Malfunction Clearing

[9mmepiphany]

All I am saying is be aware of what you are doing. If you decide a constant conditioned response is of the utmost importance and you have the means to buy another firearm once you destroy the one you were shooting more power to you.

The problem with not training to a conditioned response or training to evaluate before performing the correct response is that you will commonly default to the wrong/easier response under pressure.

Now that you see fewer revolvers, I see fewer folks catch their spent shells when reloading, but it is too common to see people catch an empty magazine when they should be letting it fall or gently seating the next one (which often causes it not to catch). Babying your magazines during a reload is extremely dangerous in defensive training...and would be the natural follow-on behavior to not clearing a "click" reflexively

 

[mljdeckard]

Of the reasons to consider which technique to use, I'm not adding "What if you load the wrong cartridge into the magazine?" To the list. In 30 years of shooting, 18 years of carrying, and nine years in service, never once has this happened to me.

 

[ATLDave]

And it is accepted that realistic and sound training for the very deadly dangerous possibility of a gunfight carries with it some elevated risks for injury or damage to equipment. The more realistic, more directed, and more effective the training, the higher those risks probably are.

This is a great point. And it necessarily follows from it that different people will logically want to accept different levels of risk in their training. Those who seriously expect to face pistol gunfights on a routine basis - perhaps LEO's in high-crime areas, or diamond merchants routines carrying a million dollars worth of gems on their person - would sensibly accept more risk in training because of their heightened risk of a stoppage in a gunfight.

But for an average civilian, those risks may not be worth it. Let's say such a person has a (artificially large) 1% chance of ever needing to draw/present a handgun in anger. Now let's subtract all of those instances where the mere brandishing/presentment of the firearm ends the situation. Now take out all the circumstances where the assailant(s) run or fall at the first shot; obviously, a FTF doesn't change the outcome there. And take out all the circumstances where, due to surprise, overwhelming number of assailants, etc., the civilian simply cannot prevail, regardless of how well his gun functions. Then take out all the circumstances where the gun runs flawlessly. Finally, take out all the circumstances where the difference between a .75 second non-diagnostic clearance and a 3.5 second clearance doesn't change the outcome.

Once you go through all that, you probably end up with something like a .00001% chance of the method of clearance making any difference to a regular civilian; in fact, it makes me wonder if it has ever mattered in real life even one time.

Compare that to the increased risk of a squib-fueled kaboom, or other mishap on the range, that may come from the kind of training required to completely ingrain a non-decisional approach. For some folks, it may be far riskier to
"train properly" than not.

 

[Sam1911]

Once you go through all that, you probably end up with something like a .00001% chance of the method of clearance making any difference to a regular civilian; in fact, it makes me wonder if it has ever mattered in real life even one time.

An interesting point which will probably bring up the idea of "the stakes" =/= "the odds," so to speak.

However, another aspect of this is that those of us who compete with handguns certainly have the same desire to build high-speed reflexive reactions to failures as do serious defensive-minded gun toters -- but we probably face that situation 100s of times more often than a purely defensive shooter who almost never even draws his/her weapon.

In competition one preforms thousands of draws, many tens of thousands of shots, and every competitor with any serious time on the range has experienced more than a few malfunctions.

And for such people the fairly low risk of possible gun damage is certainly of lesser concern than the inability to perform a malfunction clearance operation in the minimum time required. We wear safety gear and understand that guns are replaceable. Heck, we're putting many times the cost of a new gun downrange in ammo costs (to say nothing of match fees) every year as it is. It becomes sort of analogous to not wanting to drop your mags on the ground because they might get scratched, dirty, or dented. It's a tool, it will wear out eventually and might get damaged in use. That's acceptable.

For the more casual user or collector who's looking at the gun itself as the big investment and who's primary concern is protecting the gun itself, that wouldn't be the way to look at it.

 

[otasan56]

I am very adept at handling my G17 under just about all conditions. One thing for sure - my G17 has never once had any kind of malfunction - in 23 years of competition shooting.

 

[Sam1911]

One thing for sure - my G17 has never once had any kind of malfunction - in 23 years of competition shooting.

Ok...that's just PHENOMENAL! Get that thing gold-plated or something! Every gun hiccups sometime, for some reason -- but if yours never has, ever, WOW, that's AWESOME!

But how do you practice malfunction-clearing?

 

[ATLDave]

However, another aspect of this is that those of us who compete with handguns certainly have the same desire to build high-speed reflexive reactions to failures as do serious defensive-minded gun toters -- but we probably face that situation 100s of times more often than a purely defensive shooter who almost never even draws his/her weapon.

Also true. Sometimes, it is worth some additional risk simply in order to do something enjoyable. Many people (at least the kind of people I like) tend to get enjoyment from learning to do new things or acquiring greater proficiency. So, for those people, it may be worth accepting some risk just because it furthers their recreational goals. That's OK.

I merely was trying to point out that a stridently-held position that "everyone needs to clear malfunctions in X manner, even though that manner is not maximally safe" isn't analytically sound. Some people need to always clear in the fastest and most reliably manner. Some people need to always clear in the safest way possible. And some of us are in between.

 

[otasan56]

I have made special underpowered rounds where the bullet leaves the barrel, but the cartridge case stovepipes or stays in the chamber. I take my practice loads and mix these weaker rounds in with them. Mix them up and then load the 17-round magazines. When the malfunction happens I get a little practice in jam clearing.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I found out how ingrained my TRB has become yesterday at a local IDPA match.

