Striker fired pistols

[DaveTN]

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.

Whether it’s a LEO or not you have to look at each case.

If it’s a handling discharge there are generally three types; the shooter pulled the trigger, something hit the trigger, or there was a mechanical failure of the weapon. Accidentally pulling the trigger or bumping the trigger is not usually a big problem for most firearms; it is for a Glock. If you want to make the argument that it is because everyone is carrying a Glock; so be it. But this isn’t anything new it’s been happening since Glock came on the scene.

There is no hard and fast data on accidental shootings, so everything is mere speculation. When it comes to the Glocks it just depends which side of the fence you want to be on; most people are making judgments based on absolutely no information.

I think most of us can agree on one thing with absolute certainty; weapons like Glocks and 1911’s are not a good choice for a novice shooter to learn and practice proper weapon handling; you don’t get many mistakes

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.

And it never ceases to amaze me at how some people think it is perfectly acceptable to carry a weapon that you can’t put your finger on the trigger of. If you have a weapon that you don’t think you can put your finger on the trigger of in a deadly force situation; get rid of it, it is an unacceptable duty weapon or self defense weapon.

I can have a person at gun point with my finger on the trigger of any weapon that I own and am comfortable that I am the one deciding when and if the weapon fires.

[GhostDog]

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?

[Guest Centennial]

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.

In a word, CARELESSNESS. Remember the old adage, "Familiarity breads contempt."

[DaveTN]

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.

And your opinion is a valid one and a common one. Mine remains the same as it has saved my life and it wasn’t at the range.

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 departments allow you to carry what you want. Some departments are more than willing to sacrifice the safety of both their Officers and the public by buying from the low bidder. Many times the decisions are being made by people in the administration that are clue to firearms or ballistics.

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.

With the exception of a forum member talking about his right to shoot a cop I have never taken anything said here personally.

But anything that’s involves LEO’s or LEO training is going to turn caustic in a big azz hurry.

But to answer your questions….

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.

Shooting fast an accurate in a deadly force situation has almost nothing to do with the weapon and everything to do with the shooter and his training. My experience is that you will have other things going through your mind and the mechanics of shooting will be automatic and based on how you have trained. If you are poorly trained the possibility is great that you will die or shoot an innocent person. Training is everything….. But YOU have to be able to pick out what makes sense and what doesn’t for YOU.

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?

Because of my LEO experience I can’t fathom the situation where a LEO would be pointing his gun at me. But no… I would not feel comfortable with anyone pointing a firearm at me for any reason regardless of where their finger is. If anyone else is pointing a firearm at me I can only hope that he will not have his finger on the trigger and that he will try to get a sight picture before he fires.

Edited June 7, 2008 by DaveTN

[Guest bluecanary25]

Ghostdog, to return to your original question.

Nothing wrong or advantageous to a striker firing handgun over a hammer. IMHO.

I just like a hammer better. Ingrained from cap pistols when I wuzza kid.

An easy indicator that the gun; she's a-ready to shoots summa-ting.

I think striker fired guns don't have SA mode. (Mine are DAO.)

But I may be wrong and I am sure someone will help learn me better..

As to AD/ND, well, I have not had one............yet.

I am reminded to be careful. Accidents happen and rapidly moving bullets scare me!!

YMMV Thank you for your time and attention.

[GhostDog]

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?

[Good_Steward]

Here's a question, not meaning to rile anyone up, BUT, do you expect your company to train you with tools that you were supposed to be familiar with before you were hired ? When I went to work for the company I am with, I had to meet the requirements of the job. There are basic tools to every job, and anyone hoping to be employed in their chosen career field should be proficient with those tools.

Now, if the company adds a new tool, then it should be their responsibility to the employees to provide the required training for that tool.

example: I work as a developmental engineer for a certain company, and was required to have experience with a mass spectrometer for employment.

I did, I was hired.

Later on, the company added the newest, latest, and greatest, an ICP-MS. No one in our company had experience with it, because it had an operating system that was new to the field. I was trained accordingly with a technician from the company that produced the ICP.

When a LEO is hired into his profession, they usually have had training with the service pistol for their particular area. They should be knowledgeable with the weapon to gain employment. If the service weapon is changed, then I would see a need to re-train. And, above all, let's not forget personal, individual responsibility.

just my 2 cents.

[DaveTN]

My experience has been that most PDs train to the minimum standard and I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever.

With all due respect, based on what experience? I have only been through training with one Police Department and I think the training was excellent. I have worked with other agencies and I didn’t see any obvious problems. Of course anytime you see a cop have an ND/AD or a bad shoot; there are those that are more than willing to make broad sweeping generalizations about all cops and all PD's. Keep in mind also that the term LEO is used pretty fast and loose anymore; I’m talking about trained, full time street cops. I know that some departments have more resources than others; but that’s the way things are.

