ND- I am now 'that guy'

Is this a lucky break telling me I'm not capable of handling things that go bang.

Click to expand...

I also had an ND. It was with a .25ACP and although nobody was hurt, it was witnessed (to my shame).
I have a theory (it would be interesting to get numbers) that a lot of folks, possibly the majority of us, who have ever had an ND have not had another.
I found that the embarrassment, the near-miss and the sudden shock of what happened sort of made me extra careful from that point on. That was 19 years ago.

Now if you have another ND, then you can entertain questions about capabilities!

I don't understand what the "military" photo is even supposed to be showing relavent to this thread, the pistol is clearly locked back and his off hand is empty.

Click to expand...

The picture is of the position some trainers recommend for holding the pistol while reloading. The problem is that if the shooter has an unintentional discharge in that position the round will almost certainly not hit the berm.

As far as the gun being empty and locked back, not all reloads are done with a chamber-empty, locked back gun and even the ones that do have the potential for an unintentional discharge. Either from a slamfire as the round loads, from some other type of gun malfunction like a broken or stuck firing pin, or from the shooter inadvertently pulling the trigger as he drops the slide.

They do that so you can track the target while you reload...

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the rationale, but the fact remains that it certainly creates the potential for a round to leave the range when practicing.

I use that method all the time, and I have never had an ND.

Click to expand...

The statement makes no sense. First of all, there's nothing about the method that makes it more likely that an ND will occur, the point is that if an ND does occur the round will not hit the berm if the gun is pointed up above the berm.

Second, the fact that something has been done repeatedly and yet not resulted in an ND yet is not proof that it is safe. I could point a loaded gun repeatedly at my head and using that kind of logic it would be safe as long as I never had an ND while doing so.

I submit that failing to exercise proper muzzle control is unsafe even if one is lucky enough not to have an ND while doing so.

One just needs to keep their finger off the trigger,...

Click to expand...

There are multiple rules of gun safety, and while the intent is to create a situation where one rule helps keep things safe even if another rule is broken, one shouldn't intentionally take advantage of that kind of redundancy.

Going back to the example of pointing a loaded gun at one's head (definitely a violation of muzzle control), we don't go around saying that it's safe as long as we don't put our fingers on the trigger. The point is that we follow all the rules, all the time and that's how we train ourselves not to do things that could get someone injured or killed if something goes wrong.

That picture shows an improperly executed technique!

Click to expand...

If the muzzle of the pistol is pointed above the backstop then it's unsafe regardless of whether the technique is being executed "properly" or not.

The photo was simply the first one I found that showed the type of reloading technique I was referring to. The fact that the shooter happened to be military is irrelevant.

But since we can't seem to see past the uniform to focus on the technique, here are some other pictures of the same problem--pistols being pointed over the berm during reloading. None of these people are wearing military uniforms.

In fact, some of these photos are either from sites that provide firearms training, or are from tutorials on how to do a reload properly.

The bottom line is that this technique is common and it's commonly taught. This thread is a good example of why it's a bad idea. The OP had his muzzle pointed in a safe direction when his ND occurred and therefore no one's safety was threatened. Had he been doing the "point at the sky while you reload" technique, there's no telling where his round would have gone.

I am curious, JohnKsa, how you do your speed reload.

Click to expand...

When I'm on the range I keep the gun pointed toward the berm, not over it. So my practice, including my reload practice, keeps the gun pointed more or less toward the target and definitely toward the berm.

If you do it that way on the street, you'd be endangering everyone on said street.

Click to expand...

First of all, if you try to keep the gun pointed in the general direction of the person you've already emptied your gun at, then you're not endangering anyone other than the people you already endangered in the process of emptying the gun.

Second, none of the people in those pictures were "on the street". They were at a range where bullets are supposed to end up in the berm and where guns are NOT supposed to be pointed over the berm. Even if you make an argument for that being a good technique "on the street", it still doesn't justify doing it at the range.

Like it or not, we don't get to break the gun safety rules during practice because we might have to on the street or because it might be expedient to do so on the street. That's how people get killed.

The gun is supposed to be held up at an angle like that.

Click to expand...

No, they're not. The rules of gun safety say that you keep the muzzle pointed at a safe direction. At a range, that's the berm.

Even still, the bullet goes way up in the air, loses all of it's energy, then tumbles back to earth tail first without enough energy to really hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

This is ABSOLUTELY false. A pistol bullet shot STRAIGHT UP into the air will probably descend tumbling, with very little energy. Rifle bullets can still be dangerous when shot straight up, because they have the potential to remain spin-stabilized and descend base first. The energy is much reduced but it could still be lethal in the worst case.

But a bullet (rifle or pistol) shot at an angle into the air will certainly come down with enough energy to be lethal.

Keep in mind that the terminal velocity of a bullet dropped out of a planes window is far slower the the velocity of a bullet coming out of your barrel.

Click to expand...

The terminal velocity of a bullet dropped out of a plane's window would be MUCH lower than the velocity of a descending bullet shot upwards at an angle. For one thing, the bullet falling from the plane will be tumbling which means it provides much more air resistance than a spin-stabilized bullet traveling nose first. For another, the bullet falling from the plane (or descending after being shot straight upwards) has only the force of gravity providing velocity. The bullet fired at an angle has gravity bringing it down, but it also still retains some of the muzzle velocity. The total velocity is the vector sum and it is DEFINITELY sufficient to be lethal.

Odds that the gun lets one go on it's own while reloading like that are about the same as getting hit by lightning.

Click to expand...

This thread is about a person having an unintentional discharge while reloading. I've seen a person have an unintentional discharge while reloading--fortunately he also kept his gun pointed at the berm and so there was no harm done in that case either. The point is that it does happen--and we're in the progress of discussing a case where it did and where good muzzle control kept the situation from being potentially deadly.

Besides, even if the odds are highly against it, that still doesn't provide justification. You don't break the rules of gun safety just because the odds of an injury are small.