# Kicking the hornet's nest (external safety discussion)



## Kauboy

I've made my case numerous times about the problem with external safety switches on firearms, and John Lovell lays out the same arguments beautifully. Since he has VASTLY more real-world experience than I, this will likely become my go-to video when this topic arises in the future. Listen to his argument first, *then* reply. Not the reverse. :vs_closedeyes:


----------



## rice paddy daddy

I agree. Individuals who are inexperienced, or even relatively inexperienced with 1911 type firearms should stick to something else.
I did try to watch it all, but had to quit at the 4:25 mark. He has annoying mannerisms.

Bottom line for me is a revolver is the original point and click device, and unless you have poorly crimped handloads, will never jam.


----------



## jimb1972

To each their own I guess. I would recommend a double action revolver for the same reasons and I think they are safer than a semi auto with no safety. You never hear about S&W revolver leg.


----------



## archangel

I am a 1911 guy thru and thru, but I have to agree. Just bought the wife a glock 42 for this very reason. My EDC is an XDs in 45acp not because I cannot conceal a compact 1911 its because of the eternal safety, but the reasoning is different. I cannot count the times I pulled out my 45 and the safety was already OFF. most of the time no big deal because I have a top strap between the hammer and firing pin and the 1911 has a grip safety. lots of small 1911 style pistols now do not have a grip safety ( I don't think the Kimber in the video does) thats a big problem .Single action 45s are great because of the trigger , light pull short reset etc. Too easy for people not completely familiar with the firearm to have a ND.

EDC is striker fired Woods and Cabin gun is 1911


----------



## Camel923

I like glocks and 1911s./high powers. They all get the job done as will a good revolver. But you have to practice and become proficient. Just having the right gun/safety combo will not make one doc Holiday,


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The only 1911's I would even consider buying are USGI Government Models or Colt Commanders.
When any manufacturer starts tinkering around with the genius of John Moses Browning bad things often happen.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Too bad if you are too stupid/inexperienced to operate your own firearm. Whaa!!!!!


----------



## Kauboy

rice paddy daddy said:


> I agree. Individuals who are inexperienced, or even relatively inexperienced with 1911 type firearms should stick to something else.
> I did try to watch it all, but had to quit at the 4:25 mark. He has annoying mannerisms.
> 
> Bottom line for me is a revolver is the original point and click device, and unless you have poorly crimped handloads, will never jam.


I may regret asking this (risking a "can't be unseen" situation) but what mannerisms?
The guy is a special forces veteran and an exceptional firearms instructor. To acquire knowledge from such a person, I will overlook quite a lot.


----------



## Camel923

I have seen people at firearms classes struggle to release the external safety to fire. The rest of the class had fired, scanned and reholatered before they could even shoot. Those two never really did get as proficient as the rest of the class. Then again I had a Glock. Another time a 1911. @kauyboy has a point that not everyone is equally good with firearm manipulation especially under stress. Keeping it simple is one way not to end up in the morgue.


----------



## The Tourist

I was taught to keep my trigger finger along side the pistol (outside of the trigger guard) then present and depress the safety.

There is a manual of arms for every defensive weapon, even clubs and knives, and the father buying a pistol for his children should teach them good handling procedures.


----------



## Kauboy

Camel923 said:


> ...not everyone is equally good with firearm manipulation especially under stress.


That's the main point, right there. As John points out, if you ever find yourself in a defense situation, you're already behind the curve. The bad guy gets to make the first move, and you only get to react to it. Until, and unless, you train to deal with that stress spike, and can manipulate that safety switch 100% of the time, it will ONLY act as an impediment to your survival.
We constantly talk about the most dependable ammunition, the most dependable firearm, the most dependable sights, the most dependable accessories. We are always looking for things that we can rely on with absolute certainty. We reach out to others to get REAL insight about these things, not just speculation.

Then, when we think we have all the right equipment, we *ASSUME* we will be able to use it just as dependably in a high stress situation where fine motor skills are out the window and we are being attacked by a violent aggressor.

John points out that he's personally seen, in his classes, those guys who *ASSUME* they will be able to throw that switch under stress because they've practiced it in their bedroom hundreds of times, fail to do so when stress training is applied. It's fine and dandy to know and master your weapon. But you must *FIRST* know and master yourself. Otherwise, the weapon means nothing.


----------



## The Tourist

Kauboy said:


> But you must *FIRST* know and master yourself. Otherwise, the weapon means nothing.


And I, for one, am guilty of it. To this day, when I feel that old "prickly neck" bugaboo from some primitive amygdala warning, I go for my knife instead of my Kimber. I know it's a bad habit, and I wish I could break it. But if you drove Chevy products all day long, even if you hated that wretched 'bow-tie,' you would probably still drive it better than an unknown Bentley.

Sometimes when I'm jittery, I take a new knife and tumble it through my fingers in a dark room while I listen to the radio. I can identify any knife just by feeling the handle. I know the opening mechanism by rote.

Not to steal from Obi Wan Kenobi, but as a boomer I come from an age where everyone carried a fancy, bone handle folder, and surprisingly, there was peace and respect. If I had a time machine, I'd go back there. Sadly, now we excoriate our supposed enemies with degrading insults.

To that end, I have not mastered myself for the times that I live within. And I know full well it's a flaw.


----------



## bigwheel

The last pistol I had with a safety was a SW 4506 DA semi auto. Whether we carried it on or off safe was an indiviual choice. I always carried on safe because there were rumors floating around that if a bad guy took the gun away...sometmes it took them enough time to figure out how to get the safety off the good guy had to time to run away.


----------



## The Tourist

You and I must have read the same magazines!

My Kimber UC2 (a 1911 variant) is carried cocked and locked in 'Condition One.' Unless the mugger was a veteran, I doubt if some lowlife could find the "go button" when it's right under his thumb.

Hopefully a guy like that will be bleeding out when he finally grabs the muzzle.


----------



## Denton

Training, training and training. 

When I draw my newly acquired Glock, my thumb sweeps over where a safety would be on my other weapons. It's not something I think about and it's not something I can forget to do.

"Well, Denton, I don't have to practice drawing and disengaging the safety with my weapon, so there!" Really? So, you don't practice drawing and engaging the target while watching the news? Why not? There's more to it than simply disengaging a safety.


----------



## Camel923

Omit.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> ...it's not something I can forget to do.


