Interesting article on the M&P

1

1/7GRUNT

New member
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-blamed-rise-la-county-deputy-shootings-174044276.html

Seems like some may be walking around with a finger inside the guard. This is unfortunate because the article seems to blame the weapon and not the unsafe user. It's not any more unsafe than many other designs. The Berettas that they are retiring, didn't the LA sheriff's department carry DAO 92s? Seems I saw a report on the academy trainees receiving their weapons and they were 92D.
Shouldn't make any difference with proper weapons handling though.
 
Out of date #1 safety rule NEVER CARRY A LOADED GUN!
Too much faith has been attached to modern safeties.
The fault of N/D - A/D is bad weapons safety schooling a lack of common sense!
If there nothing blocking the fireing pin from the primer the gun can go off.....if there is no round in the chamber the weapon is perfectly safe.
 
^^^ What? ^^^

Maybe I'm misunderstanding/misinterpreting. Are you saying that nobody should ever carry a loaded weapon?
 
Always blame the weapon.
Like cars.
Don't know how to drive on a wet street, put traction control on cars.
Don't know how to brake in an emergency, put anti-lock brakes on cars.
Don't know how to avoid negligent discharges with weapons, put redundant safeties on them.
And when things still go wrong, sue the manufacturer.
It's become the American Way.
 
g.willikers said:
Always blame the weapon.
Like cars.
Don't know how to drive on a wet street, put traction control on cars.
Don't know how to brake in an emergency, put anti-lock brakes on cars.
Don't know how to avoid negligent discharges with weapons, put redundant safeties on them.
And when things still go wrong, sue the manufacturer.
It's become the American Way.
Click to expand...

Wow I completely disagree with this. I am a big fan of both traction control and antilock brakes. I even like seat belts and helmets. They've helped save my butt before. Not every safety feature is a "protectionist" measure. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
 
Always blame the weapon.
Like cars.
Don't know how to drive on a wet street, put traction control on cars.
Don't know how to brake in an emergency, put anti-lock brakes on cars.
Don't know how to avoid negligent discharges with weapons, put redundant safeties on them.
And when things still go wrong, sue the manufacturer.
It's become the American Way.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between offering safety features and blaming accidents on their absence. Putting anti-lock brakes on a car is not the same as saying that regular brakes cause accidents, and putting a manual safety on a gun is not the same as saying that guns without safeties are the cause of NDs. Are some people saying that guns without safeties are the problem? Yes, and they are wrong, IMO. But having a gun with a safety doesn't automatically mean lazy gun handling, just like having anti-lock brakes doesn't automatically make me a bad driver. It is not a lack of training, skill, etc. that gives rise to the safety features, as you seem to be claiming, but too much reliance on the safety features that leads to lack of training, skill, etc.
 
Missing the point guys.

replace "put" with "make us depend on"

We depend on the technology so much, we take it as a given that we can do dumb things and get away with it. No argument from me there, I have been in the car hobby since 1989. I see people driving 6000 lb vehicles as if they were sports cars becasue they know the vehicle will (probably) save their butts, and you can't convince me that's a safe thing.

That doesn't mean I feel firearms safeties make us necessarily negligent.

But to the point of this thread, I'm not sure where the 'finger inside the guard' aspect comes from. I didn't see it in the article.

RE: "never carry a loaded gun". I think a lot of people will disagree with that
 
We depend on the technology so much, we take it as a given that we can do dumb things and get away with it. No argument from me there, I have been in the car hobby since 1989. I see people driving 6000 lb vehicles as if they were sports cars becasue they know the vehicle will (probably) save their butts, and you can't convince me that's a safe thing.
Click to expand...

Here's where I disagree with this. People assume that safety features in cars are needed because the driver of that car is unsafe or careless. You could be the best driver in the world, but you're not on that road alone. There are plenty of idiots on the road. I drive 28k miles a year. The things I see on a weekly basis leave me baffled at times. I try to drive as safe as I can, but when an idiot sweeps across four lanes and cuts right in front of me I might need those ant-lock brakes to stop in time or that traction control to switch lanes. It's akin to motorcycle riders that say they don't need protective gear or helmets because they're good riders. I've known some excellent riders that were put in hospitals by other morons on the road.
 
Out of date #1 safety rule NEVER CARRY A LOADED GUN!
Too much faith has been attached to modern safeties.
The fault of N/D - A/D is bad weapons safety schooling a lack of common sense!
If there nothing blocking the fireing pin from the primer the gun can go off.....if there is no round in the chamber the weapon is perfectly safe.
Click to expand...

