Am I missing any options here for new ccw?

The "keep your finger off the trigger" doctrine was well-entrenched before 2000, but in a study of 267 shootings by the FBI, ATF, DEA, and US Marshals Service between 2000 and 2003, more than 5% were determined to be unintentional discharges during enforcement operations. If we narrow it down to the portion of shootings that were during enforcement operations, unintentional discharges accounted for 13%. Of the total number of shootings, 33% were unintentional discharges during non-enforcement activities like training, cleaning, and routine everyday tasks. This data was provided by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General.

Total number of shooting incidents: 267
Total number of shootings at suspects during enforcement: 105
Total number of unintentional discharges during enforcement: 14
Total number of unintentional discharges during non-enforcement activities: 88

Why wasn't the "finger off the trigger" mantra working all those times?

The IG's report only gives the data accounting for the cause of the discharges. While the number of unintentional discharges during non-enforcement activities is high, consider how much more time is included in non-enforcement activities. Those 88 discharges occurred over the course of more than 100 million man-hours. The 14 discharges during enforcement activities occurred over the much, much smaller fraction of time that guns are drawn on suspects.

The rate of unintentional discharges during enforcement to non-enforcement activities is 16%. Do we really think FBI, ATF, DEA agents and US Marshals spend fully 16% of their life in enforcement activities (essentially guns-out on suspects)?

It would seem that during these highly stressful activities, the probability of an unintentional discharge goes way, way up. A manual safety alone is not likely to prevent this because it will be switched off. It seems that something in addition to the manual safety and in addition to "finger off the trigger" training is needed to reduce the incidence of unintentional discharges in lethal-force incidents.
 
Why wasn't the "finger off the trigger" mantra working all those times?
Click to expand...

It has worked fantastic for SOCOM. That being said, the tolerance for a negligent discharge was zero.

If your weapon EVER went off without being pointed at something you wanted to destroy, you just packed your bags and went to find another job.

Probably some of them went to these agencies.

t would seem that during these highly stressful activities, the probability of an unintentional discharge goes way, way up. A manual safety alone is not likely to prevent this because it will be switched off. It seems that something in addition to the manual safety and in addition to "finger off the trigger" training is needed to reduce the incidence of unintentional discharges in lethal-force incidents.
Click to expand...

Manual safety is unnecessary and can even be detrimental. Not sure of your personnel requirements but as I said....

The top tier shooting outfits have a proven methodology that works very well for combat AND for safety. In the 26 years I served in SOCOM I can count on one hand the number of negligent discharges noted.

I personally witnessed only ONE during that time. The individual negligently discharged his secondary into a practice berm. His muzzle awareness and culture of safety dry firing in a safe direction into a backstop prevented his negligent discharge from causing any harm.

He found a job in the 82nd the next day. Good guy but he knew the game and tolerance for it.
 
It seems that something in addition to the manual safety and in addition to "finger off the trigger" training is needed to reduce the incidence of unintentional discharges in lethal-force incidents.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right given the low standards most LEO organization require from their officers for firearms training. Just a fact and not a dig or attack on LEO's.

I would hope the average CCW is better versed with his weapon.

I would direct you to this thread.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=604185

Much of this is training mentality. It is why we never did blank fires in 1/75th like the regular army. Instead of properly training for the correct mentality and working to develop the correct habits...the regular army adopted a "dry fire, blank fire" live fire" mantra.

Because of that, RA units would often become more dangerous to themselves in combat than the enemy. That is why they took the 7th ID's bullets from them on D-Day +7 in the Invasion of Panama.

If you train such it looks like a dangerous weapon, acts like a dangerous weapon, but is perfectly safe do not be surprised when the dangerous weapon proves dangerous.
 
Last edited:
This secondary discussion about trigger discipline raises a point I think deserves more attention. I've always read that most negligent discharges have occurred when someone is reholstering their weapon, and something (finger, or clothing) gets into the trigger guard, hence the "Glock Leg" moniker for police ND's. Although it's not a Glock thing, it's a "light trigger without any safety, that got caught where it shouldn't and was very easy to fire."