That's an interesting... assumption.
:tango_face_grin:


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> That's an interesting... assumption.
> :tango_face_grin:


You're assuming it is an assumption. :glasses:


----------



## Back Pack Hack

Put me down as 'Middle of the Road' on this matter. Yeah, I get how noobs will forget to operate the external safety. They'll go to a self-defense class, draw and forget to move it, and think , "Oh, yeah, that's right. Now I know." And they'll go home thinking they've 'got it'. Sadly, they're so wrong.

But, with (enough of) the right training, one can overcome it.


----------



## Back Pack Hack

Stumbled across this on YouBoob:


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> You're assuming it is an assumption. :glasses:


This is the same argument I always had with "He who shall not be named".
We cannot know the future.
:tango_face_wink:


----------



## MisterMills357

Denton said:


> "Well, Denton, I don't have to practice drawing and disengaging the safety with my weapon, so there!" Really? So, you don't practice drawing and engaging the target while watching the news? Why not? There's more to it than simply disengaging a safety.


I have sat at my desk and practiced handling a gun, and I would sit there, and hold it in my hand; and think about what I would do, if I needed it. 
I would flip the safety on my 1911, and just hold it in my hand; I taught my hand what to do with it. And I have done the same thing with a .357 Magnum.
OK, some people freeze up and have a brain cramp, so what? The Colt 1911 is a really good gun to use.


----------



## Kauboy

Back Pack Hack said:


> Stumbled across this on YouBoob:


The thumbnail for this vid caught my eye because I own the pistol shown, a Beretta PX4. I bought it because it was my first handgun and I fell for the same fallacy of "more safeties make the gun safer". After learning more, and really trying to understand the art of gun craft, learning all I could about the history of the firearm, and their proper use in self defense, I moved away from carrying it. At the time, I just really like the design of the gun, and still do. They had not yet released the .45 or the compact models, nor any with a "decocker only" switch. However, some smart folks figured out that you can convert the safety into a decocker by simply removing a detent pin that would normally hold the switch in the "ON" position. This allows the hammer to be decocked without the safety remaining engaged. I'm considering breaking out the roll pin kit and doing that little mod myself.

Always have liked Reid, and his take on things.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> This is the same argument I always had with "He who shall not be named".
> We cannot know the future.
> :tango_face_wink:


If that be the case, the same can happen with the trigger. Ya just might to pull it in all the excitement.

You have a point, though. If you aren't going to practice to the point where it is as natural to sweep the safety as it is to take a breath, get a Glock.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> If that be the case, the same can happen with the trigger. Ya just might to pull it in all the excitement.
> 
> You have a point, though. If you aren't going to practice to the point where it is as natural to sweep the safety as it is to take a breath, get a Glock.


Or a Beretta, or a Smith & Wesson, or a SIG, or a CZ, or an HK, or a Taurus, or an F&N... or any number of other options that are DA on at least the first shot.
The entire firearms industry has advanced as technology has advanced. It would be unreasonable of us not to advance with them.

Anyone who considers an external safety to be necessary on a *modern* pistol, ask yourself "why", and really dig down to the root of the answer. Figure out why, or even if, you truly consider it necessary.
Now, if you just like the styles of the older designs that are SA only and have light triggers, or if you really like carrying a gun outside of a model-specific holster, then you certainly *SHOULD* have an external safety on your gun. You also *SHOULD* get real world force-on-force training with it to ensure you can perform as needed when your life is literally on the line and you can smell your attacker's breath.

Anything less, and you are doing yourself a great disservice.

EDIT: Oh my, that Kimber EVO is giving me the vapors...


----------



## Tango2X

I was trained on a 1911 in the military.
Carried one for years as a civilian, cocked and locked.
Never an issue, course I never had an issue with a Glock either.

Never had to draw and shoot anyone with either-- so--


----------



## rice paddy daddy

As Denton pointed out, training is paramount.
I have found personally that when the shit goes down it happens very fast, and if you have to stop and think you will already be dead.
That held me in good stead then, and in good stead a dozen years ago when a very angry and silent pit bull charged and got within 10 feet before I even knew it was there.
Good thing there was a Remington 870 in my hands instead of a pea shooter.

Again - if your reaction is not automatic, you’ve already lost.


----------



## Kauboy

I visited the comment section of that video on the parent site, and found somebody making an interesting point. It ties into my question posed above about **why* a person feels an external gun safety is necessary on a carry weapon.*
The answer can be broken into two categories: 1. Because the gun needs it, or 2. Because the shooter wants it
If #2, somebody hasn't received the proper firearms handling training. A shooter should not rely on a safety switch to keep them from firing the gun in an unsafe manner. Far too many other mistakes have been made before the bang switch gets flipped, if that is the case.
If #1, one must ask themselves why they would choose such a gun? If the pros outweigh the cons, then cool beans and carry on. But if the answer is "nostalgia" or "it's pretty", or some other purely superficial reason, then I question whether that person knows the real intention behind a self-defense weapon.

You want a range beauty to show your friends, or that's just damn fun to shoot? No problem. Put whatever whizzbang gizmos you want to on it, so long as it doesn't put others at risk, and blast away.
But, if you want a weapon *designed* to be a self-defense option, prioritize function over form, and minimize the chances for error.

"I trained with it" isn't sufficient if you "trained" to defeat something that is no longer necessary. Why is that still your go-to option if there are better things now that make that training obsolete?

Geez, I sound like a little prick attacking people for their personal choices... That's not my intention. I want each and every one of you to be able to walk away from any bad encounter you may eventually find yourselves in, and I want you to have the best equipment at hand to give you all the advantage you can get. I don't know if that's coming across, or if I just sound like a fanboy. We humans do tend to get defensive when we feel like we are tied to a piece of history, and that history is perceived to be under attack. I want this to be a purely subjective discussion.
The external safety *CERTAINLY* had a good purpose, and in some circumstances, *STILL* serves a good purpose (pocket pistols, for example), but for a holster carried self-defense weapon, I do not believe such a device is beneficial to the shooter.


----------



## Back Pack Hack

Kauboy said:


> *.......*The answer can be broken into two categories: 1. Because the gun needs it, or 2. Because the shooter wants it...........


Or 3. The shooter _thinks_ they need it or the gun needs it.

Kinda like driving your dads' Oldsmobile.