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".

It comes down to the individual in any job. We had more law training than a lawyer, unless the lawyer specialized in criminal law. But the law and the vehicle code changes daily and it is up to the Officer to maintain his knowledge of the law; some do, some don’t. Same thing with firearms training. I was on the department’s pistol team so I got to shoot more than most. Some cops don’t have any interest in it; doesn’t mean they are anti-gun; they just aren’t interested in it.

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?

Everyone has opinions on firearms and ammunition. As I have said many times; everything is application driven.

Some people are just clueless. How many times have you seen someone rant about magazine disconnects being “lawyer gunsâ€, or someone saying that they carry Glasers in their carry weapons? These people are clueless; they don’t understand the applications.

Pick whatever works best for you…. But damn man, do your research and have a little bit of an idea of what you are talking about before making wild azz statements. (Not directed at you.) The problems with Glocks are well documented. But it’s easier for the Glocksters to post “show me the links†and expect us to go through Glock Talk and post hundreds of links outlining all the problems Glock has had than to go do it themselves.

PD’s are slow to react on changing firearms or ammunition. But what is the trend? PD’s are dropping Glocks and they are dropping the 9mm round. Why? Because there are better choices out there now for their applications.

Price also drives people’s choices. The low cost guns are going to be more popular than the good stuff. Putting a quality gun manufactures name on a low cost POS will also make it popular.

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?

Those are just broad sweeping generalizations that I just don’t agree with at face value so I can’t comment on it other than to say I guess we would have to look at specific departments and specific instances.

[GhostDog]

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.

[deerslayer]

And it never ceases to amaze me at how some people think it is perfectly acceptable to carry a weapon that you can’t put your finger on the trigger of. If you have a weapon that you don’t think you can put your finger on the trigger of in a deadly force situation; get rid of it, it is an unacceptable duty weapon or self defense weapon.

I can have a person at gun point with my finger on the trigger of any weapon that I own and am comfortable that I am the one deciding when and if the weapon fires.

Hmmm...I carry a Glock and in a life threatening self defense situation, my finger will be all over the trigger. I think most of the "keep your finger off the trigger" rhetoric is intended for holstering/re-holstering, general gun-handling/non-shooting times.

Unfortunately, Glocks and XDs and Smith M&Ps (all three are in the same boat, IMO) are all marketed and widely believed to be simple and more user-friendly. They all require fewer activities to fire a round; thus they are simpler. More user-friendly? That's debatable. They are perfectly safe and arguably more user-friendly in the hands of a well-trained or highly experienced shooter; in the hands of a novice or a careless shooter, the chances of an accident increase. This is often illustrated when someone holsters or re-holsters his gun, and shoots a hole in the ground. It's not simply a matter of remembering not to play with the trigger while shoving the gun in the holster; it should become an instinct. If it's not an instinct, the shooter should maybe stick w/ a DA with a decocker and/or a safety. However, if a shooter lacks the skills or motivation to practice enough to carry one of these guns, I have serious doubts about his competence with ANY gun. Mars is always saying that Glocks are easier to accidently discharge, and I agree, but would like to know how often this involves an experienced Glock/XD/M&P shooter (sorry, most cops don't count). More often than not, it involves a nimrod.

[Guest Mugster]

The Butt/Leg thing has been going on since they started importing the first Glocks back in the 1980's. If one keeps one's finger off the trigger while holstering a Glock, it's not a problem. Actually, any other pistol for that matter. It does seem to happen mostly to LEO officers though.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Glock trigger though, because it's the same pull after pull. I'm also a big fan of the 1911 and the Browning Hi-Power for the same reason.

+1 for a consistent trigger pull everytime. Whatever handgun system gets adopted for a large group of people, a DA/SA type of trigger is a mistake IMO.

Is drawing and removing a manual safety from a condition 1 carry too difficult for the police? If this is the question to ask...I'm all for glocks depending on the answer. Its just not my personal answer.

I don't think glocks are unsafe. People are unsafe.

[Marswolf]

I am going to talk about a couple of my carry guns and why I carry them.

I think I'm a pretty professional gun carrier, both with rifles and handguns. But I've been around long enough that I know that even professionals with loads of training don't always deal thoughtfully when handling a gun. So I like a little extra safety factor with the guns I carry.

I always want my handguns to be capable of firing. Even the most advanced shooter can panic in some situations. IMHO, you shouldn't have to think to remove a manual safety before you can fire. But that doesn't mean the gun has to have a trigger that may be too easily fired.

