Ah the training argument. I spent years and tens of thousands of rounds shooting DA/SA, whether it was a SIG P228/P229 or an HK P2000, including a number of training events at SIG Sauer Academy. I felt very confident with them. But now I use a Glock. Why? Because that first shot accuracy wasn't as consistently good as I wanted for myself. I found I could also maintain proficiency with less shooting time (I still shoot multiple times a month) and that does matter for me. I also found the safety differences to not be what I had assumed originally. Yes there is less required movement of the trigger. If you're going to point to physics, then we can't ignore that less travel and less weight on a trigger leaves less time and less tendency to screw up the sight pixture. If your argument is more training can reduce the effect that has, I agree, but then would also say more training in safe gun handling reduces the negligent behavior as well.
I've also, and I've mentioned this before a number of times on this forum, had a negligent discharge with a S&W 5903. That was a pistol that had a manual safety, a magazine disconnect, and a DA first pull. How then did all these safeties not stop me? Because I had made the decision to press the trigger on what I thought was an empty chamber and that chamber wasn't empty. Many, if not most, of the cases of negligence I read both locally and online when it comes to firearms have more to do with that then people momentarily placing fingers on triggers. And once you've made that decision those safeties or double action pull aren't going to stop you.
As for your friend. You point to physics. I point to mechanics. A Glock pistol not acted on by an external force and in good mechanical working condition (not altered and well maintained) can't magically shoot itself. I'm sorry but you'd have to have a catastrophic failure of multiple internal parts for that to even start to be a possibility. So if we want to go with logic and I'm left with believing your friend's story, or your internet repetition of that story, or what I know mechanically, I'm more inclined to believe the mechanics.
As for my cave dwelling, while I like spelunking I do get out and I have read the cases of negligence. In many of them I'm not convinced another type of pistol would have completely stopped the problem. Striker fired pistols have been sold in the millions and are one of the most, if not the most, popular pistol type today. Even if 0.01% of people that own them are negligent to the point of causing an incident that leaves thousands of potential incidents. My guess is more people end up in car accidents and die in a year than people that die from firearms negligence. Does that mean because of that I shouldn't drive my car?
All risk is relative. If someone says, "I don't care, I don't want to take that risk", fair enough. But if that person then goes around predicting my imminent demise, or in this case of this thread your assertion that we'll all shoot ourselves in the leg, then I take issue.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I've also, and I've mentioned this before a number of times on this forum, had a negligent discharge with a S&W 5903. That was a pistol that had a manual safety, a magazine disconnect, and a DA first pull. How then did all these safeties not stop me? Because I had made the decision to press the trigger on what I thought was an empty chamber and that chamber wasn't empty. Many, if not most, of the cases of negligence I read both locally and online when it comes to firearms have more to do with that then people momentarily placing fingers on triggers. And once you've made that decision those safeties or double action pull aren't going to stop you.
As for your friend. You point to physics. I point to mechanics. A Glock pistol not acted on by an external force and in good mechanical working condition (not altered and well maintained) can't magically shoot itself. I'm sorry but you'd have to have a catastrophic failure of multiple internal parts for that to even start to be a possibility. So if we want to go with logic and I'm left with believing your friend's story, or your internet repetition of that story, or what I know mechanically, I'm more inclined to believe the mechanics.
As for my cave dwelling, while I like spelunking I do get out and I have read the cases of negligence. In many of them I'm not convinced another type of pistol would have completely stopped the problem. Striker fired pistols have been sold in the millions and are one of the most, if not the most, popular pistol type today. Even if 0.01% of people that own them are negligent to the point of causing an incident that leaves thousands of potential incidents. My guess is more people end up in car accidents and die in a year than people that die from firearms negligence. Does that mean because of that I shouldn't drive my car?
All risk is relative. If someone says, "I don't care, I don't want to take that risk", fair enough. But if that person then goes around predicting my imminent demise, or in this case of this thread your assertion that we'll all shoot ourselves in the leg, then I take issue.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