----------



## Old SF Guy

I'm not gonna argue the point. I myself prefer a de-cocking mechanism and double action trigger over an external safety. Absolutely not a fan of any single action semi auto pistol ceptn six shooters. ..When I wanna cowboy up and quick draw.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Being left handed, and doing all my gun learning before ambidextrous safeties were common, I naturally gravitated to revolvers.
One auto pistol I gained experience with was the Walther P38. Chamber a round, use the safety to drop the hammer and then leave the safety off.
Perfectly safe carry, when needed the first round fires just like a revolver.
Only trouble is it’s a 9MM that can only use standard pressure loads to a avoid damage.


----------



## Kauboy

rice paddy daddy said:


> Being left handed, and doing all my gun learning before ambidextrous safeties were common, I naturally gravitated to revolvers.
> One auto pistol I gained experience with was the Walther P38. Chamber a round, use the safety to drop the hammer and then leave the safety off.
> Perfectly safe carry, when needed the first round fires just like a revolver.
> Only trouble is it's a 9MM that can only use standard pressure loads to a avoid damage.


That's exactly how I carried my PX4. Nice heavy first trigger pull, but ready immediately upon drawing.


----------



## Prepared One

I never carry with a safety. If the pistol has a safety it is never engaged if carried. ( My first Shield had a manual safety ) Sure, you can practice sweeping the safety, I tried it and still practice it, but I considered the risk to high that the one time you need to draw and fire when your life is on the line, you forget to sweep the safety. I have done it. You can practice 100 times in a row and not forget to sweep the safety before pulling the trigger. Then that one time, just that once, you draw from an unready position and pull the trigger, no click, no joy. That will wake you up. In my mind it's just to risky. I carry with no safety. Reid has it right.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

Like so many other things firearms related I believe the choice of having or not having an external physical safety should be the preference of the one carrying the gun. However like so many other things you must practice using said safety or lack there of and you must be able to carry in a safe manner.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

Prepared One said:


> I never carry with a safety. If the pistol has a safety it is never engaged if carried. ( My first Shield had a manual safety ) Sure, you can practice sweeping the safety, I tried it and still practice it, but I considered the risk to high that the one time you need to draw and fire when your life is on the line, you forget to sweep the safety. I have done it. You can practice 100 times in a row and not forget to sweep the safety before pulling the trigger. Then that one time, just that once, you draw from an unready position and pull the trigger, no click, no joy. That will wake you up. In my mind it's just to risky. I carry with no safety. Reid has it right.


My shield has an external safety as well but when I carry it I do so with the safety on. It really doesn't bother me having that extra step there in preparing to fire but I too practice with it Its all about developing that muscle memory.


----------



## whoppo

I'll say the same thing I said in another forum....

been carrying single actions in condition one longer than the guy in the video has been alive... not about to change because he thinks I'm wrong.


----------



## The Tourist

*@whoppo*, ya' beat me to it. I always carry one round in the pipe, cocked and locked. In fact, one night I was guarding my boss' office with a friend, and during my off-three-hours, I slept in a Condition One Detonics, which has no grip safety.

My P238 might as well be the exact pistol the OP used. I carry that one Condition One, as well.


----------



## Kauboy

whoppo said:


> I'll say the same thing I said in another forum....
> 
> been carrying single actions in condition one longer than the guy in the video has been alive... not about to change because he thinks I'm wrong.


Nobody has said it's wrong. In fact, both videos made a point to include preference. Both concede that a single-action pistol *should* have a safety. They just don't believe that type is the best available anymore.
The discussion is that there are now better options that make the external safety no longer necessary. And for the new carrier, possibly dangerous.

So, *why* do you carry that type of gun, and is that the "best" tool for the job?


----------



## Old SF Guy

Having to carry a variety of guns, service related, I have learned to use what I carry. From a safety concern, I shied away from single action thumb safety guns. i.e. the 1911 45. You either choose to carry with a round loaded, which is the only way I would carry in combat, and rely on either the effectiveness of the safeties, or place it in half cock and be required to fully cock the weapon before firing.

I had a wide variety of additional kit on (Armor, ruck sacks, comms packages...jumping in an out of vehicles, and even riding horses and 4 wheelers. I just never felt confident in the safeties when the weapon was fully cocked and loaded. So I carried at half cock and practiced drawing and cocking as art of my draw.

For weapons with Safeties and double action, Such at the 9mm Beretta, The safety function as a de-cockin mechanism as well, but unlock others (Glock, etc) the weapons would stay in the safe mode unless pushed back to fire. So we practiced always using the safety only as a decocking mechanism and putting it back to fire before we holsstered. Essentially carrying loaded bu hammer down awaiting a double action first round.

I currently carry a revolver S&W .357 Police Special 2 in barrel. Double action revolver. Why? cause Thats the gun I have right now. When I get wealthy, I will pick something that is double action, with an exposed hammer with a decocking mechanism.


----------



## Annie

Denton said:


> You're assuming it is an assumption. :glasses:


I would ascent to that.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> Nobody has said it's wrong. In fact, both videos made a point to include preference. Both concede that a single-action pistol *should* have a safety. They just don't believe that type is the best available anymore.
> The discussion is that there are now better options that make the external safety no longer necessary. And for the new carrier, possibly dangerous.
> 
> So, *why* do you carry that type of gun, and is that the "best" tool for the job?


Simple. Familiarity. Trigger preference.

You suggested I _assumed _I'd disengage the safety on my 1911. It's no assumption at all. A few times in the Army and a few times awakened from a dead sleep. I can honestly tell you I will do it in my sleep. It's a simple thing called muscle memory. You get that through training.
I came home from work two hours early, tonight. Wifey and I are watching some Netflix. What do you think I'm doing? Reinforcing muscle memory and wearing out the holster. It's good for me as I only sit down to read and post, here.
The safety is only a part of it. Drawing from concealment is just as big a part. Quick and clean draws don't happen by accident. Practice, practice, practice. 
As I said, even when I draw the Glock, my thumb still sweeps a safety that isn't there. I'm good with that. It doesn't even cost a fraction of a second.

The fact that the guy in the video is a former special forces dude doesn't make him an expert in drawing a sidearm. Not saying I am, but I can do it when awakened from a dead sleep.

