Clear the garment. I don't care if you have a pistol with a safety or a DA/SA pistol. Even if you don't get a discharge having your pistol caught in your shirt is not good. You have to clear your garment from the holster and that shouldn't be a hard thing to do. It can be possible to forget I give you that, but just like muzzle management and trigger finger discipline it has to become a part of your handling of the firearm in order to be safe.
New trend. SA striker fired guns with no manaul safety
- Thread starter polaris joe
- Start date
- Status
Clear the garment. I don't care if you have a pistol with a safety or a DA/SA pistol. Even if you don't get a discharge having your pistol caught in your shirt is not good. You have to clear your garment from the holster and that shouldn't be a hard thing to do. It can be possible to forget I give you that, but just like muzzle management and trigger finger discipline it has to become a part of your handling of the firearm in order to be safe.
brian33x51
New member
Send it back. It's probably a good idea to add "safety testing" to the range regimen. I've been doing that with my hkusp an new m&p shield 9mm. I probably should make a note to do that every time I bring any gun to the range before starting practice anyways.
brian33x51
New member
Sure, but I'll still carry with a small extra peace of mind that is available on many pistols.
And if you like that fair enough, my point is the major take away from an event like that should be the importance of clearing the garment, not so much the pistol. If you want the safety too rock on.
I don't mention this to harp on you. I've seen this happen in a few courses as well. Usually it was because the person was rushing when he/she didn't need to. Not saying that was the case with you, just putting that caution out there.
I don't mention this to harp on you. I've seen this happen in a few courses as well. Usually it was because the person was rushing when he/she didn't need to. Not saying that was the case with you, just putting that caution out there.
zincwarrior
New member
Hey hey I can definitely generalize exactly what I would do if someone leaves a piece of chocolate cake on the counter...NOM NOM NOM!
marine6680
New member
Is it really so hard to make a defined criteria for one or the other type of action?
If you listen to manufacturer marketing, sure it can be muddy.
My system...
If the trigger can tension the firing mechanism from its at rest (fired/pulled/dropped) state, and then release to fire, in one step... It is a DA trigger.
If the trigger can not tension the mechanism from rest, and requires movement of the slide to preset the mechanism, but when sitting in this ready state, the mechanism does not have the energy required to reliably ignite a primer, and requires the trigger to draw the mechanism back to its full rearward travel to obtain the required energy... Then it is a partial tension DA mechanism, or just partial tension.
If the trigger can not draw back the mechanism, and requires the action to preset the firing mechanism, and in this ready state, the mechanism has enough energy to ignite primers if dropped from that point, and any further tensioning of the system, if any, is minor (let's say a couple percent of total travel) then it is a SA.
I don't know any trigger mechanisms, striker or hammer, that do not fit cleanly into one of those definitions, or fit in as a dual mode trigger. (IE DA/SA)
Any triggers that do not fit the definitions are going to be few and far between, and uncommon.
I don't see how anyone can look at a Glock trigger mechanism, and M&P mechanism... Who fully understands how they work... And then call them the same thing.
Just because they accomplish the same goals, does not make them equivalent in operation.
Maybe it's the fact that I have an analytical and logical mind, and have several years of engineering and design schooling...
But I like clear definitions...
There are examples of striker mechanisms that fit all three of my categories/definitions...
It is what it is, and I don't have to fool myself into calling a SA an DA, just to ease my fears of potential safety issues and concerns.
If you listen to manufacturer marketing, sure it can be muddy.
My system...
If the trigger can tension the firing mechanism from its at rest (fired/pulled/dropped) state, and then release to fire, in one step... It is a DA trigger.
If the trigger can not tension the mechanism from rest, and requires movement of the slide to preset the mechanism, but when sitting in this ready state, the mechanism does not have the energy required to reliably ignite a primer, and requires the trigger to draw the mechanism back to its full rearward travel to obtain the required energy... Then it is a partial tension DA mechanism, or just partial tension.
If the trigger can not draw back the mechanism, and requires the action to preset the firing mechanism, and in this ready state, the mechanism has enough energy to ignite primers if dropped from that point, and any further tensioning of the system, if any, is minor (let's say a couple percent of total travel) then it is a SA.
I don't know any trigger mechanisms, striker or hammer, that do not fit cleanly into one of those definitions, or fit in as a dual mode trigger. (IE DA/SA)
Any triggers that do not fit the definitions are going to be few and far between, and uncommon.