Passive options provide an extra measure against these. One prime example is a hammer-fired gun, with the hammer down. Ride the hammer with your thumb, and it's very difficult for the trigger to move even if pressed. Glocks have long had aftermarket parts available ("The Gadget") that perform this same function for the striker. Grip safeties are often hated, but they also offer something similar. Keep your hand off the safety when manipulating or holstering the weapon, and the trigger is immobilized. XD line is a good example.

All of the most popular guns have light, crisp triggers with fully (or pretty much fully) cocked strikers, and absolutely no passive way to guard against that trigger being inadvertently pressed. The P365 doesn't even have a trigger blade safety. Even Springfield has moved away from its own legacy of grip safeties with the Hellcat.

I personally dislike manual thumb safeties. I also like the passive measures. And so I carry a DA/SA gun, or a Walther PPS M2, which at least has an exposed striker on the back that will jab my thumb if anything began to go wrong.

Were I to carry anything else, for instance a P365, I would treat the holster as the full-time passive safety and would not holster the weapon while being worn.

I've had many hours of training and shoot regularly, and practice my draws and all that at least weekly, for years. Never had a problem. But I still don't want to ever Glock myself in the leg, or Sig myself in the nuts. Just my 2 cents!
 
Were I to carry anything else, for instance a P365, I would treat the holster as the full-time passive safety and would not holster the weapon while being worn.
Click to expand...

Excellent points.

I personally am very very slow to re-holster now matter what as you are absolutely correct about it being a great opportunity for a negligent discharge.

If you are re-holstering it is because the threat level is reduced to the point to allow re-holstering. There is no reason to rush to an accident nor is there any reason to give up watching the direction of your most likely threat. Take it slow and practice, practice, practice.

IWB it is actually quicker and safer to simply transfer the weapon to your support side hand, remove the holster from your waist with your strong side, re-holster, and reinsert the holstered weapon to carry position.

If you are doing the correct drills, one can shoot quickly and accurately from support side single handed.
 
I'm in the market too after deciding that the 365 isn't "it".
I experienced issues at about the 200 round mark (misfeeds, failure to eject completely). It went back to Sig and they had it back to me in 2 weeks and they had replaced a few parts.
In the 200 rounds since, the problem has happened far less frequently (2 or 3 times) but it has placed enough doubt in my mind that I'll probably trade it in.
The leaders in the clubhouse to check out as replacements:
Walther PPQ SC
S&W M&P 2.0 SC (no safety model)
Ruger Security 9 Compact Pro (no safety model)

The S&W and the Ruger have models with safeties. The Shield is a really good gun. Had one and can say nothing bad about it.
 
I still contend that ND's during holstering are not as critical of an issue compared to unintended discharges in crisis scenarios. I don't want to minimize the need for training and practice of good discipline and procedures to avoid ND's during routine activity, but the only reason these types of ND's are prevalent is because "routine activity" happens all the time. The incidence of these ND's over the relevant time period is low enough that millions of people get away with almost completely ignoring the risk.

The incidence of unintentional discharges during crisis situations is probably shockingly high. We know it happens because of startle response, sympathetic graps reflex, contralateral contraction, trigger affirmation, and because the "finger outside the trigger guard" is an un-natural and unintuitive contortion to maintain during a period of time when a person is probably experiencing sensory overload. It may happen for even more reasons we have yet to understand.

If a person does not frequently encounter events involving the use or threat of lethal force, they probably have little idea of how they will actually perform under those conditions. What will happen to their trigger discipline?
 
I'm in the market too after deciding that the 365 isn't "it".
I experienced issues at about the 200 round mark (misfeeds, failure to eject completely). It went back to Sig and they had it back to me in 2 weeks and they had replaced a few parts.
In the 200 rounds since, the problem has happened far less frequently (2 or 3 times) but it has placed enough doubt in my mind that I'll probably trade it in.
Click to expand...

but, but, but, sig says.........

oh never mind->:eek:
 
I know. I really want to feel differently about it as it fits my small hand pretty well and shoots great when it is working. It's also really nice to carry IWB.