Now, tell me I'm wrong, Resis.....er, Kauboy. :vs_laugh:


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Simple. Familiarity. Trigger preference.
> 
> You suggested I _assumed _I'd disengage the safety on my 1911. It's no assumption at all. A few times in the Army and a few times awakened from a dead sleep. I can honestly tell you I will do it in my sleep. It's a simple thing called muscle memory. You get that through training.
> I came home from work two hours early, tonight. Wifey and I are watching some Netflix. What do you think I'm doing? Reinforcing muscle memory and wearing out the holster. It's good for me as I only sit down to read and post, here.
> The safety is only a part of it. Drawing from concealment is just as big a part. Quick and clean draws don't happen by accident. Practice, practice, practice.
> As I said, even when I draw the Glock, my thumb still sweeps a safety that isn't there. I'm good with that. It doesn't even cost a fraction of a second.
> 
> The fact that the guy in the video is a former special forces dude doesn't make him an expert in drawing a sidearm. Not saying I am, but I can do it when awakened from a dead sleep.
> 
> Now, tell me I'm wrong, Resis.....er, Kauboy. :vs_laugh:


I can't say you're wrong. That would be presumptive of future events. Even with He That Shall Not Be Named, my entire argument was always concerning the "certainty" of his future predictions, just as it is with yours.
Philosopher David Hume taught us that past experiences cannot, logically, predict future outcomes with ANY certainty, because the event has not happened yet. We can predict, sure, but we cannot assign a certainty to a future thing and still claim credibility. It is an un-measurable thing until it happens. It's rightly the same argument you made about forgetting to pull the trigger. That is *absolutely* a possibility, regardless of how much we swear it will never happen. In light of that being true, would it not be more prudent to remove unnecessary steps from the operation, lest we potentially suffer from more than one?

Denton, brother, I hope and pray that you will ALWAYS sweep that safety. I pray that you will NEVER forget, or miss, doing so. I also pray that *if* you ever do, it is not at the most inopportune time, when your life is on the line. Murphy shows up when we can least suffer him.

My point is simple. Until an event actually happens, we cannot state what *will* happen and have any more credibility than a fortune teller. To my knowledge, there was only one man to walk this earth who truly had this ability, and I'm sorry to inform you of this, but it ain't you.
:vs_smirk:


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> I can't say you're wrong. That would be presumptive of future events. Even with He That Shall Not Be Named, my entire argument was always concerning the "certainty" of his future predictions, just as it is with yours.
> Philosopher David Hume taught us that past experiences cannot, logically, predict future outcomes with ANY certainty, because the event has not happened yet. We can predict, sure, but we cannot assign a certainty to a future thing and still claim credibility. It is an un-measurable thing until it happens. It's rightly the same argument you made about forgetting to pull the trigger. That is *absolutely* a possibility, regardless of how much we swear it will never happen. In light of that being true, would it not be more prudent to remove unnecessary steps from the operation, lest we potentially suffer from more than one?
> 
> Denton, brother, I hope and pray that you will ALWAYS sweep that safety. I pray that you will NEVER forget, or miss, doing so. I also pray that *if* you ever do, it is not at the most inopportune time, when your life is on the line. Murphy shows up when we can least suffer him.
> 
> My point is simple. Until an event actually happens, we cannot state what *will* happen and have any more credibility than a fortune teller. To my knowledge, there was only one man to walk this earth who truly had this ability, and I'm sorry to inform you of this, but it ain't you.
> :vs_smirk:


What is an "actual event?" When someone is shot? When there is a body on the floor?


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> What is an "actual event?" When someone is shot? When there is a body on the floor?


Not literal bud, abstract.
To clarify, I said "until an event *actually happens*".
Every day that is yet to come, and all that they contain. Until the day comes... each and every day that comes, we cannot know what will happen.
If you NEVER need to pull your gun in self defense, we will never know whether that safety will or will not be flipped.
If you are EVER in any number of situations where you must defend your life with your gun in the future, only AFTER each one happens, will you know whether the safety will or will not be flipped.

However, since I don't carry a gun with an external safety, I literally KNOW that I will never forget or miss the external safety when my life is on the line.

Yes, it's a bit semantically anally retentive. Yet, the underlying point is still sound. Use a tool that removes steps from the equation that are no longer needed, and you lessen the risk of Murphy dumpin' on your day.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> Not literal bud, abstract.
> To clarify, I said "until an event *actually happens*".
> Every day that is yet to come, and all that they contain. Until the day comes... each and every day that comes, we cannot know what will happen.
> If you NEVER need to pull your gun in self defense, we will never know whether that safety will or will not be flipped.
> If you are EVER in any number of situations where you must defend your life with your gun in the future, only AFTER each one happens, will you know whether the safety will or will not be flipped.
> 
> However, since I don't carry a gun with an external safety, I literally KNOW that I will never forget or miss the external safety when my life is on the line.
> 
> Yes, it's a bit semantically anally retentive. Yet, the underlying point is still sound. Use a tool that removes steps from the equation that are no longer needed, and you lessen the risk of Murphy dumpin' on your day.


Okay, Resister. Whatever you say. I'm not going to bear my soul to you or play the anecdote game. You are right and I am wrong. Regardless, I'll be me and you don't get in my way. 
Take your new technology and feel brilliant. Just stay out of my way. I know where me and mine have been. Call us antiquated while we burn holes into whst tries to hurt us us or our ours. New stuff? It ain't nothing without training. Wake me in my sleep. Spook me in the parking lot.


----------



## The Tourist

I must admit, I do not draw from concealment. I believe in constant, and repetitive, vigilance. If the pistol is not already in your hand then you're not paying attention.

I also believe in Ayoob's belief in a 'fending move.' Usually this is done with the weak side hand or a knife. Ayoob teaches Eskrima moves, which also accompanies a stick.

If you're going to walk where the bad boys play then you have to be bad, too. BTW, the coffee there sucks as well as the press of the unwashed. But we can carry there, not at Starbucks.


----------



## Prepared One

All said and done, you carry in the manner which makes you most comfortable and safe, that as well as practice, gives you the most confidence in defeating a potential threat. I carry either with no safety or the safety disengaged. I practice, practice, practice, drawing from many different positions and I am comfortable in my ability to put a gun in my hand. Predicting a gun fight is like predicting a street fight, you never really know till it's done and either he is on the floor, or you. Maybe I am being simplistic.


----------



## The Tourist

Prepared One said:


> either he is on the floor, or you. Maybe I am being simplistic.


Ideally, that's the objective. And while it's fun to discuss tactics, I think (at my age) that it's best to just grab a chair and belt the interloper with it. And believe it or not, the chairs at the East Towne Mall coffee shop are light in weight, easy to swing, and will probably break into a zillion pieces, making them very tidy to slip into an evidence bag.

