Firing without a magazine

FWIW, in a blowback pistol, the extractor does not pull the fired case from the chamber. The case is pushed out of the chamber by the pressure inside it. The extractor only acts as a pivot point for the ejector or to withdraw an unfired case from the chamber. (Note that some blowback auto pistols have no extractor.)

Jim
 
True in direct blow back such as colt woodsman, but not true in locked breech pistols like 1911.

Most auto pistols have controlled feed mechanism. The cartridge's rim slips under the extractor claw during feeding. But I don't think letting the extractor snap over the rim would hurt anything in particular.

-TL
 
Funny, because my Glock will not accept a round unless chambered through the mag, but will fire once the magazine has been removed from the gun.
 
How does it matter how the round gets in the chamber (manually versus from the magazine)? In either case, the extractor has to "snap" over the rim of the cartridge...
Click to expand...
Huh?

On most recoil operated guns the cartridge rim slides up the breechface to get under the extractor. That's why it isn't considered to be a good idea to direct chamber load some of them, like the 1911, which don't have the extractor flexibility or shape to pop over the rim easily.

Unless there's a foot at the bottom of the breechface, the extractor doesn't pop over.

Funny, because my Glock will not accept a round unless chambered through the mag, but will fire once the magazine has been removed from the gun.
Click to expand...
It isn't funny. Those two have nothing to do with each other. One is a limitation on the extractor, the other is an added device that disables the fire control when the mag is missing.
 
The mag disconnect is really just a crutch for unsafe gun handling practices(just my opinion), it helps keep the folks you hear about who put a hole in the dining room table(if they're lucky) from damaging their furnishings.
Click to expand...
Those folks usually seem to accomplish that somehow anyway. Safeties have never been idiot proof, and I think in many cases, people over rely on them which causes more problems.

About the only point for the mag disconnect I can see, is often made by Mas Ayoob, as it relates to those who carry a gun and may end up in a struggle for it.

It can keep you from getting shot with your own gun, if you have the presence of mind to hit the mag release in the struggle, if you feel its a possibility you might loose it, which is always a possibility anyway. At the very least, it could give you time to try and get it back, or go for your BUG.

I don't mean to disrespect our veterans, but I shot with a few previous members of our armed forces. The way they handle firearms may not make me feel comfortable to go to the range with them again. I believe part of the reason is the difference in doctrines then and now.
Click to expand...
I know exactly where youre coming from here, and Ive seen this a lot, and regardless of doctrine or era. From personal experience, Ive wondered sometimes if they had any training at all, and especially with full auto fire/weapons.




That's why it isn't considered to be a good idea to direct chamber load some of them, like the 1911, which don't have the extractor flexibility or shape to pop over the rim easily.
Click to expand...
With the 1911's, especially those using the internal extractor, it is a bad idea. Ive personally seen two 1911's loose the claw on the extractor when having a round dropped into the chamber, and the slide dropped on the round.

I dont think its as big a deal with most of the external type, but still probably best to load from the mag.

Funny, because my Glock will not accept a round unless chambered through the mag, but will fire once the magazine has been removed from the gun.
Click to expand...
All my Glocks will allow the round to be dropped into the chamber and the slide closed on it. And they better shoot without the mag! :)

If yours isnt allowing it, perhaps its time to strip the slide and give it a good cleaning.
 
I don't mean to disrespect our veterans, but I shot with a few previous members of our armed forces. The way they handle firearms may not make me feel comfortable to go to the range with them again. I believe part of the reason is the difference in doctrines then and now.
Click to expand...
I know exactly where youre coming from here, and Ive seen this a lot, and regardless of doctrine or era. From personal experience, Ive wondered sometimes if they had any training at all, and especially with full auto fire/weapons.
Click to expand...

Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean he or she is a firearms expert. Or that he or she has all that much firearms-handling experience. If you assume otherwise that probably suggests you aren't a vet, yourself. <Grin>

Except for periodic (sometimes ANNUAL) qualifications, a very large portion of all vets didn't use or handle weapons much after basic training was completed. For every G.I. who had duties that required the regular use of weapons in a combat context (or related training), there were 6-7 (or more) who worked in support functions with duties that didn't require regular use or handling of weapons, especially handguns. The ratio between use/non-use is probably even higher in the Navy and Air Force.

For most G.I.s, access to weapons is very controlled, with somebody telling you what to do every step of the way. And once ammunition is available, things get REALLY controlled. You aren't really taught good gun-handling skills -- you're just given few opportunities to do something stupid.