I guess I could pick up another one and hope for an improvement and relegate the one I have to backup/range duty after I vet the new one. We'll see
 
adamBomb said:
My conditions are that is must have an external safety, have at least 8 rounds (more = better) and be no bigger than the shield ez, which I think is my max for IWB.
Click to expand...
EAA (Tanfoglio) Witness Polymer Compact:


https://www.budsgunshop.com/search.php?q=EAA+Witness+Compact&type=

It might be a bit bigger than you Shield EZ. I manage to carry it AIWB. In addition, factory kits are available to change from one caliber to another (say to convert pistol from 9mm to .45 ACP or 10mm).
 
Last edited:
For those who want to continue to argue over whether thumb safeties are necessary, dangerous, ND incident rates, etc., the OP has already said

adamBomb said:
This is moving the thread off topic.

I require it. I know the advantages and disadvantages. I like them on any guns that I carry....
Click to expand...
Thus, let's move on from that.

adamBomb, if you're still considering the Shield EZ 9mm, you should probably be aware of this thread: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=605064 It appears that magazine availability is questionable. That alone would be enough to deter me, given number of competitors out there for which magazines are readily available.
 
It's not just about thumb safeties. The EZ is a single-action gun. Does having a thumb safety make it safe after you disengage it? There are DA guns that have thumb safeties. If ND's are a concern and hence the cause for the thumb safety, wouldn't a DA with a thumb safety make more sense? Why have this thing if you're only going to disable it at the most critical moment and be left with a gun that is most prone to unintentional discharges?

Just how vulnerable the EZ's SA is to discharges, I don't know. I can see from video that it's not as short, crisp and light as a 1911-style (or a P238), but it is still a single-action.

The EZ 9 magazine issue is temporary.
 
Check out a CZ Rami or if you like polymer the CZ P-10S.
CZ makes great guns... very reliable and accurate out of the box
 
labnoti said:
It's not just about thumb safeties. The EZ is a single-action gun. Does having a thumb safety make it safe after you disengage it? There are DA guns that have thumb safeties. If ND's are a concern and hence the cause for the thumb safety, wouldn't a DA with a thumb safety make more sense? Why have this thing if you're only going to disable it at the most critical moment and be left with a gun that is most prone to unintentional discharges?

Just how vulnerable the EZ's SA is to discharges, I don't know. I can see from video that it's not as short, crisp and light as a 1911-style (or a P238), but it is still a single-action.

The EZ 9 magazine issue is temporary.
Click to expand...
The majority of firearms sold today don't have DA pulls or thumb safeties, and even fewer have both. In owning dozens of pistols I'm not convinced that the presence of both are required for safety. In addition, in training at a facility that has thousands of shooters rotate through in a year the cases of negligent discharges there that result in injury (which is usually 1 or so every few years despite the presence of instructors that constantly emphasize safety, a mandatory group safety brief that is completed as a class, etc.) remain people doing so while holstering. Even having seen a dozen or so people rotate through 8 hrs of force on force where I can assure you they were stressed and had discharged firearms leaving the firearms in a cocked state with no safety on, they managed to avoid having a ND. Obviously there are articles we can find of officers having NDs in just the situations you mention, so obviously it does happen. Personally I don't think it happens to the point where both a DA pull and safety are required. Moreso, if it does happen if often does when the officer already has the pistol in a ready to fire state, meaning the safety is likely disengaged (and if the pistol has discharged already then the hammer will be back too).

Having personally had a ND with a pistol that had both a DA pull and a safety I can say that neither of these mechanical devices can compensate for people making mistakes. Around me locally talking to officers from multiple departments one of the largest sources of NDs in the home is people cleaning firearms and not clearing them first. This happens with an unfortunate amount of regularity.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I carry a Shield, have for a couple years, and I'd honestly say there are better options out there. Its okay, not great. The trigger on the Shield 1.0 is "meh"; the grip texture on the 2.0 is way too rough for IWB (at least for me), though it does have a better trigger.
The Shield 1.0 price is good though.
If I had expendable income, I might upgrade to a Glock 48 (big gun, longer bbl, but very slim, 10 rounds), or a Sig 365 (though it does have some spotty reviews).
What I really want is a 3" SP101 in .327 Fed Mag, though I'm not sold on its practicality. I digress, semiauto forum.
Whatever you choose, I really recommend no manual safety. It is "security theater," and under stress could get you killed. Keep your finger off the trigger.
 
