Safety-less striker fired handguns like Glock are not unsafe. A striker must be reared just like any hammer pin. If a firearm is carried in condition 2 (loaded magazine with striker or pin forward) it must be cycled first to load a round in any case. By eliminating the need for an external safety, there is simply one less step to fire the weapon. There is no firearm on earth that I know of that will discharge a round without one in the chamber first. If you carry in condition 1 (loaded chamber with striker or pin aft) then there is only a trigger needed to fire off a round with no external safety (external safety must first be disengaged on those with). A device or weapon is only good in the hands of those that train with them or become adapt with using them. If you train with a Glock style or train with a 1911 style, you should become comfortable and familiar with it's operation just like one would become familiar with recirculating ball vs rack and pinion steering in a vehicle. They behave and operate in different ways. To say that Glock handguns are unsafe is preposterous. Most law enforcement divisions around the US use them and have relied on them since 1996. They have been proven to be safe, accurate, and reliable. The Glock firearm additionally has 3 internals safeties preventing accidental discharges. The trigger must be fully engaged to fire. Common sense would dictate that it would be far safer to have less steps to navigate through to safely fire a gun in a stressful scenario. External safeties only add to the amount of hardware that must be operated before firing. Also, external safeties can snag on anything protruding above a surface that the firearms is subject to when drawing or operating. The 1911 design has a place in handgun history but that is where it belongs in everyday carry and use.
And negligent discharge is not uncommon. That is why there is such a thing as a NY trigger for them. It is why I prefer carrying DA/SA.
Start I was 5 and I was being taught how to shoot and having gun saftety drilled into my little head, my father continually repeated the maxim 'guns are alive and little devils, when you aren't looking they load themselves; you must always and continually check to make sure they haven't loaded themselves when you weren't looking'. He did his job so well with me at such a young age that somewhere in the depths of my mind I might actually believe that. All guns, except those of poor or defective design, and even those are as safe as the handler. The one safety that can't be disabled is your triggrer finger; keep it out of guard and off the trigger until you are pointing it at what you want to shoot and then only when you are going to shoot. The one other thing people often are negligent about is inadvertently snagging a trigger... Again, the primary safety control is the handler. As for the 1911 being relegated to history... I have had more than a few, am a fairly good gunsmith, but a specialist with 1911 tuning for reliability. For, me, they are an extension of my hand and operating the safety on one an automatic thing, but my guns are tuned and flawless or I won't carry them. They are not for everyone, particularly some one unwilling to train or that doesn't ensure their gun operates flawlessly reliable with the ammunition they will carry on a daily basis. (I have seen people, regardless of the gun, either not test their gun/ammo reliability or, in some cases, train with cheaper ball ammo and then load with some HP or other defensive round for CCW they have never tested).
Do you think ALL people are capable of Safely, and effectively handling a weapon? I feel there are a lot of mentalities, and nerve/constitutional dispositions, that make them too reactionary to have a deadly weapon at the ready.
Why are bolt action rifles apparently preferred for sniping? I would have thought that the advantage of not having to lose your "firing solution" (is that the correct term for all the things making up your aim?) between each shot would far outweigh any increase in accuracy
They aren't as much any more as semi-autos are capable of the same accuracy. Was not always that way.
The bore of the barrel, barrel harmonics, fit and finish of the components, quality of the ammunition, and the experience of the operator.
Indeed they are. Everyone is quite capable of doing such. Whether or not they actually do such is another matter entirely. Being capable of operating in a safe matter does not mean that someone will operate in a safe manner, just as mandatory training does nothing to stop someone from committing criminal actions. It has never been argued otherwise. In fact the following case goes to prove such. http://www.truthandaction.org/cop-goes-psycho-waiting-mcdonalds-pulls-gun-teen-drive-thru/ FORSYTH COUNTY, GA Surveillance footage revealed a police officer pulling a gun on a teenager who was innocently waiting for his food at a McDonalds drive-thru window. Ryan Mash thought he was going to be killed when a police officer approached him with his gun pointed at his face. Police Sergeant Scott Biumi of the DeKalb County Police Department was arrested when the video emerged and the officer was charged with felony aggravated assault. Biumi was reportedly upset with the customer ahead of him because he had to wait for his food. This flies in the face of decency and police professionalism and you can quote me on that! said Ken Vance, the Executive Director of Georgias Peace Officer Standards and Training Council. His certification will be suspended immediately. Mash recalled the incident, saying: And we were waiting on them to cook the food. And the cop I didnt know at first that he was a cop pulled up behind us and waited about two minutes, two to three minutes . And he got out and started yelling, yelling at us, Stop holding up the drive-thru line, this that and the other. He walked back over to his car, got back in, and I said, Sorry for the inconvenience, Sir. And he goes, Who has the loud mouth? And I was, like, I said that, not being smart or anything. Hes like, Well, you never know who youre messing with. And I was just like, No, Sir, I dont. He goes, Keep your mouth shut. I was like, Im sorry. Hes like, Well, you dont know who youre messing with. And theres some crazy people out there. And thats when he pulled the gun on me, and kept on yelling at me for about thirty more seconds. And then walked off.
