it will prove it's worth in the end. When I shoot competition, I always use my carry set-up. It makes it harder to compete with the open, speed holsters but it's well worth it to me.

I agree with Mars (at least in part). Mars carries what is best for him. Who am I or anyone else to question that? I also have no doubt that he is very experienced and good at it. As individuals, we all can do the same. But that's not the case for most groups of gun carriers (like cops). That's the rub. Mars makes some good points: DA shooting can be done well, but it requires PRACTICE. If a PD won't make the commitment to ensure their people can safely holster their guns as an ingrained (by training) movement, how well will they teach their people to shoot DA or transition from DA to SA? I'm sure Mars' method of cocking and decocking based on the situation works well for him. But... does anyone seriously think any organization would even try to train their people to do that? I'll give you an example. Several years ago I attended a shooting class (focused on moving, using cover, and shooting steel) w/ several officers from a PD in my area that doesn't have budget problems. They were issued DA/SA pistols (I won't say which brand, I don't think it matters). They had obviously had decocking drilled into their heads. The problem was, they decocked every time they moved, not just to holster the pistols. There was as much click-clicking going on as there was bang-banging. Every time the feet moved the gun was decocked. Is this good training? The instructor of the class didn't think so and tried to deprogram them. They were very good at decocking but only mediocre shooters. To whom does this make sense? I'm not knocking DA/SA pistols, they have their place as do the striker fired guns. Each has pluses and minuses. Everything is a trade-off, it all depends on what you want and what you're willing to do without. But don't blame the guns for doing what they are supposed to do. When someone mentions "Glock leg", are they pointing out something about the guns or are they really pointing out something about the person behind the gun? By the way Mars, Deerslayer is right about the comparison. A cocked SIG doesn't really compare to a Glock. I've seen a few (SIGs) that had EXTREMELY light SA triggers. That's not a knock on the gun, it's just what the gun is. Some would like it, some might not.

You can put an AmeriGlo front sight on and then take a straight file to the plastic rear sight. If you "open up" the rear sight a little, you will be surprised how much difference it makes.

You don't really need to oil anything. It's just the recoil spring. It's perfectly normal and will stop after a time. Too much oil on a Glock is a bad thing.

Some of those were sweeping generalizations, made to get a response. But they are not without some merit. I don't think Glocks are "perfect". They are what they are. They have had problems. But, when the guns function as they should, the results (if bad, like "Glock leg") are not a gun problem. I heard the same knocks on 1911s for years, but now, since they are "all the rage", these knocks seem to have disappeared. Amazing, huh? I wish it were true that LE switched equipment to better suit their needs, but you and I both know that's not always the case. Witness the THP and their Sigma 40s (before going to Glocks, by the way) and the US military going to the Beretta. The Berettas are fine guns, but that's not why they were adopted. Of course it always come down to the individual, that's my point. That's a people problem, not a gun problem. A person shooting himself while holstering a Glock is no different than a person shooting himself with a P226 that he didn't decock. Unfortunately, there are some out there who would suggest that a DAO SIG would be "safer". An individual or a PD is obligated to learn to use whatever they have chosen. If someone want to knock Glocks, do it for the very real problems (like some of the 40S&Ws) not because the pistol is different and works as advertised. That is just self-serving BS from internet "experts". By the way, I was an officer for 10 years in a 25 man department. I worked in a county with 4 PDs and a sheriff's department. I have trained with officers from all over the state on various occasions (but mainly in east TN). Although I am glad that the training at your dept was excellent, my experience still tells me that your experience was the exception rather than the norm. I worked with some excellent men and women but also saw many who were just plain bad (not just in firearms either). The dept I worked in changed drastically based on politics/who was running the place and, even with a good administration, had to constantly wage the "budget battle". When I left, I was the Asst. Chief. With the support of an excellent Chief of Police, we had improved our training to the point that our people were good gun handlers as well as "being able to hit the broad side of a barn". But, and this is the sad part, this was well above the standard set by POST. You know this as well as I do. Today, my old boss is the Sheriff and, frankly, I have no idea what the level of training is at my old dept.