I don't see how anyone can look at a Glock trigger mechanism, and M&P mechanism... Who fully understands how they work... And then call them the same thing.
Just because they accomplish the same goals, does not make them equivalent in operation.
Maybe it's the fact that I have an analytical and logical mind, and have several years of engineering and design schooling...
But I like clear definitions...
There are examples of striker mechanisms that fit all three of my categories/definitions...
It is what it is, and I don't have to fool myself into calling a SA an DA, just to ease my fears of potential safety issues and concerns.
This thread has become one of those arguments about which it may be said that "both sides are right" and, with equal force, that "neither side is right."
For the edification of any who might be confused, I humbly offer this attempt to clarify.
Let us start by defining some terms. Note that, since I'm using terms for my exegesis, I get to define them how I like, so let's not start by challenging my definitions:
"Single Action" refers to a trigger mechanism whose function is limited to releasing a firing mechanism whose motive spring has already been compressed by some other means.
"Double Action" refers to a trigger mechanism that combines two separate functions: compressing a firing mechanism spring that was previously at rest (that is, in the same configuration in which it lies when a round is fired) and then releasing that compression.
"Short Trigger Action" refers to a trigger whose travel from at rest (i.e., finger all the way off) to fire (i.e., gun goes bang) is very short, on the order of 0.1" or less; essentially, no longer than necessary to displace sear engagement.
"Long Trigger Action" refers to a trigger whose travel between the same two points is longer.
The classic "double action" firearm is the Smith & Wesson double action revolver. It so happens that, when a Smith & Wesson double action revolver is thumb cocked (turning it into a "single action"), the trigger is also changed from a long action trigger to a short action trigger.
As a result, people have tended to conflate the single action/double action dichotomy with the short trigger/long trigger dichotomy. Such a conflation was reasonable back when, in fact, the two distinct phenomena were always related. Today they are not.
The risk of an unintended discharge of a single action revolver (including a thumb cocked Smith & Wesson double action revolver) has two sources: one, is an errant finger press of the trigger, and the other is a drop induced jar that causes the trigger's momentum during the fall to move it into firing position when the fall stops. In a Smith & Wesson double action revolver, the drop induced jar risk is mitigated by the rebound slide, but the errant finger press risk remains.
On the other hand, a Smith & Wesson double action revolver with the hammer down has long been considered "safe" without any manual safety because the length of the finger press required to discharge a round is far too long to occur unintentionally.
Enter the Glock and the M&P. The M&P is a single action firing mechanism, despite what S&W claims and despite those who claim that a miniscule "camming effect" changes things. In fact, I defy anyone to set up an indicator and measure a camming effect greater than 0.001", if any. However, unlike the cocked revolver, the M&P employs a long trigger, pretty obviously by design. (In such a pistol, the length of the trigger pull for a second shot is governed, in part, by the design of the disconnector reset function and in part by the design of the striker block design.)
The Glock is a tad different: the firing mechanism is neither single action nor double action, because the cycling of the slide (coupled with disconnector function) compresses the striker spring by only a fraction of its full compression length. (I have read estimates of 80% to 90% and have not taken the time to devise and implement a measurement scheme to detect a more precise value.) At that point, further trigger travel further compresses the striker spring for the distance required to "trigger" (sorry about that) the down travel of the trigger bar by the disconnector slope. And, at the same time, and for the same reasons as the M&P, the Glock employs a long trigger.
Whew! Now what is the purpose of wading through all of this minutiae? Well, the philosophical issue that seems to have generated the discussion seems to be whether the "single action" striker-fired pistols, such as the M&P, are "safe enough" without a manual safety, and this is an appropriate query. However, because "safe enough" neither can be quantified numerically nor measured against a numerical standard, it is an issue the resolution of which is a matter of subjective judgment and, therefore, is up to the user in question. Here's what I can tell you:
I have decades of experience carrying, handling and firing Smith & Wesson double action revolvers and, at least in years past, instructing others to do so. Today, I have years of experience doing the same with M&P pistols (and, to a lesser degree, Glocks). I am satisfied that the M&P's long trigger is equally resistant to an errant finger press as an uncocked Smith & Wesson double action revolver, both in factory configuration and after installation of an Apex DCAEK. My only hesitation in reaching the same conclusion about the Glock derives from the fact that I've handled fewer of them and one or two had been so heavily modified (for competition use) as to lead me to believe that an errant thought might set them off. An M&P pistol with no thumb safety is one of the several firearms I carry on a regular basis.