Man, I hope this is sarcasm.

I couldn't disagree with anything more than this statement.
 
.....if there is no round in the chamber the weapon is perfectly safe.
Click to expand...

This is also not true. LOTS of negligent discharges have occurred when "the gun was unloaded."

The ONLY way to prevent all negligent discharges is to ALWAYS adhere strictly to the 4 priniciples of safe firearm use.

I don't think I have to state them here for most folks, but just in case/just for fun (and to perhaps paraphrase a bit) -
(1) Always assume every gun is loaded
(2) Never point the muzzle of a gun at anything you aren't prepared to destoy
(3) Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire
(4) Know your target and what is beyond it
 
I saw that story. It's pretty simple...they pulled the trigger when they shouldn't have. I've had my PX4 with a round in the chamber sitting on my nightstand for years now. That darn things hasn't gone off once.

It never ceases to amaze me how most accidental/negligent discharges are blamed on the gun. Total BS. Guns go off when the trigger is pulled, whether it's hammer or striker fired.

I also have a hard time believing the line about how easy the trigger pull is on the M&P. My nephew had one and it had a very stiff trigger pull. Very difficult to shoot accurately. I handed him my PX4 and he improved immediately. He also sold the M&P and bought a PX4.
 
This is purely, solely, and entirely a TRAINING issue, not an equipment issue.

In '88 when my department switched from SIGs & revolvers to Glocks, the only accidental discharge we had from then till I retired in '99 was during transition training at the range when one guy put a loaded-chamber 17 back into the original Tupperware box with its large post fitting inside the triggerguard.

A perfectly understandable discharge occurred.

Otherwise, we'd trained for YEARS to keep your finger outa the triggerguard until you were ready to fire.

Even moving from long & hard no-safety DA triggers to the Glock's light & short no-safety trigger, we had no problems with operator error.

And this is exactly what's going on at the LASO. Operator error.

The Smith M&P is no easier to create an AD with than the Glock 17.
Denis
 
Seems like some may be walking around with a finger inside the guard.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

This is purely, solely, and entirely a TRAINING issue, not an equipment issue.
Click to expand...

Scientific studies show otherwise:

- Dr. Roger Enoka -- Involuntary Muscle Contractions and the Unintentional Discharge of a Firearm

- Dr. Christopher Heim et al -- The Risk of Involuntary Discharge.

Links to pdfs of both studies can be found here: http://www.itdefensetraining.com/index.php/frthrstdy.

Bottom line:

- Even a highly trained finger has a good chance (about 20%) of straying onto the trigger when it shouldn't be there.

- Once on the trigger in a dynamic tactical situation, enough force can be inadvertently applied to release a relatively short and light unsafed SA (and by analogy striker-fired) trigger and, less often, a long and heavy DA trigger.

A safetiless sidearm in the hand in a dynamic environment is inherently less safe than one with with an affirmative external safety. The US Army realized this as far back as 1910 when it told Browning and Colt to add a thumb safety lock to the Colt M1910, which gave us the M1911.
 
Training issue. :)

You don't see thousands of similar ND reports coming in around the nation from Glock departments, do you?

The M&P is NO MORE "DANGEROUS" WITH ITS TRIGGER THAN THE GLOCK IS WITH ITS TRIGGER.

Denis
 
Here's where I disagree with this. People assume that safety features in cars are needed because the driver of that car is unsafe or careless. You could be the best driver in the world, but you're not on that road alone. There are plenty of idiots on the road. I drive 28k miles a year. The things I see on a weekly basis leave me baffled at times. I try to drive as safe as I can, but when an idiot sweeps across four lanes and cuts right in front of me I might need those ant-lock brakes to stop in time or that traction control to switch lanes. It's akin to motorcycle riders that say they don't need protective gear or helmets because they're good riders. I've known some excellent riders that were put in hospitals by other morons on the road.
Click to expand...

You miss the point, and I feel it's because you are of the opinion that only your standpoint could be correct. What you say does not contradict my statement; what you say has no bearing on the fact that people careen about in big heavy battering rams without a care in the world, and its because they are not afraid to do it. By the way, I have a few miles under my belt, too. I have seen cars on two wheels, next to me on the highway. Seen bundles of rags wet and red next to motorcycle remains. Seen combo rigs upside down with the wheels still turning and others engulfed in flames with a silhouette in the driver's seat. Put 450K on the car that I haven't driven in nine years. So let's not go that route, I understand something about driving.