In many respects , a majority of veterans, are probably little different than most other folks you know when it comes to gun-handling skills. Just as you must assume that every gun is loaded, you must also assume -- until you have reason to think otherwise, that anyone handling a loaded weapon is a novice.
 
The guy who spend his duty as a finance clerk, and after basic fired a weapon once a year, and carried a (unloaded) rifle twice on guard duty in Illinois is just as much a veteran as the guy who was point man house clearing in Baghdad.

But its unlikely the clerk (unless its his personal hobby) knows much about firearms.

My nephew spent the entire Gulf War on an aircraft carrier, putting bombs on planes. Never touched a firearm after boot camp. Both my kids are Staff Sgts, one spent a tour in Baghdad, the other, coming up on 13 years in service, has never left the states.

Being a veteran means you served, somewhwere, some time, and nothing else. I am a veteran (Vietnam era), and was a Small Arms Repairman. One thing that always amazed me was how few people in the service, INCLUDNG the ones who's job involves carrying a firearm, know much about guns, beyond what their job requires.

I'm glad that today being a veteran again carries a degree of respect. Quite different from when I served. I know what makes them heroes (although I never did understand what made us "babykillers" :mad: ).

to me, anyone claiming veteran status means gets both a thank you for their service, and a close eye on their gun handling skills, until they have demonstrated their personal competence.

Being either a veteran or a cop implies that they ought to know what they are doing with a firearm, but reality is that each individual is different, with personal skills ranging from none up to expert, and their former (or current) job means nothing other than they did it, despite what we usually assume.
 
Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean he or she is a firearms expert. Or that he or she has all that much firearms-handling experience. If you assume otherwise that probably suggests you aren't a vet, yourself. <Grin>
Click to expand...
I well understand that, but "basic" handling proficiency, is to be expected, is it not?

And while I dont normally "assume otherwise", youre right, Im not a US military vet.

I have had a good bit of interaction over the years (both social and weapons wise), with both 'actual' combat vets, and 'vets', who have been in various military organizations, and I fully understand your point.

Unfortunately, the number of times the later will have you believe they were the former, at least skill wise, has popped up more than a few times.

Not knocking their service, but either way, the BS always stops at the firing line.


Just as you must assume that every gun is loaded, you must also assume -- until you have reason to think otherwise, that anyone handling a loaded weapon is a novice.
Click to expand...
No doubt, and to do otherwise, is just dangerous.

Things are usually quickly weeded out, in the initial, 'empty', "here, check this out" familiarization. Just watching how they deal with that, is usually a good indicator of what to expect. Sometimes though, how you proceed after that, can often be "delicate".
 
Yup! Believe it or dont, for once I was agreeing with you. :D

Unless of course, you want to change your stance since I did. :p
 
AK103K said:
I well understand that, but "basic" handling proficiency, is to be expected, is it not?
Click to expand...

Not really, especially if handguns are involved.

As I noted earlier, firing with live ammo in a training context is one of the most "controlled" situations any G.I. will encounter. Little is left to the individual's discretion. Most G.I.s aren't really given a lot of training in SAFE GUN HANDLING PRACTICES -- because when training, they almost never HANDLE the weapon when there's live ammo around. You're simply told what to do -- and you do it. By the numbers, so to speak. LIttle is left to the G.I.'s discretion.

Individuals who carry sidearms on duty may get better gun-handling and safety training -- I'm unfamiliar with that situation -- but those folks make up a very small % of the total.
 
My dad vaguely recalls shooting a 1911 twice in Marine basic in '66. Twice as in two bullets. I don't know how much things have changed, but I thought I would share that, no hidden fees or charges.
 
If it is firearm specific, I can understand and take less issue. But what worries me is more on the "common sense" level.

Number 1 observation is finger on the trigger when not firing. The newer generation of vets are very good. They got this pounded in their subconsciousness during their training. The older folks are much worse. Maybe back then fingers were supposed to be on trigger ready to go.

Number 2 observation is muzzling. Although not as bad as finger on the trigger, the older folks are not as conscious.

Number 3 is showing clear. The older vets sometimes don't open their actions when the range is cold. Instead they would close the action with chamber empty and dry fire to drop the hammer. Maybe It was considered cleared back in the time.

When combining 1 to 3, it could be rather tense sometimes. When challenged, very few of them may even respond with "Let me tell you something sonny;..", which apparently doesn't always help.

Again I don't mean to disrespect our vets. But it is what it is. One just can take safety lightly. I wouldn't say they didn't have adequate training, but rather they were trained in way that is outdated perhaps.

-TL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top