Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Human Factors Issues In Firearms Design And Training (worth a read)

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Drizzt, Mar 9, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Drizzt

    Drizzt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,648
    Location:
    Moscow on the Colorado, TX
    Human Factors Issues In Firearms Design And Training

    Guns are tools. Like any other tools, they can be either good or poor at achieving their purpose. In an article published in the Winter 2005 issue of Ergonomics in Design entitled "Human Factors Issues in Firearms Design and Training," the authors look at the design and operation of firearms from a human factors perspective. Observations on standardization and the prevention of inadvertent use highlight some important ways in which the human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) community can contribute to the production of safe and effective future firearms.

    Some of the problems identified by authors Peter Hancock, Hal Hendrick, Richard Hornick and Paul Paradis include the following:

    Knowledge of how to use one type of firearm doesn't mean a person is going to be competent using other types.

    Different firearms may use the same type of ammunition, but that's where the similarities end.

    You don't have to be shot to be injured by a firearm; sometimes this happens when ejecting a spent cartridge in semiautomatic handguns or catching your hand on the sharp edges of some slide assemblies.

    In some cases, it's nearly impossible to tell when there are still bullets in the chamber.

    Even if there is a manual safety -- and sometimes there isn't -- a red spot may indicate that the safety is engaged, but sometimes it means exactly the opposite.

    Handgun safety training courses are outdated; people taking these courses prior to 2000 got no instruction in safely using firearms to protect themselves at home.

    Safety training does not address the matter of firearms use under high stress, when the operator may be affected physically, perceptually, and emotionally.

    What can HF/E professionals do to make future firearms safer? In terms of design, HF/E research can help to determine a recommended standardized design for safeties and cylinder releases. Perhaps there should also be different standards for firearms design for different purposes, such as home defense versus law enforcement. One promising area is the "smart gun," which would recognize and be operable only by the owner, and HF/E input would be a valuable addition to design work in this area. Unfortunately, because of the long life span of firearms (collectors may own century-old guns), it could take decades for any design improvements to be effective.

    "If one cannot change the tool to have an immediate effect on firearms safety," the authors say, "...it is possible to promote safer use through training and familiarization." Many accidents happen among users who either never took a safety course or had not had any training for many years -- not to mention the sometimes questionable content of such courses. By addressing the issue of use under stress, fundamental principles of pistol marksmanship, and exposure to more than one type of firearm before a user is considered qualified, training could be more effective.

    To obtain a press copy of the full article, please contact HFES Communications Director Lois Smith (310/394-1811).


    ###
    The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society is a multidisciplinary professional association of more than 4500 persons in the United States and throughout the world. Its members include psychologists, engineers, designers, and scientists, all of whom have a common interest in designing systems and equipment to be safe and effective for the people who operate and maintain them.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060306214532.htm
     
  2. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,605
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    There are four rules. Follow them and you will be safe with any firearm.

    When is the last time any of these people went to school? 1955?

    Nothing. Firearms and their use is too politically charged for their work to have a positive effect. It's obvious that they don't know enough about the use of firearms and modern training methodogly to be effective.

    Jeff
     
  3. HammerBite

    HammerBite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Location:
    Northern VA
    These people can get you killed!
     
  4. Brian Dale

    Brian Dale Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,554
    Location:
    on the farm
    Develop some expertise in the field before publishing their notions, for one thing.

    Few objects in the modern world owe as much of their design to "human factors/ergonomics" as firearms. The process of refining firearms design has been going on for hundreds of years. The lives of millions of interested parties have been affected by the design of the weapons they carried.

    That doesn't mean that firearms are designed for use by the untrained, though. The authors might examine their goals, drop the hubris and realize that the field of ergonomics wasn't invented yesterday, nor by its current practitioners.
     
  5. Vex

    Vex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    In every instance of formal training I've personally received regarding firearms, the instructors constantly stressed that true training comes from constant practice. You can never take a single class and claim to be the best shot. The same is true with safety and firearms handling. By learning how to safely handle a firearm with the 4 general rules and constantly exercising these rules, true safety will come naturally. I don't think a form of mechanical standardization among firearms manufacturers will work. As a universal issue, it doesn't seem like a viable solution to a non-problem...
     
  6. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,378
    Location:
    TX
    Well, I sent away for a copy. I want to see what they actually said.

    From summary pages, it's hard to reach conclusions. What I saw was (--- is my comment)

    Knowledge of how to use one type of firearm doesn't mean a person is going to be competent using other types.

    --- That's true. They may be talking about what we know about very specific equipment or procedure transfer of training. It's known in many other fields. I wonder if they did any experiments or this is a thought piece.


    Different firearms may use the same type of ammunition, but that's where the similarities end.

    --- So what?

    You don't have to be shot to be injured by a firearm; sometimes this happens when ejecting a spent cartridge in semiautomatic handguns or catching your hand on the sharp edges of some slide assemblies.