The parallel exist in this case with the pistol: the firearm itself has no say in the matter; it "does what it is told". If people issued the firearm do dumb things with it, accidents happen.

In both cases, familiarity- or the perception of familiarity- has bred contempt: the bad driver executes a dumb maneuver. The firearm carrier forgets what gun he's packing. The operator has decided he knows what he's doing and is wrong. The fancy tech on the machine didn't stop it, it was still the oatmeal between the ears that caused it.
 
So involuntary muscle contractions don't equate to training issues? I think we're right back to "keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to make the gun go BANG" again.

An involuntary muscle contraction of the trigger finger outside the trigger guard is called "an involuntary muscle contraction". Inside the trigger guard it is called "an accidental discharge" created by the operator.

I'd also suggest that if police departments are concerned about something they can't train out of their staff (including things their muscle do involuntarily), maybe the answer is to go back to pistols with long, double action trigger pulls. Trust me, if my Beretta PX4 Compact that I carry with a round chambered and hammer down ever fires, it's because someone intentionally applied approx. 6-9 pounds of force on the trigger for approx. 3/4" worth of trigger travel. Certainly nothing unintentional about that.
 
You miss the point, and I feel it's because you are of the opinion that only your standpoint could be correct.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Not sure any one particular viewpoint is ultimately "correct". This is a matter of opinion. It's also an odd thing to come from the person who stated:
Missing the point guys.
Click to expand...
as that could be interpreted as you saying that you are the only one with a valid viewpoint.

What you say does not contradict my statement
Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to. It was meant to illustrate that safety features don't only exist to protect a user for himself or herself, but also from others.

what you say has no bearing on the fact that people careen about in big heavy battering rams without a care in the world, and its because they are not afraid to do it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't think they do it because of ABS and traction control and I don't see proof that they wouldn't engage in the same behavior without those features.

Put 450K on the car that I haven't driven in nine years. So let's not go that route, I understand something about driving.
Click to expand...

Huh? :confused: At what point did I say that you know nothing about driving or that I am the only one that knows something? All I said is I drive a lot and see crazy behavior. You're taking this very personally for no reason.

The parallel exist in this case with the pistol: the firearm itself has no say in the matter; it "does what it is told". If people issued the firearm do dumb things with it, accidents happen.
Click to expand...

My argument is I don't think the metaphor of traction control and ABS fits at all.

In both cases, familiarity- or the perception of familiarity- has bred contempt: the bad driver executes a dumb maneuver. The firearm carrier forgets what gun he's packing. The operator has decided he knows what he's doing and is wrong. The fancy tech on the machine didn't stop it, it was still the oatmeal between the ears that caused it.
Click to expand...

But I don't think this is a function of technology, more human nature.

You originally stated:
We depend on the technology so much, we take it as a given that we can do dumb things and get away with it.
Click to expand...
But in this case the "newer" technology, the Glock is actually less forgiving of bad habits than the "older" technology of the Beretta in its long DA trigger pull. I also hesitate to call Glocks newer technology when they've been on the market for over 30 years.

To me this is a training issue. I get where you're saying technology can make us complacent and it does sound like the Berettas made the officers complacent in their habits. However I don't think this is a result of technology as a larger issue, but simply a training issue. Somewhere along the line it was probably standard practice for these officers to stage their triggers and they kept the behavior when changing platforms. I also consider traction control and ABS as being more similar to a firing pin block as they are features that work without the user knowing. If your finger is on the trigger (which is the only way the firearm can discharge without a serious mechanical failure) then you should, I hope, know.
 
Last edited:
Training issue.
Click to expand...

It's both a training and pistol design issue.

You don't see thousands of similar ND reports coming in around the nation from Glock departments, do you?
Click to expand...

You read lots of reports of LEO NDs after departments switched from DA revolvers to Glocks. We seem to read fewer reports these days, but a current report of an ND seems more likely to involve a Glock. I'm not aware of any other firearm with a trauma syndrome named after it.

The M&P is NO MORE "DANGEROUS" WITH ITS TRIGGER THAN THE GLOCK IS WITH ITS TRIGGER.
Click to expand...

I agree, excluding those M&Ps that have an external safety, of course -- those are safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top