And not to worry about me. I'm good buddies with the manager. She will protect me, and so will the numerous surveillance cameras.

My wife also purloined my precious SW 360PD, so my back is well covered...


----------



## Prepared One

The Tourist said:


> Ideally, that's the objective. And while it's fun to discuss tactics, I think (at my age) that it's best to just grab a chair and belt the interloper with it. And believe it or not, the chairs at the East Towne Mall coffee shop are light in weight, easy to swing, and will probably break into a zillion pieces, making them very tidy to slip into an evidence bag.
> 
> And not to worry about me. I'm good buddies with the manager. She will protect me, and so will the numerous surveillance cameras.
> 
> My wife also purloined my precious SW 360PD, so my back is well covered...


I've never been in a fair fight, nor have I ever seen one. If you don't use the tools at your disposal, to include chairs, pool sticks, knives, what have you, then you can be sure your opponent will. At least, that was always my mind set. Thankfully, my brawling days are long past me, but should I be forced, it would still be my mind set.


----------



## The Tourist

Prepared One said:


> I've never been in a fair fight, nor have I ever seen one. If you don't use the tools at your disposal, to include chairs, pool sticks, knives, what have you, then you can be sure your opponent will. At least, that was always my mind set. Thankfully, my brawling days are long past me, but should I be forced, it would still be my mind set.


The old Anchor Inn (a bikers' boozeteria) had cut glass ash trays on the bar. I always liked them...


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Denton said:


> Okay, Resister. Whatever you say. I'm not going to bear my soul to you or play the anecdote game. You are right and I am wrong. Regardless, I'll be me and you don't get in my way.
> Take your new technology and feel brilliant. Just stay out of my way. I know where me and mine have been. Call us antiquated while we burn holes into whst tries to hurt us us or our ours. New stuff? It ain't nothing without training. Wake me in my sleep. Spook me in the parking lot.


And that's why I like revolvers for daily carry, and a Colt Series 70 Government Model on the bedside table.
Along with the 20 gauge SXS double barrel next to the head of the bed.
No plastic fantastic pistols or tactical shot guns for me.

There's nothing wrong with my wood stocked, modified choke, Remington 870 bird gun that needs to be changed either. Since the safety on that gun is totally useless for a lefty I just leave it off even when there is a round chambered.

The most effective safety lies between your two ears.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Okay, Resister. Whatever you say. I'm not going to bear my soul to you or play the anecdote game. You are right and I am wrong. Regardless, I'll be me and you don't get in my way.
> Take your new technology and feel brilliant. Just stay out of my way. I know where me and mine have been. Call us antiquated while we burn holes into whst tries to hurt us us or our ours. New stuff? It ain't nothing without training. Wake me in my sleep. Spook me in the parking lot.


I wasn't asking for such, nor calling you anything. Again, this feeling of needing to defend something as if it's an attack on you as a person.
Nobody said anything about avoiding training either, aside from "training" to defeat what is no longer necessary. It's akin to training people to use ribbon typewriters. Are they bad? No. Are there better ways? Yes. If your career depended on it, would you stick with the typewriter, or something in the "new stuff" category?

This same thing happens when I watch Chevy and Ford guys get red in the face over nonsense. Each side thinks that if they give an inch, they've somehow lost. Calling something an improvement over a previous version isn't something we should argue over. We should just lay out our case, and discuss the merits. Right and wrong has no place in it. Just a discussion to get people thinking outside of their "Chevy vs. Ford" mentality.

I made my case for why this particular function is no longer needed. I've yet to see any points from an opposing view that support the function as necessary in modern firearms. Perhaps my view is too narrow, and valid points HAVE been made. If so, please redirect me to them. Thus far, I've only seen support for their use in single-action, chambered, firearms, and that's perfectly acceptable. Then it comes down to opinion on whether such firearms are, in and of themselves, the better or safer option from what is available in self-defense firearms.

I didn't call you anything. There's no need to call me... *that*.


----------



## bigwheel

Could somebody give us a memory fresher about what yall are arugufiying about? I seem to have lost the thread and its too many pages to back track. Thanks.


----------



## Slippy

bigwheel said:


> Could somebody give us a memory fresher about what yall are arugufiying about? I seem to have lost the thread and its too many pages to back track. Thanks.


bigwheel,

Allow me to catch you up...
@Denton is having a bad day due to Paleo diet gone haywire and too much time jaggin' around with @Sasquatch. @Kauboy posted some very thoughtful information and for some dame reason it was on like Donkey Kong as certain kids say.

I just want everyone to get along...:vs_smile:

Slippy!

:vs_wave:


----------



## Denton

Slippy said:


> bigwheel,
> 
> Allow me to catch you up...
> @Denton is having a bad day due to Paleo diet gone haywire and too much time jaggin' around with @Sasquatch. @Kauboy posted some very thoughtful information and for some dame reason it was on like Donkey Kong as certain kids say.
> 
> I just want everyone to get along...:vs_smile:
> 
> Slippy!
> 
> :vs_wave:


Yeah, I was having a bad day. Not because of Paleo, though.
@Kauboy, I apologize for being an asshole.


----------



## Sasquatch

Slippy said:


> bigwheel,
> 
> Allow me to catch you up...
> @Denton is having a bad day due to Paleo diet gone haywire and too much time jaggin' around with @Sasquatch. @Kauboy posted some very thoughtful information and for some dame reason it was on like Donkey Kong as certain kids say.
> 
> I just want everyone to get along...:vs_smile:
> 
> Slippy!
> 
> :vs_wave:


How did I get pulled into this slap fight? I say we throw them in pink nighties and give them pillows and let them settle it that way.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton

Sasquatch said:


> How did I get pulled into this slap fight? I say we throw them in pink nighties and give them pillows and let them settle it that way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I get grouchy when my neck is acting up. That'll make it that much more difficult to put me in a nightie of any color. :vs_mad:


----------



## Old SF Guy

Kauboy said:


> I can't say you're wrong. That would be presumptive of future events. Even with He That Shall Not Be Named, my entire argument was always concerning the "certainty" of his future predictions, just as it is with yours.
> Philosopher David Hume taught us that past experiences cannot, logically, predict future outcomes with ANY certainty, because the event has not happened yet. We can predict, sure, but we cannot assign a certainty to a future thing and still claim credibility. It is an un-measurable thing until it happens. It's rightly the same argument you made about forgetting to pull the trigger. That is *absolutely* a possibility, regardless of how much we swear it will never happen. In light of that being true, would it not be more prudent to remove unnecessary steps from the operation, lest we potentially suffer from more than one?
> 
> Denton, brother, I hope and pray that you will ALWAYS sweep that safety. I pray that you will NEVER forget, or miss, doing so. I also pray that *if* you ever do, it is not at the most inopportune time, when your life is on the line. Murphy shows up when we can least suffer him.
> 
> My point is simple. Until an event actually happens, we cannot state what *will* happen and have any more credibility than a fortune teller. To my knowledge, there was only one man to walk this earth who truly had this ability, and I'm sorry to inform you of this, but it ain't you.
> :vs_smirk:


The event of a safety left on is no different to reacting to a round that don't fire. Its immediate action drills...SPORTS for M16's etc. I draw, I fire....no bang?...I do XY and Z. It is muscle memory...and you get out what you put in.


----------



## Old SF Guy

Slippy said:


> bigwheel,
> 
> Allow me to catch you up...
> @Denton is having a bad day due to Paleo diet gone haywire and too much time jaggin' around with @Sasquatch. @Kauboy posted some very thoughtful information and for some dame reason it was on like Donkey Kong as certain kids say.
> 
> I just want everyone to get along...:vs_smile:
> 
> Slippy!
> 
> :vs_wave:


Now if that ain't the epitome of an uncle saying...I wouldn't take that shit If I were you...nothing is.


----------



## Kauboy

Old SF Guy said:


> The event of a safety left on is no different to reacting to a round that don't fire. Its immediate action drills...SPORTS for M16's etc. I draw, I fire....no bang?...I do XY and Z. It is muscle memory...and you get out what you put in.


That is precisely right. But, if you *knew* you were using ammo that held that potential, would you still use it?
It isn't about training to avoid the unexpected. It's about avoiding preventable hiccups in the first place.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Yeah, I was having a bad day. Not because of Paleo, though.
> @Kauboy, I apologize for being an asshole.


You and I are too much alike, so I didn't see it that way. You keep being you, and keep calling me out when I need it.
:tango_face_wink:


----------



## The Tourist

Denton said:


> I get grouchy when my neck is acting up. That'll make it that much more difficult to put me in a nightie of any color.


Did you ever find anything that works? About one month ago I backed into the sharp point of the top of my dresser--smack dab into my right trapezius muscle. Nothing works, not ice, not Tylenol, not shifting my work-outs to abs and back.

My doctor says this is a contusion and it "will heal." I'm hoping before the next century.

What do you do for your neck?


----------



## stevekozak

Kauboy said:


> Not literal bud, abstract.
> To clarify, I said "until an event *actually happens*".
> Every day that is yet to come, and all that they contain. Until the day comes... each and every day that comes, we cannot know what will happen.
> If you NEVER need to pull your gun in self defense, we will never know whether that safety will or will not be flipped.
> If you are EVER in any number of situations where you must defend your life with your gun in the future, only AFTER each one happens, will you know whether the safety will or will not be flipped.
> 
> However, since I don't carry a gun with an external safety, I literally KNOW that I will never forget or miss the external safety when my life is on the line.
> 
> Yes, it's a bit semantically anally retentive. Yet, the underlying point is still sound. Use a tool that removes steps from the equation that are no longer needed, and you lessen the risk of Murphy dumpin' on your day.


I've read this thread up to this point with the intent to wait to the end to comment, but there has been just one too many mentions of "you can't know until the day comes, and I will never forget the safety because I don't have one". While that is true, how do you know you will even be able to draw your firearm? How do you know you remembered to chamber a round? How do you know you won't pull the trigger on your pistol on the way out of the holster and put a round in your leg, the ground, an innocent.....? Your answer, I assume, would be training. The exact same answer that applies to safeties. You train for what you want to do. It is asinine to assume that one type of training (ie: safety-equipted pistols vs non-external safety-equippted pistols) is superior. You are going to do what you trained to do, if you do anything at all. On the day in question you may just stand stark still and piss your pants. If you don't, the chances are really good that you will do what you trained to do. If that involves sweeping a safety, then that is what you are likely to do. I own many pistols of all types. Some have external safeties, such as my beloved 1911s. Some have no external safeties, such as my Glock 19. I train with all of my pistols. I train for each one. Each one requires a slightly different hold or manipulation (a Glock and a 1911 are very different ergonomics). I fill confident with my ability with any of the pistols I train with. I would not carry a pistol I was not very familiar with, if there was any way to avoid it. Like Denton, I have no doubt that my thumb with sweep the safety of my 1911 if the day comes that it needs to do so in order for me to defend my life. You know, if I don't just stand and piss my pants..... :vs_wave:


----------



## Denton

The Tourist said:


> Did you ever find anything that works? About one month ago I backed into the sharp point of the top of my dresser--smack dab into my right trapezius muscle. Nothing works, not ice, not Tylenol, not shifting my work-outs to abs and back.
> 
> My doctor says this is a contusion and it "will heal." I'm hoping before the next century.
> 
> What do you do for your neck?


Tumeric has not been doing too awfully bad. Better than any over-the-counter stuff. Seems to be working for my shoulders, too.
My mother swears by CBD oil for her arthritis but I dare not use it. Company nurse says it will show up as pot on a drug screening.


----------



## stevekozak

Sasquatch said:


> How did I get pulled into this slap fight? I say we throw them in pink nighties and give them pillows and let them settle it that way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Peekaboo teddies? :glasses:


----------



## The Tourist

Denton said:


> Tumeric has not been doing too awfully bad. Better than any over-the-counter stuff. Seems to be working for my shoulders, too.
> My mother swears by CBD oil for her arthritis but I dare not use it. Company nurse says it will show up as pot on a drug screening.


Thanks for the info. I think my wife has Tumeric in the spice rack.

I use CBD oil for anxiety, and I've stopped baiting weirdos at the mall. Oh, I would still belt them with a chair if they looked at me funny, but I would be smiling. I'm a new man.

There are two distinct types of CBD oil. The one I take is 3% THC. There are more expensive brands that are 0% THC. Obviously the added price is the rigorous distilling. But even the 3% doesn't give you the hint of a buzz. I can understand your concerns about a drug test. See if you can get a referral from your doctor in writing. Take the letter and the 0% bottle with you. From your avatar it appears that you are an Asian Shaolin Monk, and ethnics rule these days. Good luck.