Postscript: Someone will ask me, what then about the reported frequency of Glock UDs upon reholstering? Doesn't this mean that the Glock trigger is unsafe?
I think not. Of course, to be authoritative on the root cause of Glock reholstering UDs, I'd have to study the details, hopefully including instant replay video focusing on the holstering itself, of a large number of such incidents. Which I haven't done. However, surprise of surprises, I do have an opinion. First, while Glock gets the apparent award for frequency of such discharges, I suspect that that is largely because of the early prevalence of Glocks in the police market. Give the other makes a chance to catch up as they become more popular.
No, what I really think is at issue is training and user carelessness. I hate to say this, but my observation is that recent generations of police recruits bring zero firearms experience to the range; many (most?) have never handled firearms before and did not learn anything about them from their fathers, uncles, and other forebears. And, candidly, a lot of these recruits show up for firearms training only because they are under orders and getting time-an-a-half, not because they are eager to learn and develop a skill set. As a result, I've seen a lot of fingers inside trigger guards when they shouldn't be.
And I'd point to one other culprit: the modern holster for semi-auto pistols, which everyone insists must cover the trigger of the holstered gun. In my day, revolver holsters had exposed triggers, and as a result there was no unmoving bit of leather to press an errant finger against the trigger should such finger be where it wasn't supposed to be. I've heard folks talk about cover garments being trapped when holstering, but frankly I've never seen it where it could have caused a trigger movement. I have seen a lot of fingers where they shouldn't be that have had that potential.
For the edification of any who might be confused, I humbly offer this attempt to clarify.
Let us start by defining some terms. Note that, since I'm using terms for my exegesis, I get to define them how I like, so let's not start by challenging my definitions:
"Single Action" refers to a trigger mechanism whose function is limited to releasing a firing mechanism whose motive spring has already been compressed by some other means.
"Double Action" refers to a trigger mechanism that combines two separate functions: compressing a firing mechanism spring that was previously at rest (that is, in the same configuration in which it lies when a round is fired) and then releasing that compression.
"Short Trigger Action" refers to a trigger whose travel from at rest (i.e., finger all the way off) to fire (i.e., gun goes bang) is very short, on the order of 0.1" or less; essentially, no longer than necessary to displace sear engagement.
"Long Trigger Action" refers to a trigger whose travel between the same two points is longer.
The classic "double action" firearm is the Smith & Wesson double action revolver. It so happens that, when a Smith & Wesson double action revolver is thumb cocked (turning it into a "single action"), the trigger is also changed from a long action trigger to a short action trigger.
As a result, people have tended to conflate the single action/double action dichotomy with the short trigger/long trigger dichotomy. Such a conflation was reasonable back when, in fact, the two distinct phenomena were always related. Today they are not.
The risk of an unintended discharge of a single action revolver (including a thumb cocked Smith & Wesson double action revolver) has two sources: one, is an errant finger press of the trigger, and the other is a drop induced jar that causes the trigger's momentum during the fall to move it into firing position when the fall stops. In a Smith & Wesson double action revolver, the drop induced jar risk is mitigated by the rebound slide, but the errant finger press risk remains.
On the other hand, a Smith & Wesson double action revolver with the hammer down has long been considered "safe" without any manual safety because the length of the finger press required to discharge a round is far too long to occur unintentionally.
Enter the Glock and the M&P. The M&P is a single action firing mechanism, despite what S&W claims and despite those who claim that a miniscule "camming effect" changes things. In fact, I defy anyone to set up an indicator and measure a camming effect greater than 0.001", if any. However, unlike the cocked revolver, the M&P employs a long trigger, pretty obviously by design. (In such a pistol, the length of the trigger pull for a second shot is governed, in part, by the design of the disconnector reset function and in part by the design of the striker block design.)
The Glock is a tad different: the firing mechanism is neither single action nor double action, because the cycling of the slide (coupled with disconnector function) compresses the striker spring by only a fraction of its full compression length. (I have read estimates of 80% to 90% and have not taken the time to devise and implement a measurement scheme to detect a more precise value.) At that point, further trigger travel further compresses the striker spring for the distance required to "trigger" (sorry about that) the down travel of the trigger bar by the disconnector slope. And, at the same time, and for the same reasons as the M&P, the Glock employs a long trigger.
