On DA triggers- John Farnam Quips
- Thread starter OBIWAN
- Start date
281 Quad Cam
New member
OBIWAN, I understand the first several points, I edited before you posted (score!) 
Alright, I sort of took from it, that the author was implying that DA guns were meant to be carried finger on the trigger, and that made them inherently dangerous. Ofcourse you can understand why I thought that would be ludicrous... But if that isn't the focus of the experiment, I gladly take it back.
I really don't know if the experiment has an audience though.... We all know to keep our fingers off the trigger. So who reading it, is going to take soemthing from it? Many or all of us recognized the mistake before there was an easily predictable ND.
Indeed I think the specific officers on the NYPD and elsewhere know to keep their finger off the trigger. But if your personal freedom was threatened because of a mistake you made while holding a Glock on duty. I think quite a few of us would want to blaim the gun to take the spotlight off us.
"I was only standing there, and, it just went off!!!"
Alright, I sort of took from it, that the author was implying that DA guns were meant to be carried finger on the trigger, and that made them inherently dangerous. Ofcourse you can understand why I thought that would be ludicrous... But if that isn't the focus of the experiment, I gladly take it back.
I really don't know if the experiment has an audience though.... We all know to keep our fingers off the trigger. So who reading it, is going to take soemthing from it? Many or all of us recognized the mistake before there was an easily predictable ND.
Indeed I think the specific officers on the NYPD and elsewhere know to keep their finger off the trigger. But if your personal freedom was threatened because of a mistake you made while holding a Glock on duty. I think quite a few of us would want to blaim the gun to take the spotlight off us.
"I was only standing there, and, it just went off!!!"
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Good question, Tyme!
Erick's the Man for this one. What say, Erick?
I agree that a DA trigger won't prevent a ND. When you're startled or pumped on adrenylin, it doesn't matter if you have a 30 lb trigger, because you'll still manage to pull it if you're careless with your gun handling. I'm not sure how he got to this, though...
The fact that the Glock requires the user to pull the trigger as part of the take down process is completely unrelated to the experiment and the issue at hand, so I'm at a loss trying to see the connection he's trying to make here. And let's face it, an operator who doesn't violate the basic gun-handling rules one learns on his first day at the range would never be able to field strip a Glock.
The fact that the Glock requires the user to pull the trigger as part of the take down process is completely unrelated to the experiment and the issue at hand, so I'm at a loss trying to see the connection he's trying to make here. And let's face it, an operator who doesn't violate the basic gun-handling rules one learns on his first day at the range would never be able to field strip a Glock.
When I was in the AF, my roomate and I lived off-base. She came to my room and told me she thought she heard something in the kitchen. I got my revolver(a then new-in-production GP100) and proceeded down the hall. I knew tactics better than gunhandling at this time. I had my finger on the trigger as I was slicing the pie checking out the kitchen. My roomate put her hand on my shoulder and it startled me enough that I very nearly squeezed off a round.
"We all know to keep our fingers off the trigger"...
And yet people do it
Well....not me...but look at all the ND's that occur
I saw a fairly experienced guy on the last day of a class do a speed reload with his finger on the trigger...color him surprised
I think we have all seen the footage of the lady cop that accidently shot the guy she was holding at gunpoint...something that happens far too often
You can mitigate the startle reflex, but it takes a great deal of training.
Eliminate it...don't think so
I was part of a group that did some informal testing a while back using timers, and finger on/finger off did not make much difference
As to the Glock comments...the point is that the weapons mechanism will not keep you safe/make you less safe....if you cannot be trusted to ensure that the weapon is empty then you are an accident waiting to happen...blaming the handgun is poultry excrement.
Feeling complacent because your particular weapon does not require you to dry fire before stripping means very little....if you can't reliably clear the weapon you should not be allowed to load it
Trusting to anything other than training and serious attention to detail is a recipe for disaster.
I see lots of posts by people that are truthfully not all that comfortable with loaded weapons, but rather than training hard to gain the necessary proficency they trust to a certain weapon design, carry chamber empty, etc.
A lot of those same people gravitate towards DA/SA handguns or (adding insult to injury) DA/SA with a safety AND decocker (belt and suspenders)
And then they fire maybe one shot per range session DA...
I have seen posts by people that chose a DA revolver because it "felt safer" and then they got wigged out by a wierd noise and cocked the darn thing.
"What do I do now"
Law enforcement agencies went to Glocks in large numbers from revolvers and had more ND's.........
Because they had always trusted to that long pull...they got lazy...