I carry four handguns at one time or another. I'll ignore the P7M8 and P-3AT for now. Suffice it to say that even in an adrenalin flow situation, they are likely to fire. The other two handguns are what I consider primary use. Both the H&K USP40 and Beretta 92SB are always carried with the safety off. In DA mode, pulling the trigger will always fire the handgun. And they have the option of cocking the hammer for easier firing and better accuracy. Both have the capability to de-cock and re-cock.

I will argue that both of those guns are immeasurably safer in DA mode than when carried in SA mode. So, even at what I think is a pretty high level of skill for pistol handling, I normally carry them with the hammer down in DA mode and only cock them when something alerts me that the situation may be getting tense. If I don't see the problem coming, I can still fire the handgun. Typical adrenalin flow trigger pulls are reportedly in the 50# range.

So, do I trust my pistol handling skills? You bet. Do I think additional safety while carrying is a good idea? Yep.

People who do NDs are indeed nimrods. But I think any of us can become nimrods for the second or two needed to fire a pistol negligently - even me. I think that a little heavier trigger pull or longer trigger throw is a good idea for the first pull of the trigger, and de-cocking the handgun before re-holstering (even if you immediately re-cock it) is also a good idea. That's what I've become comfortable with over my years of carry.

[deerslayer]

Mars, I agree with almost everything you said, (I am also of the "I want my gun to be ready" persuasion) but have one question. Surely, you are not comparing a Glock/XD/M&P to a cocked USP or Beretta, are you? That's not a fair comparison.

Up until about three years ago, I would have completely agreed with your whole post (being a SIG man). However, I decided that I wanted to get away from the two-trigger-pull guns, and that left basically 1911, XD, or Glock. I don't believe in the "I'm only going to need it to shoot someone at three feet, so the heavy first shot doesn't matter." Needless to say, I became comfortable with Glocks.

Of course a heavier trigger will be safer, but I just don't feel that it's necessary for every shooter. Like you, I don't care for manual safeties, but we can't dispute the fact that they make guns safer to re-holster (assuming they are used). I also feel that they are unnecessary (the same way you do). You can make a gun so safe that's it useless.

[Marswolf]

Well deerslayer, I've been carrying the Beretta since the mid 80s and I can do pretty well even at some distance in DA mode. The USP requires more frequent practice for DA, but I do practice it. That's part of the standard training routine. I don't know where this idea came up that firing in DA is a bad idea. I've only seen that suggested pretty recently, maybe with the increase in the number of guns that can't do it. I see firing both ways as a terrific idea, not a bad one. It's just another skill you develop because you have the option to do it. It obviously isn't an option in striker fired handguns but that's not the fault of hammer fired guns. In a crunch, you tend to grip the handgun very tightly. This actually makes the first shot easier than on the range where you tend to concentrate on the additional force needed to pull the trigger. The old adage to squeeze the trigger works well for paper practice, but may not be the best strategy for self-defense. Regardless, I wouldn't count on the first shot to be dead on target, whether fired DA or SA. That's why you don't fire just one round.

I really don't understand why comparing a cocked Beretta or USP to a Glock/XD/M&P is an unfair comparison. That sounds very fair to me. What am I missing? Which gun is it being unfair to - the striker gun or the hammer gun?

[deerslayer]

I don't know where this idea came up that firing in DA is a bad idea. I've only seen that suggested pretty recently, maybe with the increase in the number of guns that can't do it

I think I've read that Jeff Cooper, some years ago, proclaimed the S&W Model 39 (the grandfather of modern DAs) to be a terrific solution to a non-existent problem.

In a crunch, you tend to grip the handgun very tightly. This actually makes the first shot easier than on the range where you tend to concentrate on the additional force needed to pull the trigger.

While I'm no gunfighter, I do shoot competitively. Competitive shooting certainly does not represent a gunfight, but it does add a stress factor not normally encountered on the range. I've never had trouble crushing the grip. Again, I think this is more a training issue. Practice something until it becomes instinct; then, when the SHTF, maybe some things will actually go right.

Regardless, I wouldn't count on the first shot to be dead on target, whether fired DA or SA. That's why you don't fire just one round.

Just as long as you remember that every bullet has a lawyer attached to it. Me, I'm not training or planning to miss.

I really don't understand why comparing a cocked Beretta or USP to a Glock/XD/M&P is an unfair comparison. That sounds very fair to me. What am I missing? Which gun is it being unfair to - the striker gun or the hammer gun?