Most guns these days are capable of better accuracy than most operators. Then, despite a lifetime of experience, there are shooters like me whose aged eyes do not allow for me to attain the same level of accuracy at distance I was capable of at age 20 without optical enhancement. One of my daughters can hit aspirin tablets at 25 yards with her open site Anschutz .22 rifle and match ammo rarely missing, and while there was a time I could as well, I can't even see them unaided.
Agreed. Even fairly low buck guns can produce great general accuracy (maybe not world record accuracy, but good enough for most applications.) But on the opposite side of that; a good marksman can make nearly any guns look good. I shot an impromptu bullseye match using a Taurus 1911, against 3 other 1911's- Charles Daly, Dan Wesson, and a kimber. Just because the gun is capable of great accuracy doesn't mean the shooter is. Those guys were pissed lol
Once I have shot a particular gun, know it's fit to my hand, characteristics of the trigger pull, POA/POI, etc. I can usually hit what I can see without modifying the gun because I have a systematic way I have developed that provides me a baseline of consistency that once I know the guns characteristics I can compensate. However, that mental compensation costs in time to target and recovery that requires range time to mitigate. That said, a few mods here or there, a bit of tuning, and I can certainly improve my capability and speed with a gun. With pistols and my eyes, and it's likely similar with most shooters, sight radius is a big factor. However, that said, I shoot better with my Glock 26 than my Glock 19 (same sights) where with the same pair of guns a close friend shoots better with the G19... Just a subtle difference in my hand I guess.
In theory the 19 should do better, at greater distance. But in practice... I have one pistol that shot really high and left. I could've drifted the sight, but for some reason my punch had migrated out of my range bag and the gun was grouping well. So I pushed it out further and further. Had steel silhouettes (14"x22") and could ring it 10/10 at 50 & 75 yds, once I found out where to hold. At 75 I was holding ~10" low and ~8" right of the bottom right corner. Could only ring it 5-7/10 at 100 yds. I was happy since it was a beat up pawn shop special and bulk tullammo.
Why hasn't anyone come out with a really good .357 that can hold a good amount of rounds in the mag? AA
.357 Sig ? .357 Magnum ? The .357 Magnum ( Revolver ) cartridge was chambered in a limited amount of handguns, For example, the Coonan 1911 single column type handgun, 7 +1 round capacity, the Desert Eagle single column 9 + 1 round capacity .357 Magnum.
I know.....I am talking about....and this probably can't be done reasonably....such a .357 that can hold at least 15 rounds. I hate 9 mm's because after you fire and as the slide moves it tends to be unbalanced. AA
Most people do not have large enough hands, to accommodate a double column .357 Magnum Ma gazine / Grip. Now as far as the unbalancing act 9 mm ? I never heard of such a thing.
You can always get a lever action in .357 with high round capacity. But, I am assuming you mean in a pistol. What is it you are trying to accomplish? Your objective? Self defense? Hunting? Hogs? Black bear? Performance at distance? Versatility with reloading? Platform size? Concealibility? There are several rounds for semi-autos near or exceeding .357 in power for a semi-auto, starting with the .357 Sig. or 10mm. Depending on your objective, there is also .45 Super or .460 Rowland, both which can be used with some .45 autos +P rated with minimal mods, using the same mags. For instance, get a G21, a Wolf .460 barrel, and heavier recoil springs and you have a gun approaching .44mag performance and can shoot .45 ACP and .45 Super in the same chambering. My HK 45C handles .45 Super without a hitch, though with heavy use would require a shock buffer and spring replacement more frequently... I carry a couple mags of that when backpacking. If you reload, there are more options. Barrels and springs for these options are available for Glocks, some 1911 platforms, Springfield and a few others. One nice and an easy mod to do is a G21 with a Rowland threaded barrel with a compensator... An excellent Hog gun.
I can feel it. It just unsettles me and they issued us .45 P229 Sig's anyways....no external safety. AA - - - Updated - - - No...the S&W .357 Magnum is one hell of a weapon but you can't use it for what I do. 6 rounds is not enough. AA
Partly because .357M is a rimmed cartridge. The issues between rimmed and rimless are not insurmountable, but its easier to convert a gun designed for rimless cartridges to another rimless cartridge (9mm-40S&W--10mm-.45ACP) than to a rimmed cartridge.
Yeah...that's why I said this probably can't be done reasonably. But they are developing ceaseless rounds. It will be awhile but I am looking forward to seeing one. AA
There are a couple reliable 357 mag semi auto's out there. DE & Coonan come to mind. Capacity is an issue because one would have to have paws like a large grizzly bear to hold a double stack 357 mag semi auto.