The majority of pistols sold are intended to flatter the marksmanship of people that will never be in a lethal force encounter.

Even so, I am not specifically recommending a DA with a manual safety. I only mentioned that they exist as an alternative to a single-action. I agree with you that equipment cannot always compensate for people making mistakes, but single-actions may be tempting fate. DA/SA guns will also have single-action once they're initially discharged as you mentioned, but there are also DA-only guns. The most popular actions today are striker-fired guns with partially pre-cocked strikers and that is the alternative that the OP listed as considered besides the SA. Is that enough to make a difference? Again, I agree that equipment cannot always compensate for people making mistakes -- but if a manual safety is regarded as essential to the OP, the risk the safety addresses should be looked at thoroughly -- because of this fact that "safety" is not just a "checkbox." I will also assert that "training" is not the rest of the answer. As you have witnessed, even trained people surrounded by vigilant instructors still make mistakes. We can only expect it would be worse without training and vigilance. I don't mean to become fatalistic about ND's. At the end of the day, all I can say is if ND's are a concern, hence the manual safety, watch out for single-action triggers too.
 
Last edited:
Out of everything mentioned I would go for the 380EZ.
It has fast become my EDC-CCW for most occasions as I've found it to be the "Goldilocks" of such SA pistols.
Sized for a proper "man sized" grip, but still thin and dimensionally small enough to easily conceal well.
Zero failures so far in all of mine thus far, 8 round capacity, nice SA trigger, light weight, shoots like about like a 22lr.
I usually run PPU FMJ and am perfectly confident with it.
 
TunnelRat said:
The majority of firearms sold today don't have DA pulls
Click to expand...
Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
As far as I can tell, the largest group of handguns sold today are striker-fired semi-autos.
Which do in fact have double-action triggers, they may be pre-set short and light pulls, but they are double-action.
 
watch out for single-action triggers too.
Click to expand...

We have moved away from long trigger pulls, which I don't think is a good thing. My home protection gun is a Beretta 92 and I love it. DA and a safety. I was using a revolver until one night I woke up to a loud noise and was getting it out of the holster half asleep and realized my 1/2 asleep state was probably more dangerous than the noise. While I didn't have an ND or anything that night I knew the DA wasn't enough in that type of situation for me so I went with the beretta.

I have kids so god forbid they ever get their hands on a gun, wrestle me while I am carrying, etc. that safety is a big deal for me. Its one of the reasons I love my current mp bodyguard. Its DA, hammer fired, and has a safety. I think its great as a CCW gun. The issue I have with it is that while its great for a close encounter, its not going to do much good in any other situation.
 
TBM900 said:
Going to have to disagree with you on that one.

As far as I can tell, the largest group of handguns sold today are striker-fired semi-autos.

Which do in fact have double-action triggers, they may be pre-set short and light pulls, but they are double-action.
Click to expand...

They may refer to themselves as DA but the majority aren't from my point of view (I'm Obi Wan Kenobi). They aren't in weight and length of travel and they also aren't in function in that most striker fired pistols don't sit with the strikers fully at rest. Most are partially cocked with some practically fully cocked and the trigger serves to mostly rotate the sear and release the striker. Absent the Walther series and Canik series not many striker fired pistols are actually capable of "double strike" capability in that if a striker fails to ignite a cartridge the slide must by manually cycled as the trigger alone is not capable of cocking the striker. That to me is double action.

I number of years ago we had a many page thread about this and the true definition of double action etc. I stand with my description above. In that context the striker fired pistols sold today are, for the most part, not true double action.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top