Come on--let's not get silly. A cocked Beretta or USP is a single action, which is 3 or 4 lbs and probably less than half the travel distance of a Glock. My Glock triggers must be moved 1/2" and are 5.5 lbs. Granted, a DA has a little longer and a bit heavier trigger, but a standard Glock trigger requires quite a bit more effort and travel distance to discharge than a SA.

[DWARREN123]

As long as you practice with what you carry it should not matter that much. As for a real stress situation no matter what you carry the stress will be a major factor. Know your equipment, practice and hope it never happens but be prepared.

[GhostDog]

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.

[Marswolf]

Come on--let's not get silly. A cocked Beretta or USP is a single action, which is 3 or 4 lbs and probably less than half the travel distance of a Glock. My Glock triggers must be moved 1/2" and are 5.5 lbs. Granted, a DA has a little longer and a bit heavier trigger, but a standard Glock trigger requires quite a bit more effort and travel distance to discharge than a SA.

If you think I'm "silly", I think your idea is bizarre and certainly not my experience. (Sorry, I couldn't resist responding in kind to your taunt)

Again, I'm not talking about Glocks as opposed to other striker fired pistols. GhostDog asked for serious comments about striker fired handguns. I've tried to give that as objectively as possible tempered with my experience without going over old territory.

In practice and in a confrontational situation I don't think there is much difference in normal pistols acting in essentially SA mode. You point the pistol quickly and pull the trigger. If it is a target competition and/or very light trigger, it's a different situation. Sounds like we are comparing apples and oranges. Competitive shooting versus protective shooting.

Also, if I do have a little extra time to draw and aim, I can easily tell where the break point will be with the Beretta and H&K. In fact, of the guns I've shot over the years, the hammer-type guns generally have had more easily found break points and control than striker fired ones. YMMV. Note that I did not say hammer fired handguns are more accurate, just that I can normally tell better when the firing mechanism will release. I use different trigger techniques for different triggers. With practice, you adjust to the characteristics of the handgun. I was pretty accurate with the G26, G23 and XD-9. The point I'm making is that you don't have time to do that in most self-protection scenarios anyway and target techniques don't apply.

In terms of Jeff Cooper and solutions to non-existent problems, I think we are seeing a problem that does exist. An apparent problem with gun safety was why I originally posted in this topic. I found a solution that works for me. It eliminated a concern I had with other guns I had carried If you don't see a problem, then fine. To me, it is a problem and I think we are hearing enough reports to support that contention. I know I'm not perfect and won't always follow the safety rules perfectly all of the time. I don't think anyone can. So I buy guns that give me a little additional safety factor in the real world. I do admit that solution requires more training time to also practice DA firing, but I've always been willing to put in the important practice time to be a better combat shooter and self-protection is combat shooting. The targets shoot back.

Edit: GhostDog, we cross-posted. I wasn't trying to beleaguer any points.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Marswolf

[GhostDog]

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).

[Marswolf]

GhostDog, you certainly make some valid points.

Training is at the heart of safe gun handling. Add to that a well designed handgun and you have a winning combination. The LE problem is fixable, but it costs money and time that departments are unwilling (not unable) to commit to at this time. I hope that at some time a reasonable level of training, practice and realistic shooting proficiency for all field officers will be required for departments to be certified. Suddenly LE will find the time and money to fix the problem if that happens. And they may get rid of some dead wood. As you mention in your de-cocking example, that training also needs to be good training. My technique of de-cocking, reholstering and re-cocking when needed has become second nature to me. Even cops could master it.

Since you mentioned "Glock leg" I'll just repeat what I said above. "People who do NDs are indeed nimrods. But I think any of us can become nimrods for the second or two needed to fire a pistol negligently - even me." One really can't expect perfect pistol safety handling even of professionals, let alone the public.

About the light trigger SIGs, all I can say is that I recommend heavier triggers a lot more than light ones. Anyone carrying a "hair trigger" carry gun is just a nimrod waiting for the proper moment to act like an idiot. Carry guns need sufficient trigger pull weight and travel. My carry guns all have that.

[GhostDog]

We just disagree about what constitutes "sufficient" trigger pull weight.:D

Had you going w/ the title, didn't I?

[Marswolf]

Had you going w/ the title, didn't I?

You had me frightened!!!!

[GhostDog]

Mmmwaahahahahah (maniacal laughter)

[Guest The Cat]

Idiots are going to be idiots regardless of what they carry.

As for striker-fired handguns, I like my Luger!

[Marswolf]

Idiots are going to be idiots regardless of what they carry.

But about all of us are likely to be idiots, even if only briefly, if we carry long enough. The trick is to not do something idiotic while we are idiots.