----------



## stevekozak

The Tourist said:


> From your avatar it appears that you are an Asian Shaolin Monk, and ethnics rule these days. Good luck.


I don't know why, but this sent me into an uncontrollable laughing fit!! :vs_laugh:


----------



## The Tourist

stevekozak said:


> I don't know why, but this sent me into an uncontrollable laughing fit!! :vs_laugh:


Wow, you're laughing at a Shaolin Monk?! Even I wouldn't do that, and I'm armed to the teeth. BTW, if and when he pulls out "the silk suit," just commit seppuku, it's less painful...


----------



## Denton

The Tourist said:


> Wow, you're laughing at a Shaolin Monk?! Even I wouldn't do that, and I'm armed to the teeth. BTW, if and when he pulls out "the silk suit," just commit seppuku, it's less painful...


I was accused of practicing keyboard Kung-Fu, or something to that nature. Been thinking of switching it to an image of me "shooting" pool with a pistol.


----------



## Kauboy

stevekozak said:


> I've read this thread up to this point with the intent to wait to the end to comment, but there has been just one too many mentions of "you can't know until the day comes, and I will never forget the safety because I don't have one". While that is true, how do you know you will even be able to draw your firearm? How do you know you remembered to chamber a round? How do you know you won't pull the trigger on your pistol on the way out of the holster and put a round in your leg, the ground, an innocent.....? Your answer, I assume, would be training. The exact same answer that applies to safeties. You train for what you want to do. It is asinine to assume that one type of training (ie: safety-equipted pistols vs non-external safety-equippted pistols) is superior. You are going to do what you trained to do, if you do anything at all. On the day in question you may just stand stark still and piss your pants. If you don't, the chances are really good that you will do what you trained to do. If that involves sweeping a safety, then that is what you are likely to do. I own many pistols of all types. Some have external safeties, such as my beloved 1911s. Some have no external safeties, such as my Glock 19. I train with all of my pistols. I train for each one. Each one requires a slightly different hold or manipulation (a Glock and a 1911 are very different ergonomics). I fill confident with my ability with any of the pistols I train with. I would not carry a pistol I was not very familiar with, if there was any way to avoid it. Like Denton, I have no doubt that my thumb with sweep the safety of my 1911 if the day comes that it needs to do so in order for me to defend my life. You know, if I don't just stand and piss my pants..... :vs_wave:


That misses the point of the thread. It isn't a discussion about how to deal with an external safety, but rather to remove the chance of one more thing inhibiting the firearm's use.
You rightly identified numerous elements to the whole equation. Would it not make sense to simply *remove* one of them instead of hoping you're going to be able to solve it later when you're facing death?


----------



## stevekozak

Kauboy said:


> That misses the point of the thread. It isn't a discussion about how to deal with an external safety, but rather to remove the chance of one more thing inhibiting the firearm's use.
> You rightly identified numerous elements to the whole equation. Would it not make sense to simply *remove* one of them instead of hoping you're going to be able to solve it later when you're facing death?


At what cost?


----------



## keith9365

I know what you mean. I always have my knife with me, carrying concealed or not.


The Tourist said:


> And I, for one, am guilty of it. To this day, when I feel that old "prickly neck" bugaboo from some primitive amygdala warning, I go for my knife instead of my Kimber. I know it's a bad habit, and I wish I could break it. But if you drove Chevy products all day long, even if you hated that wretched 'bow-tie,' you would probably still drive it better than an unknown Bentley.
> 
> Sometimes when I'm jittery, I take a new knife and tumble it through my fingers in a dark room while I listen to the radio. I can identify any knife just by feeling the handle. I know the opening mechanism by rote.
> 
> Not to steal from Obi Wan Kenobi, but as a boomer I come from an age where everyone carried a fancy, bone handle folder, and surprisingly, there was peace and respect. If I had a time machine, I'd go back there. Sadly, now we excoriate our supposed enemies with degrading insults.
> 
> To that end, I have not mastered myself for the times that I live within. And I know full well it's a flaw.


----------



## The Tourist

Denton said:


> I was accused of practicing keyboard Kung-Fu, or something to that nature. Been thinking of switching it to an image of me "shooting" pool with a pistol.


Don't you think your pose of "_alert snake, sleeping snake_" is frightening enough? LOL


----------



## Kauboy

stevekozak said:


> At what cost?


That's actually the opposing view I'm looking for.
What is that cost?

When I look at modern firearms with all manner of internal and streamlined safety mechanisms built in, is there a cost I'm not seeing when the external safety is removed?
Take my S&W Shield, for example. It has a trigger safety, a firing pin block "drop safety", and is designed to only pull the striker to full required distance as the trigger is pulled.
These things prevent the gun from going off on its own, even if thrown against the wall or ground, and the gun will ONLY discharge if the trigger is pulled. Yet, it still has a thumb safety (bought before the new model without one was available). I do NOT engage this safety, and have looked into ways to remove it altogether (but it's more difficult to do than one may realize). So, why does it have this switch? If the gun is safe until the trigger is pulled, and we WANT the gun to be dangerous when the trigger is pulled (that is its purpose, afterall), then why have this other switch that must be manipulated first?

What is the cost of removing it?
To me, there is no cost. One should NEVER rely on the safety as a mechanism to keep the gun from going off when the trigger is pulled. That is preposterous, and antithetical to the gun's intention. It also implies the user is not properly trained on safe firearms handling.
So, not having that external switch, in my mind, would alleviate a possible risk, and add no additional "cost".

I can't name the cost you seek.
But I am asking for others to provide it for my own understanding.
What cost does it add in your mind?