Whew! Now what is the purpose of wading through all of this minutiae? Well, the philosophical issue that seems to have generated the discussion seems to be whether the "single action" striker-fired pistols, such as the M&P, are "safe enough" without a manual safety, and this is an appropriate query. However, because "safe enough" neither can be quantified numerically nor measured against a numerical standard, it is an issue the resolution of which is a matter of subjective judgment and, therefore, is up to the user in question. Here's what I can tell you:
I have decades of experience carrying, handling and firing Smith & Wesson double action revolvers and, at least in years past, instructing others to do so. Today, I have years of experience doing the same with M&P pistols (and, to a lesser degree, Glocks). I am satisfied that the M&P's long trigger is equally resistant to an errant finger press as an uncocked Smith & Wesson double action revolver, both in factory configuration and after installation of an Apex DCAEK. My only hesitation in reaching the same conclusion about the Glock derives from the fact that I've handled fewer of them and one or two had been so heavily modified (for competition use) as to lead me to believe that an errant thought might set them off. An M&P pistol with no thumb safety is one of the several firearms I carry on a regular basis.
Postscript: Someone will ask me, what then about the reported frequency of Glock UDs upon reholstering? Doesn't this mean that the Glock trigger is unsafe?
I think not. Of course, to be authoritative on the root cause of Glock reholstering UDs, I'd have to study the details, hopefully including instant replay video focusing on the holstering itself, of a large number of such incidents. Which I haven't done. However, surprise of surprises, I do have an opinion. First, while Glock gets the apparent award for frequency of such discharges, I suspect that that is largely because of the early prevalence of Glocks in the police market. Give the other makes a chance to catch up as they become more popular.
No, what I really think is at issue is training and user carelessness. I hate to say this, but my observation is that recent generations of police recruits bring zero firearms experience to the range; many (most?) have never handled firearms before and did not learn anything about them from their fathers, uncles, and other forebears. And, candidly, a lot of these recruits show up for firearms training only because they are under orders and getting time-an-a-half, not because they are eager to learn and develop a skill set. As a result, I've seen a lot of fingers inside trigger guards when they shouldn't be.
And I'd point to one other culprit: the modern holster for semi-auto pistols, which everyone insists must cover the trigger of the holstered gun. In my day, revolver holsters had exposed triggers, and as a result there was no unmoving bit of leather to press an errant finger against the trigger should such finger be where it wasn't supposed to be. I've heard folks talk about cover garments being trapped when holstering, but frankly I've never seen it where it could have caused a trigger movement. I have seen a lot of fingers where they shouldn't be that have had that potential.
It's really unfair to compare a striker fired firearm in terms of double action or single action. There's only a handful of them that offer true double action triggers, like the SW99. Past that, it really doesn't matter if the striker is 80% back or 100% back. Internal safeties stop the gun from going "bang" if it's dropped, and the trigger pulls on Glocks, M&P's, and XD's are all very similar regardless of how far back the striker is held.
I've yet to feel a trigger on an M&P or similar striker fired handgun that has the striker 100% back that feels ANYTHING like a 1911, or SIG P938, or CZ75 & 92F in SA. Honestly I wish they did have that crisp feel as I'd be tempted to own one, but as it is I'd rather have a crisp single action trigger like my P938, or a long and solid double action pull like my j-frame. But I hate the mushy quasi SA/DA triggers on striker fired guns.
I've yet to feel a trigger on an M&P or similar striker fired handgun that has the striker 100% back that feels ANYTHING like a 1911, or SIG P938, or CZ75 & 92F in SA. Honestly I wish they did have that crisp feel as I'd be tempted to own one, but as it is I'd rather have a crisp single action trigger like my P938, or a long and solid double action pull like my j-frame. But I hate the mushy quasi SA/DA triggers on striker fired guns.
disseminator
New member
The same way one can look at a S&W Double Action revolver and a Ruger or Colt Double Action revolver and call them the same.
Because they are.
It's not an engineering question, it's common sense.
In regard to the OP, the general public sees no distinction between different striker fired systems, that is why there is no outrage over this "problem".
I've seen that as well. There's a segment of the population that views every officer as an incarnation of John McClane. In my experience the officers that are actually weapon savvy end up being on response teams of one form or another and while they will also work patrol they're not the average police officer.
To me that's not the fault of the holster, that's the user. I've also seen instructors have to stop people from holstering pistols when their fingers were still on the trigger (and I've read the reports of folks having to go to hospitals because they weren't caught in time). But at that point any kind of rigid or heck even stiff opening around the trigger guard will push back on that trigger finger.
