SwampWolf said:
Well, no, the question was left "begging" because you seem to have implied that one of the reasons the military might have transitioned from the Beretta da/sa configuration to a striker-fired pistol had something (or nothing) to do the so-called "safety" factor (... "If keeping the shooter and those around him more safe is what drove the move to DA/SA guns in the US military, I wonder why the US Army and Air Force decided to go to the striker-fired route rather than sticking with the approach used in the Beretta M9 design?").
I wasn't making a claim that the SIG was somehow MORE safe but, rather, questioning whether the DA/SA guns was as really as SAFE as some here have claimed.
In terms of safety when not in combat, the Beretta probably was safer than the 1911 it replaced, if only because it required less training to get to a reasonable level of technical competence with the weapon. That said, I don't know WHY the Army and Air Force picked the SIG, and I don't know whether they consider the SIG more safe than the Beretta. In terms of handling safety, they might be both equally safe. In terms of where the first shots go when the shooting starts, that might be a different topic.
SwampWolf said:
If the safety factor was/is the reason for changing a pistol selection based on its the firing sequence, the begged question continues to be, "Why did the military leave a proven sa design (the 1911 pistol) that had redundant safeties (frame-mounted safety lever and grip safety), in addition to the requirement for the pistol to be carried in "condition 3" (hammer down over an empty chamber with an inserted loaded magazine) state of readiness, to the Beretta format?"
If safety was a factor -- and we don't know that it was -- it would appear that the multiple redundant safeties of the 1911 simply didn't work all that well as intended, or simply didn't work in the environment where they were used. It may be that making the condition 3 carry the standard was the safest and wisest thing the military could do, given they were not going to SPEND THE MONEY NEEDED to train veryone who might use the 1911 to be proficient and safe with it as many would like. If caught by surprise, getting the 1911 into action was certainly not as quick as other weapons.
SwampWolf said:
Finally, having less or more ammunition at your disposal in a self-defense situation becomes more of a question of practical survival than it does esoteric intellect if you really do need some extra rounds to end the fight on your terms The idea that more capacity leads to "pray and spray" or "spray and pray" is nonsense if the shooter has been trained effectively. If poor training or no training leads to errant and thoughtless shots being fired, don't blame having more cartridges on board than you otherwise might need in any given scenario for engaging in poor tactics.
If you do really
need extra rounds, nothing works like extra rounds. That said, most civilian shootouts seldom seem to go much beyond 3-4 rounds fired by any one of the participants -- so I suspect that extra rounds are viewed as an insurance that may never be used. I know I'm not willing to carry a weapon with only 4-5 rounds in the magazine when I can easily carry two or three times more rounds and hardly notice the difference.
In military or police combat situations a higher capacity could make a big difference -- as those types of handgun confrontation often go FAR BEYOND 3-4 rounds. And I suspect there may even be times when "spray and pray" (or other forms of unaimed fire) might be a rational response in a given situation.
Many of the folks participating here have probably received a lot more handgun training than the typical soldier, sailor or marine. I know the training I got in the military, was (to borrow a phrase from John Nance Garner, describing his time as vice president under FDR) "not worth a bucket of warm piss." I know, too, that Special Ops troops get a lot more training than the typical G.I.. One acquaintance worked as an instructor with Special Ops troops at Ft Bragg for several years, told me about the type of training they do -- and those folks are constantly refining their skills with a lot of different weapons. Handguns are seldom their weapon of choice, but they were very proficient in their use.
Many members here may have had more handgun training than most military personnel, but that training seldom includes more than passing exposure to the tactics a civilian might use in a self-defense situation.