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> That's actually the opposing view I'm looking for.
> What is that cost?
> 
> When I look at modern firearms with all manner of internal and streamlined safety mechanisms built in, is there a cost I'm not seeing when the external safety is removed?
> Take my S&W Shield, for example. It has a trigger safety(bought before the new model without one was available), a firing pin block "drop safety", and is designed to only pull the striker to full required distance as the trigger is pulled.
> These things prevent the gun from going off on its own, even if thrown against the wall or ground, and the gun will ONLY discharge if the trigger is pulled. Yet, it still has a thumb safety. I do NOT engage this safety, and have looked into ways to remove it altogether (but it's more difficult to do than one may realize). So, why does it have this switch? If the gun is safe until the trigger is pulled, and we WANT the gun to be dangerous when the trigger is pulled (that is its purpose, afterall), then why have this other switch that must be manipulated first?
> 
> What is the cost of removing it?
> To me, there is no cost. One should NEVER rely on the safety as a mechanism to keep the gun from going off when the trigger is pulled. That is preposterous, and antithetical to the gun's intention. It also implies the user is not properly trained on safe firearms handling.
> So, not having that external switch, in my mind, would alleviate a possible risk, and add no additional "cost".
> 
> I can't name the cost you seek.
> But I am asking for others to provide it for my own understanding.
> What cost does it add in your mind?


 @Kauboy - You are tilting at windmills for what reason? Think about it. You've made your point. Those of us who like our "old" siderams aren't giving them up. Younguns will probably see things your way. Stop trying to tell old people to change. We will, if we want to. If we do, we will still sweep our thumbs over nonexistent safeties.
Sheesh.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> @Kauboy - You are tilting at windmills for what reason? Think about it. You've made your point. Those of us who like our "old" siderams aren't giving them up. Younguns will probably see things your way. Stop trying to tell old people to change. We will, if we want to. If we do, we will still sweep our thumbs over nonexistent safeties.
> Sheesh.


I'm not telling anyone to do anything. He asked me a question. I answered. I would like his answer too.

Chillax, brah. I know your opinion on it. I welcome others' opinions too.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> I'm not telling anyone to do anything. He asked me a question. I answered. I would like his answer too.
> 
> Chillax, brah. I know your opinion on it. I welcome others' opinions too.


My brother, you are a bull dog.


----------



## The Tourist

Kauboy said:


> What is the cost of removing it? To me, there is no cost. One should NEVER rely on the safety as a mechanism to keep the gun from going off when the trigger is pulled.


You mention the SW. Perhaps it's better to discuss the reasons for redundant safeties by starting with the 1911. That pistol was designed for young soldiers, most of whom never saw an automatic. The pistol was marketed to the government, and as such, had features not designed on the original model made in 1905.

I had a Detonics, it didn't have a grip safety, and if memory serves, I doubt that it had a firing pin block. That pistol was designed by a veteran, who is quoted as saying that if he ever made it out of a war zone he would invent a pistol that always worked.


----------



## Kauboy

The Tourist said:


> You mention the SW. Perhaps it's better to discuss the reasons for redundant safeties by starting with the 1911. That pistol was designed for young soldiers, most of whom never saw an automatic. The pistol was marketed to the government, and as such, had features not designed on the original model made in 1905.
> 
> I had a Detonics, it didn't have a grip safety, and if memory serves, I doubt that it had a firing pin block. That pistol was designed by a veteran, who is quoted as saying that if he ever made it out of a war zone he would invent a pistol that always worked.


I don't want to call out styles specifically. Hits too close to home for some. However, throughout this thread I have mentioned (or rather, repeated the video) that a single-action, chambered pistol perhaps *should* have an external safety. I personally see no reason for one on a double-action only pistol, or on strike fired models. Even my PX4, which is DA on the first shot, and SA after, has an external safety which I personally find unnecessary.

My reasoning for ANY gun to have an external safety that prohibits a trigger pull from discharging the gun would ONLY be if that gun was going to be carried outside of a holster. A pocket gun, a waistband gun, any long arm carried with the trigger exposed, etc... these are examples of guns that *SHOULD* have external safeties due to the fact that something other than a finger could pull the trigger and discharge the weapon.

Now, back to the single-action, chambered flavors... these guns, by and large, live in holsters. *MOST* of them have a grip safety that must be depressed before the trigger can function to fire the round. I understand yours does not, so yours is an exception. Depending on the model, many also have internal firing pin block safeties that only move out of the way when the trigger is pulled, also known as drop safeties. I have now expended the totality of my knowledge on this style of firearm. I wholly admit that I DO NOT know everything there is to know about these guns. That is partially the reason I started this thread. I wanted feedback on something that I may be unaware of in their operation.
So, with this knowledge, I must still ask... "What is the purpose of the external safety?"
If the gun is "cocked and locked", as many of its carriers like to say, and the gun's grip safety must be fully depressed before the trigger can function to fire the round, what benefit does the thumb safety serve? Can the gun discharge when dropped, even without depressing the grip safety? (in models lacking a firing pin block) If the answer is "yes", it would perturb me a bit that it took 8 pages to get to that acceptable answer.

You contend that the 1911 model was designed for young soldiers, potentially new to that style of firearm. That is a fair point. It implies that the new shooters may mishandle the gun, causing negligent discharges if the design lacked a thumb safety. Again, this goes back to my point about safe firearms handling. That is paramount above all else, in my opinion. Compensating for a lack of it by adding a safety is dangerous.
However, we are well passed the time when that model of firearm was new to the world. We have people who've been carrying for decades, should know the cardinal rules of safe firearms handling as if they were written on their souls, and practice them regularly. So why do they still use a gun with an external thumb safety? @Denton claims familiarity is a strong reason. Is that really the crux of it? "I know how this works, I'm comfortable with it, and that's good enough." Is that all it really is?

Yes Denton, when it comes to learning and trying to understand something that deeply interests me, "bull dog" doesn't begin to describe it. I'm prepared to be wrong, or just have new information presented that makes me question my previous understanding. I hope we're all here for such things.


----------



## Denton

#SafetyLivesMatter!!!!!


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Of course there was That Guy who not knowing any better put his chambered Glock into a nylon belt holster and shot himself in the thigh, through and through.
He was man enough to post the pictures of his leg on the gun forum I belonged to. And detailed his mistake in not using a kydex holster.

If you are going to carry a pistol with no external safety, make sure you have the proper gear.


----------



## Kauboy

rice paddy daddy said:


> Of course there was That Guy who not knowing any better put his chambered Glock into a nylon belt holster and shot himself in the thigh, through and through.
> He was man enough to post the pictures of his leg on the gun forum I belonged to. And detailed his mistake in not using a kydex holster.
> 
> If you are going to carry a pistol with no external safety, make sure you have the proper gear.


Reminds me of a Clint Smith "Clintism": "If it only took 5lbs of pressure to pull the gun out, it should only take 5lbs to put it back in. If it takes more, STOP PUSHING!"


----------