Not because Glocks are so incredibly dangerous...because the operators were
Complacent and/or careless people are dangerous
Hanguns are just another way for them to hurt themselves (and others)
And yet people do it
Well....not me...but look at all the ND's that occur
I saw a fairly experienced guy on the last day of a class do a speed reload with his finger on the trigger...color him surprised
I think we have all seen the footage of the lady cop that accidently shot the guy she was holding at gunpoint...something that happens far too often
You can mitigate the startle reflex, but it takes a great deal of training.
Eliminate it...don't think so
I was part of a group that did some informal testing a while back using timers, and finger on/finger off did not make much difference
As to the Glock comments...the point is that the weapons mechanism will not keep you safe/make you less safe....if you cannot be trusted to ensure that the weapon is empty then you are an accident waiting to happen...blaming the handgun is poultry excrement.
Feeling complacent because your particular weapon does not require you to dry fire before stripping means very little....if you can't reliably clear the weapon you should not be allowed to load it
Trusting to anything other than training and serious attention to detail is a recipe for disaster.
I see lots of posts by people that are truthfully not all that comfortable with loaded weapons, but rather than training hard to gain the necessary proficency they trust to a certain weapon design, carry chamber empty, etc.
A lot of those same people gravitate towards DA/SA handguns or (adding insult to injury) DA/SA with a safety AND decocker (belt and suspenders)
And then they fire maybe one shot per range session DA...
I have seen posts by people that chose a DA revolver because it "felt safer" and then they got wigged out by a wierd noise and cocked the darn thing.
"What do I do now"
Law enforcement agencies went to Glocks in large numbers from revolvers and had more ND's.........
Because they had always trusted to that long pull...they got lazy...
Not because Glocks are so incredibly dangerous...because the operators were
Complacent and/or careless people are dangerous
Hanguns are just another way for them to hurt themselves (and others)
CarlosDJackal
New member
This is an excellent article that should reinforce the importance of keeping your finger out of the trigger guard. As far as being able to train the "startle response" out of someone, anything is possible. But the amount of time and effort that you have to put into circumventing something that is ingrained into our subconscious. It's like trying to train our propensity to blink and flinch when someone suddenly throws an object at us.
What really blows my mind is there are so-called "Professional Firearms Instructors" who actually advocates training people to run around with their finger on the trigger (to include cops on duty). It is their opinion that since, people who are under stress inadvertently put their fingers on the trigger anyway, they might as well be trained to do so "safely".
But what these "experts" fail to understand is even if we were able to train the startle reflex out of ourselves, there is still the "parallel reflex" we have to worry about. The really disturbing thing is, there are actually individuals out there who have actually pay him good money for that sort of crap and they carry guns!!
But that's justs my 2 cents worth.
What really blows my mind is there are so-called "Professional Firearms Instructors" who actually advocates training people to run around with their finger on the trigger (to include cops on duty). It is their opinion that since, people who are under stress inadvertently put their fingers on the trigger anyway, they might as well be trained to do so "safely".
But what these "experts" fail to understand is even if we were able to train the startle reflex out of ourselves, there is still the "parallel reflex" we have to worry about. The really disturbing thing is, there are actually individuals out there who have actually pay him good money for that sort of crap and they carry guns!!
But that's justs my 2 cents worth.
BreacherUp!
New member
Finger is off the trigger until the decision to shoot is reached.
Sir William
New member
Apparently NOT alwaya done. Fairfax County, VA police SWAT officer described as highly trained accidently killed a suspect with a HK USP45 this week.
OBIWAN gets it
Shooters may not agree with everything John Farnam teaches, but go through his "quips" and he makes a lot of sense on most topics.
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/quips.html
I agree whole heartedly that it's the sole responsability of the operator to know the functioning of thier pistol and handle it safely, including making sure to clear it before disassembly. If somebody has a ND because they pulled the trigger without clearing thier weapon, then it is not Glock's fault.
That doesn't change the fact, however, that the Glock take down is flawed from a human engineering standpoint, since it runs contrary to the basic rules of firearms safety. Compare it to a weapon on the opposite end of spectrum like a Sig, which allows the user to disassemble the weapon without putting their finger inside the trigger guard and even requires the operator lock back the slide as part of the take down procedure. The latter pistol shows logical thought around the basic rules of firearm safety which the Glock design is clearly lacking.
That being said, it's not really related to the idea of a long, heavy DA pull. The long and heavy trigger pull comes at a sacrifice of shootability. It takes much more work to shoot to same level of accuracy one can obtain from a gun with a short, light pull. The short, light pull offers a distinct advantage in this case, and neither option violates the rules of firearm safety.
The Glock's take down offers no such advantage. There's no benefit to the Glock's disassembly procedure over that of the Sig, and there is the very definite drawback of the fact that it requires the operator to put their finger into the trigger guard when they are not ready to fire. That's poor human engineering. It means when teaching a new shooter to shoot a Glock pistol you have to say, "You must follow these safety rules at all times... oh... uh... except when you're disassembling your pistol."