And thanks for not making any of this personal. We agree 100% about the training. I wish the average Joe as well as police departments would quit switching guns/calibers every time the wind changes direction and instead would spend their money learning to use what they have. But that's just me, you know what they say about wishing anyway (wish in one hand, poop in the other and see which one fills up). My experience has been that most PDs train to the minimum standard and I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever. They don't have the budget that some of the guys Mars works with do, and if you gave them money to use they would probably spend it elsewhere (poss on the latest whiz bang pistols that have come out). It almost always comes down to the individual to make the commitment to be good at what they do. The powers that be are only interested in "meeting the standard". Having said all that, MY OPINION is that this can't be solved with different equipment. If a department won't spend the time/money to ensure ALL of their people can safely holster a Glock, why would we expect them to do better if they changed to DA/SA guns? If they go to LEM/DAK/DAO pistols to try and prevent "Glock leg", how well will the minimally trained, lowest common denominator officer be able to shoot the DAO if he/she has to defend his/her life? Being that most departments seem unwilling to spend the time/money to actually train their people above the minimum, I guess it boils down to this: is it better for the "weakest link in the chain" to shoot him/herself in the butt with a Glock/1911 or to shoot granny on the sidewalk (while trying to shoot an armed robber) with a DAO pistol?

You know already that I disagree about having a finger on the trigger (we've had this discussion before). The reason is that I think the difference in speed (finger on vs finger off trigger) is practically nil. I would encourage anyone who doubts this to try it (at the range) and check their results. Having said that, I agree that some guns (Glock, XD, 1911) fire more easily than others. This can be good and it can be bad (if the guns are mishandled). For us, it boils down to personal preference. But what about LEOs? Many times they don't get to choose. Do they deserve a gun that they can more easily use quickly to defend themselves or should they be forced to use something else in the name of "safety" because some of their fellow officers are inept? Many here probably don't remember some of the "fixes" that were tried in the past in the name of "safety". For example: the first DAO pistols (terribly long and heavy triggers) and some larger departments converted their revolvers to DAO. Is this the answer or does it just show that the administration of these departments refuse to spend time/money on training? I just have a couple of questions for you (Dave) and I don't want this thread to turn caustic, so please don't take it as an attack. Do you accept that some guns are easier to shoot well (fast and accurate) or do you think the others (DA/SA, LEM, DAK) can be used just as well? I know that you and Mars don't have a problem w/ finger on trigger. I also know that you both have a great deal of experience with firearms as well as LE/military experience. But... would you be comfortable with a couple of less experienced LEOs holding you and your family at gunpoint (regardless of the guns they were using) with THEIR fingers on the trigger?

It's too bad these days that most folks won't listen to you anyway. Try suggesting to a new shooter that they try a revolver in order to learn trigger control (this in spite of the fact that they ASKED you). It's just not "tactical" enough. It doesn't matter anyway because those same folks aren't going to make the effort to learn to use what they buy. Most men seem to think that, at birth, they can drive a car and shoot a gun. What's to learn, right? At least the ladies will admit when they don't know something. In any case, I didn't start this thread to push my opinions. I want to hear what you guys think. I would still like to hear some opinions as to why LEOs seem to be shooting themselves, not during high stress encounters, but while doing routine gun handling. It still never ceases to amaze me how quick we ("gun people") are to suggest that a problem can be "solved" by a different gun. Is it because it's more fun to talk about guns than to talk about learning the basics? Or is it because we are looking to "prove" our opinions and be recognized by our peers as an "expert"? I don't know. Maybe it's because one is a quick "fix" and the other requires an on-going commitment to WORK. Anyone know a fireman who can't drag a hose or use an ax? If there were such an animal, would his/her boss suggest changing axes? Just something to think about.

You picked up on that too, huh? "Accepted wisdom" mixed with "what we think we know" just ends up a mess. It's all just another example of trying to solve a "software" problem with hardware. Ain't gonna happen. When you think you've made an idiot-proof product, someone comes up with a better idiot. They're just peeing up a rope, all the while patting themselves on the back because they're so "smart". Jack, please don't take this as a personal attack. I don't mean it that way. I "learned" the same "common knowledge". It's just that, at some point, I came to see it as flawed (which is the nicest way I know to say what I really think about "common knowledge").

If a percentage of "trained professionals" tend to shoot themselves, why should we expect anything different from the average (newbie) Joe? Do you really think a different gun will matter? How much "shootability" are you willing to trade off for the illusion of "safety"? I know some trigger options are more tolerant of poor gun handling, but the same guns are harder to shoot fast and accurately, particularly in a reactive/defensive situation. You can't make other people "safe"; you can't force them to learn/train and you can't solve their software problems w/ hardware. It just won't work. And, frankly, I don't need "big brother" telling me what I need, even if he/she has good intentions based on his/her "extensive experience". As to LEOs, I think we (as shooters) all spend too much time doing the "neat, ninja stuff" and not enough time practicing the basics. There's too much "high speed" BS and not enough learning to be competent, smooth gun handlers/shooters. It's much cooler to scan for UFOs and vampires while holstering than to actually watch what you're doing and to learn how to do it right. And it looks better on TV. How else can one explain a guy going through all sorts of running/jumping/repelling while shoot 30 targets without a miss... and then shooting himself during reholstering? Of course, that's just my opinion.