I did a quick little experiment with the holsters I have handy. On the pure kydex holsters even with my finger taking up the slack on my Glock trigger the shell of the holster mainly jammed into my hand and even jamming it hard enough to cause significant pain the trigger still didn't break because most of the pressure was into my hand. On the hybrid holster I have that had a kydex side and a synthetic backing I was able to get the trigger to break with my finger on the trigger. This seemed to be because the shell was sculpted to follow the trigger guard and wasn't squared off at the back, so it allowed pressure more on the trigger than the whole hand. So I think the shape of the holster has a role in this too.
marine6680
New member
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Seriously...
While two revolver mechanisms are broadly similar, but with a few changes...
A Glock and M&P are very dissimilar.
A Glock has no traditional sear, it has a cruciform piece as part of the trigger bar, that moves rearward in a linear fashion, that draws back the striker mechanism and then a sloped metal piece causes the cruciform piece to move downward as it continues to the rear, it then drops far enough to allow the striker to be released...
An M&P has a trigger bar that pushes against a rotating sear, that rotates to release the striker... It operates much like the sear in a 1911, or cz75, or other sears do... It simply rotates out of the way.
These are not the same mechanisms, they may have a few similarities, being a striker assembly, and a striker block...
But way more differences... The disconnect function is also dissimilar, even if they get the same basic job done... It's done in different ways.
As was mentioned, how far you have to pull the trigger has nothing to do with what kind of action it is. It's all down to what job the trigger performs, or rather the steps it does to do its job.
While two revolver mechanisms are broadly similar, but with a few changes...
A Glock and M&P are very dissimilar.
A Glock has no traditional sear, it has a cruciform piece as part of the trigger bar, that moves rearward in a linear fashion, that draws back the striker mechanism and then a sloped metal piece causes the cruciform piece to move downward as it continues to the rear, it then drops far enough to allow the striker to be released...
An M&P has a trigger bar that pushes against a rotating sear, that rotates to release the striker... It operates much like the sear in a 1911, or cz75, or other sears do... It simply rotates out of the way.
These are not the same mechanisms, they may have a few similarities, being a striker assembly, and a striker block...
But way more differences... The disconnect function is also dissimilar, even if they get the same basic job done... It's done in different ways.
As was mentioned, how far you have to pull the trigger has nothing to do with what kind of action it is. It's all down to what job the trigger performs, or rather the steps it does to do its job.
Last edited:
polaris joe
New member
The general public gun owners really should get to know more about such subjects
polaris joe
New member
Marine. You know this subject very well. Thank you, Sir
polaris joe
New member
My basic point of all of this is. It is well known that people even trained professionals have had NDs with the Glock pistol. Logic and common sense should tell us that other pistols, not including the M&P, that have lighter and shorter SA only triggers than the Glock would be more likely to be accidently fired by the same group of people. I carry a Glock more than any other gun. I have zero worries about it. I would have a concern carrying a SA gun with a much lighter trigger with no manual safety everyday while working and going about my normal day. Target type triggers are not needed for self defense and a long 12lb trigger is not needed for safety. The answer is in the middle
There is no shortage of people that have NDs and there likely always will be, but I don't know if that condemns any design (and Glocks have had plenty of their fair share). I haven't seen any proof that the cause of those NDs is solely the weight of that trigger pull or the length of travel.
I carry a Glock (I am right now). I've also owned all the pistols you've mentioned sans the Ruger American and the Remington RP9. I don't agree that the triggers on those are "target type". I'd also point out that at first you had an issue with the M&P too until people pointed out some facts to you. We all make mistakes, but sometimes perception isn't reality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I carry a Glock (I am right now). I've also owned all the pistols you've mentioned sans the Ruger American and the Remington RP9. I don't agree that the triggers on those are "target type". I'd also point out that at first you had an issue with the M&P too until people pointed out some facts to you. We all make mistakes, but sometimes perception isn't reality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
polaris joe
New member
The only problem I have with the M&P is S&W lies about it being DAO
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
SPECIFICATIONS
SKU: 11526
Model: M&P®45 M2.0™ Thumb Safety
Caliber: .45 AUTO
Capacity: 10+1
Barrel Length: 4.6" / 11.7 cm
Overall Length: 7.9"
Front Sight: Steel - White Dot
Rear Sight: Steel - White Two Dot
Action: Striker Fire
Grip: Polymer
Weight: 27.0 oz / 765.4g
Barrel Material: Stainless Steel - Armornite® Finish
Slide Material: Stainless Steel - Armornite® Finish
Frame Material: Polymer
Purpose: Home Protection, Personal Protection
So where are they lying about it being DAO? A 3rd gen 3953 was DAO, this gun is not.