Will proper training and vigilance compensate for Glock's design? It certainly should. Does that excuse the lack of thought that Glock put into the procedure? Not in my book... it's still a poorly engineered design in that regard when compared to other designs available on the market. Are Glocks bad guns because of that? Nope. They're pistols with strengths and drawbacks just like any other pistol on the market.
I don't see a major problem as long as the other rules are in play. Do you tell students not to practice "dry fire" because it violates a basic safety rule? The principles of Glock take-down are the same principles that should be followed for dry practice. Sure, #3 is violated during dry practice, but the other three will cover it if followed.
1. All Guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
As OBIWAN said "Complacent and/or careless people are dangerous"!
All four rules should be in force during dry fire practice. Saying, "Oh... we can skip one of those rules, because the others will cover it," is the very definition of dangerous complacancy. You should treat the gun as if it's loaded, you should not let the muzzle cover anything you're not willing to destroy, you should not have your finger on the trigger until the gun is pointed at the target you've chosen and you should be absolutely sure of that target and what's behind it.
Nonsense. Rule #3 is not violated during safe dry fire practice, nor during the Glock breakdown procedure -- unless the person doing either of these is too arrogant or ignorant to follow the rules.
A target is anywhere you deliberately aim, where you would not mind sending a bullet. A backstop is anything which would stop a bullet.
During dryfire, you might aim at a conventional target or a non-conventional one. But either way, it is still a target, by definition. And you'd darn well better have a good backstop; if you don't, you're an accident looking for a place to happen.
Same thing for Glock disassembly. You find a safe backstop before you pull your firearm out of your holster or out of its box. You carefully point the muzzle on a spot where you wouldn't mind sending a bullet, behind which is something which would prevent the bullet from travelling any further. You unload, check to be sure it is unloaded, check again. And then you disassemble your gun. At no point do you put your finger on the trigger unless the muzzle is lined up with a bona fide target and a good backstop.
You can and should follow all the safety rules every time a firearm is in your hand. Even if it is a Glock.
pax
A target is anywhere you deliberately aim, where you would not mind sending a bullet. A backstop is anything which would stop a bullet.
During dryfire, you might aim at a conventional target or a non-conventional one. But either way, it is still a target, by definition. And you'd darn well better have a good backstop; if you don't, you're an accident looking for a place to happen.
Same thing for Glock disassembly. You find a safe backstop before you pull your firearm out of your holster or out of its box. You carefully point the muzzle on a spot where you wouldn't mind sending a bullet, behind which is something which would prevent the bullet from travelling any further. You unload, check to be sure it is unloaded, check again. And then you disassemble your gun. At no point do you put your finger on the trigger unless the muzzle is lined up with a bona fide target and a good backstop.
You can and should follow all the safety rules every time a firearm is in your hand. Even if it is a Glock.
pax
This "study" shows that the stress reaction is strong enough to defeat any normal weight trigger.
But it does not show that there is no handling safety difference between different trigger systems in ALL situations, just this one.
A firm DA trigger is still less likely to ND when handling, holstering and grabbing a firearm than one with a much lighter trigger.
But it does not show that there is no handling safety difference between different trigger systems in ALL situations, just this one.
A firm DA trigger is still less likely to ND when handling, holstering and grabbing a firearm than one with a much lighter trigger.
Sure.......no question.....but........
"less likely" is hardly a quantitative measure
That is like saying an 7# trigger is safer than a 6# trigger is safer than a 5#
You get the idea:barf:
rubber guns are safer than real guns
I could go on...and on....
Once again...the real lesson is that there is NO remedy for poor gunhandling....except training
"less likely" is hardly a quantitative measure
That is like saying an 7# trigger is safer than a 6# trigger is safer than a 5#
You get the idea:barf:
rubber guns are safer than real guns
I could go on...and on....
Once again...the real lesson is that there is NO remedy for poor gunhandling....except training
And there is no remedy for the unlikely, but a well designed safety system.
A good driver benefits just as much from having ABS as a bad one - even if he only used it ONCE.
A good shooter might only make a mistake in handling his handgun once in lifetime. Sometimes, the type of gun is going to be the difference between "oh, that was dumb" and a loss of life.
Other professionals know that safety comes from training, procedures AND well designed equipment. The training does-it-all attitude of some gun owners is absurd and juvenile.
A good driver benefits just as much from having ABS as a bad one - even if he only used it ONCE.
A good shooter might only make a mistake in handling his handgun once in lifetime. Sometimes, the type of gun is going to be the difference between "oh, that was dumb" and a loss of life.
Other professionals know that safety comes from training, procedures AND well designed equipment. The training does-it-all attitude of some gun owners is absurd and juvenile.