    --- That's true - big deal. Lots of stuff is dangerous. We do comment on this in reviews of guns all the time. No breakthrough here. I've gotten hit by things. Fishermen get stuck by hooks. There is always risk.

    In some cases, it's nearly impossible to tell when there are still bullets in the chamber.

    ------ That's true - we are very careful about this and many accidents are do to this.

    Even if there is a manual safety – and sometimes there isn't – a red spot may indicate that the safety is engaged, but sometimes it means exactly the opposite.

    ------ Is the implication that you must have a manual safety. That's been a debate for a zillion years.


    Handgun safety training courses are outdated; people taking these courses prior to 2000 got no instruction in safely using firearms to protect themselves at home.

    ------- It depends on the course. Prior to 2000, we still taught safety. I certainly had such training.

    Safety training does not address the matter of firearms use under high stress, when the operator may be affected physically, perceptually, and emotionally.

    ------ Not true universally true also. I would like to see where they got the info. FOF was designed just for this.

    ------ I'm going to read the thing. Given, I'm a cognitive psychologist and have firearms training, it should be interesting.
     
  7. Maxwell

    Maxwell Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    486
    More than a few shooters have probly picked up a new weapon and been caught offguard by one thing or another. It wouldnt hurt to have some safety features standardized.

    I'd more worry that this is meant to be the backing for some anti-gun rant.
    "Not only are guns dangerous but their designed to be dangerous!"

    Then someone writes a modest proposal of things to make guns safe, and out pops an endless list full of impossible requests. Things like electronic triggers, weeks of firearms training, and/or intricate safety mechanisms bound to gunk up and prevent the gun from being useful.
    When its done your forced to a gun thats larger, more expensive, and less reliable. Meanwhile the criminals get by with old weapons or junk imported from other countries.
     
  8. Nightfall

    Nightfall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,817
    Location:
    WA
    Bullets (plural) in the chamber (singular)? :scrutiny: Anyway, what are these impossible to check firearms? Are there autos with slides that can't be pulled back? Revolvers with cylinders that magically make the rounds invisible? If you can work the action, you can check the chamber. It ain't exactly brain surgery.
     
  9. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,378
    Location:
    TX
    The argument in the human factors world is between gadgets that can be used correctly if the person does it right. When there is a screw up, the usual defense is that with proper training, the screwup wouldn't happen.

    In the gun world - we fall back on saying if the doofus (like Cheney) followed the four rules or such, the accident wouldn't happen. Interface designers say if the damn user would read the manual, blah, blah.

    The other point of view is that one should not design based on the premise that lecturing the user will make them use the product safely. It should be glitch proof through design.

    The truth is in the middle. I've taught a course on human computer interaction and delved into the traffic safety literature. There is nothing new here that isn't in an engineering psychology or human factors text.

    However, in the gun world - the booboos also unless the political world which makes it more heated for debate.
     
  10. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,502
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Yeah, the guy who wrote this piece is a real expert.:eek:
     
  11. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,051
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    _Some_ of the human factors guys & gals I've worked with over the years are worth their weight in diamonds.

    Most of them aren't worth....squat. HF seems to be the dumping grounds for industrial design grads with delusions of grandeur.

    (But hey, I guess egomaniacal designers without the talent to back it up need jobs too... :neener: )

    Nonetheless, I think if you could get the _right_ HF guy with some serious firearms background, it'd be a worthwhile excercise.
     
  12. Wiley

    Wiley Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    514
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Form follows function.

    The trigger is used to check if there are still 'bullets' in the chamber.

    Another soloution looking for a problem. Oh, goody, more grant money.
     
  13. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,502
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    The proper form is to push on the trigger while looking down the hole to see if any bullets come out.:evil:
     
  14. JJpdxpinkpistols

    JJpdxpinkpistols Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Observations on standardization and the prevention of inadvertent use highlight some important ways in which the human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) community can contribute to the production of safe and effective future firearms.

    That is very true. I have had folks look at my revolver and ask how it opens. These are very competent rifle-men or semi-auto shooters. I don't know if that problem can be solved by standardization, necessarily.

    Sure it is! open the dang thing and LOOK.

    I have noticed this. My shotty and my airgun are in reverse for button safety signalling. I woouldn't object to seeing a stardard used. OTOH, I carry a revolver...no safety needed ;)

    Anytime someone says "standard" they mean a law. More laws means more gunk we have to jump through and a higher cost for our tools. I have zero objection to listening to their suggestions...indeed, I would personally encourage all firearms manufacturers to do so. But I would reject, out of hand, any attempt to further regulate a constitutional protection.

    AS for a different standard. I dont' see a problem with organizational requirements necessitating a firearm modification (we work in mud, so we need a nifty mudflap on this thingymabobber), but as a base guideline, we deserve the same materiel that the police deserve.

    Not gonna happen. Simply put: if I am unable to use it, it should be available to my wife to use.

    So teach it in schools. Wow...that was easy. PE class would actually be FUN again!

    er...does anyone else see the camel-nose? Get outta the tent, you hump-backed beast!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page