SKU: 11526
Model: M&P®45 M2.0™ Thumb Safety
Caliber: .45 AUTO
Capacity: 10+1
Barrel Length: 4.6" / 11.7 cm
Overall Length: 7.9"
Front Sight: Steel - White Dot
Rear Sight: Steel - White Two Dot
Action: Striker Fire
Grip: Polymer
Weight: 27.0 oz / 765.4g
Barrel Material: Stainless Steel - Armornite® Finish
Slide Material: Stainless Steel - Armornite® Finish
Frame Material: Polymer
Purpose: Home Protection, Personal Protection
So where are they lying about it being DAO? A 3rd gen 3953 was DAO, this gun is not.
Back to the OP; striker-fired guns without manual safeties are not a new trend.
The four most significant trends I have seen over roughly the last thirty years in customer demands for handguns have been: lighter triggers; shorter triggers; consistent trigger pulls, and; no safeties to manipulate. Taken together, those trends translate to making guns simpler and easier to shoot.
Beyond manually-cocked revolvers, handguns traditionally had manual safeties or long and/or heavy trigger pulls. The trends over the last thirty years have resulted in the reduction of trigger-related safety factors while also avoiding the use of manual safeties.
The four most significant trends I have seen over roughly the last thirty years in customer demands for handguns have been: lighter triggers; shorter triggers; consistent trigger pulls, and; no safeties to manipulate. Taken together, those trends translate to making guns simpler and easier to shoot.
Beyond manually-cocked revolvers, handguns traditionally had manual safeties or long and/or heavy trigger pulls. The trends over the last thirty years have resulted in the reduction of trigger-related safety factors while also avoiding the use of manual safeties.
Glenn E. Meyer said:
S&W emphasizes different things at different times, such as labeling the M&P as a DAO pistol on page 11 of the 2010 catalog.
Attachments
This whole premise of safety catches, on semi Auto pistols is going into asinine,
and when I read about the many pistols carried by the CCW crowd? Amazing.
The swapping from Colt 45 1911, to Glock, to S&W? These are vastly different weapons, in both design, and methods of safe deployment, holsters, ext!
Let me make it simple, take away the fear of carrying a fully loaded , round in the breach, pistol.
First, what I do, Glock 19 4th Gen 9mm pistol, 16 round capacity.
This is carried in a Kydex outside the belt holster, at the 10 past 3 position.
The G19 is held very tightly, by the design of the holster, no catches, just the design. The trigger is hidden, a sliver of the holster has been trimmed away, exposing the extractor. The extractor can be felt to be proud of the slide, hence proof of live round being in said chamber. No need to withdraw the pistol to check status, i.e. loaded or not.
Pistol needed for self defense, sweep shirt, firm grip of pistol and draw.
When sights aligned, depress trigger the required amount of times. The trigger weight to release, 5 lb? Close anyhow.
The trigger of a Pistol, is the most important piece of equipment on the Pistol, reference the accuracy. Ask any target shooter.
This is not brain surgery you know.
and when I read about the many pistols carried by the CCW crowd? Amazing.
The swapping from Colt 45 1911, to Glock, to S&W? These are vastly different weapons, in both design, and methods of safe deployment, holsters, ext!
Let me make it simple, take away the fear of carrying a fully loaded , round in the breach, pistol.
First, what I do, Glock 19 4th Gen 9mm pistol, 16 round capacity.
This is carried in a Kydex outside the belt holster, at the 10 past 3 position.
The G19 is held very tightly, by the design of the holster, no catches, just the design. The trigger is hidden, a sliver of the holster has been trimmed away, exposing the extractor. The extractor can be felt to be proud of the slide, hence proof of live round being in said chamber. No need to withdraw the pistol to check status, i.e. loaded or not.
Pistol needed for self defense, sweep shirt, firm grip of pistol and draw.
When sights aligned, depress trigger the required amount of times. The trigger weight to release, 5 lb? Close anyhow.
The trigger of a Pistol, is the most important piece of equipment on the Pistol, reference the accuracy. Ask any target shooter.
This is not brain surgery you know.
- Status