The COF was a drill which required moving around the perimeter of a square and shooting at 3 targets (1 round each) while moving in the three directions. Then they added a quick run to a 4 popper array...all shot in Limited Vickers (limited number of shots allowed) The COF required 3 reloads, each magazine loaded with 6 rounds.

On the last array, I got a click instead of a bang. Without a thought, I got the pistol running and fired off the last 4 shots...when finished, I don't remember the Tap at all and barely remember the Rack

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

OK, the subject of safety has come up a few times in this thread, with respect to clearing misfires.

We've already established that there is a difference between the more sedate target shooting response to a misfire and the more realistic self defense training scenario. The difference being that self defense training simulates a "life or death" situation where the risks of being injured/killed by an attacker are judged to significantly outweigh the risks involved with speedily clearing the faulted weapon.


ANALOGOUS NAVY EXAMPLE:

The military conducts training ALL the time. As a retired Reactor Operator aboard submarines, I can tell you that casualty training is a part of life. Let's take the scenario of a reactor scram as an example. A reactor scram happens when the control rods are dropped to the bottom of the core, which shuts down the reactor.

This is analogous to a misfire of a pistol, because the reactor is shut down for some reason and must be rapidly restarted (called a Fast Recover Startup). A FRSU is usually performed at sea instead of a normal reactor start up (which takes significantly longer) because the risks to the ship due to the loss of propulsion significantly outweigh the risks without propulsion.

But such training is NOT without controls and procedures which ensure safety is maintained during these evolutions.


MY QUESTION:

Not having actually attended any such self-defense training courses myself, what training techniques do self-defense course instructors use to safely conduct this training?

I can think of a few, but I'd like to hear from people who have either attended such training, or who have given such training.

 

[Sam1911]

Not having actually attended any such self-defense training courses myself, what training techniques do self-defense course instructors use to safely conduct this training?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for, here. Are you wondering if defensive shooting trainers go to some additional lengths to make sure folks have the right ammo in their gun, or that their ammo doesn't include a squib load? If so, I've never heard of an instructor who was teaching anything beyond the most basic of gun safety and operation take class time to investigate to any great degree what ammo the students bring.

A few do specify that they only allow factory ammo in their classes, and a perception of higher quality-control in production is probably high in their list of reasons for that.

Every credible instructor requires eye (and ear) protection, as a matter of course, and I can't think of any further special protective means might be valuable when practicing malfunction clearance drills.

Most just DO it, and any minor level of risk that someone might "kaboom" their gun specifically because of a TRB that becomes a TR(BOOM) is accepted as a remote but not life-threatening risk.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for, here. Are you wondering if defensive shooting trainers go to some additional lengths to make sure folks have the right ammo in their gun, or that their ammo doesn't include a squib load? If so, I've never heard of an instructor who was teaching anything beyond the most basic of gun safety and operation take class time to investigate to any great degree what ammo the students bring.

Well, if I were to set up a self-defense training course, the first step of the actual "drill" scenario would be to set up the initial conditions. Part of this would include factory ammunition. The basis for this is that factory ammunition eliminates unknown variables necessarily included if everybody used their own handloaded ammunition.

The basic assumption is that factory loaded ammunition is statistically less susceptable to misfiring than hand loaded ammunition.

(No slight on quality handloaders...this just takes that factor out of the equation.)

To simulate a misfire, one or more "training rounds" may be inserted into the magazine(s) by the instructor. The magazines would then be issued to the shooter, who would have no idea which (if any) magazine had training ammunition in it, nor how many rounds.


This training scenario would actually produce a predictable (to the instructor) misfire, which the shooter could then demonstrate proficiency in clearing using the trained techniques.

The odds of a mishap are minimized by using factory ammunition, such that an actual misfire with a live round would be very small.

 

[Sam1911]

That's about the extent of the preparations I can imagine making for "safety" in this kind of drill, but I'll caution that factory ammo does not (of course) eliminate the risk of squibs or other such issues, though it may give the perception of reducing that risk to one degree or another over "Joe Average's" handloads.

The "ball and dummy" drill where someone else is loading your mags for you is certainly a classic. Very useful for this kind of training.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Yeah, misfires do happen with factory loads, too. I was thinking of the "Joe Average's" handloads.



I wouldn't mind taking a self-defense course or two sometime. It sounds like fun (any opportunity to shoot sounds like fun) and I'm quite sure I'd learn a lot.

 

[Bobson]

1. Check ejection port.
2. If FTE/stovepipe/jam: strip mag, tilt, rack, reinsert mag, rack.
Or
2. If misfire (no jam evident): tap, rack.

Thats how I was trained with my duty weapon, a G19; and that's what I carry off duty.

 

[Sam1911]

1. Check ejection port.
2. If FTE/stovepipe/jam: strip mag, tilt, rack, reinsert mag, rack.
Or
2. If misfire (no jam evident): tap, rack.

The nice thing about a real good "TRB" is that you can skip the observation/decision step for at least 1/3 of the #2 concerns there. By sweeping firmly across the top of the slide as you "Rack" you'll strip a stove-piped case out of the ejection port as you get your racking grip on the top rear of the slide.

It still doesn't address a failure-to-extract (that everyone calls a "double-feed") but it does allow the 1st Response ("TRB") to deal with all of the most common malfunctions.

Most instructors don't go for a diagnostic approach first, preferring the shooter deploy the primary response and then diagnose only if that doesn't work.

 

[Bobson]

Good to know, Sam. Thank you.

 

[Arp32]

I really like holdencm9's clean & simple chart, but 9mmepiphany hit on one missing element: the improperly seated magazine.

I shot my very first IDPA match last month (exciting!), and was shocked to experience at least 3 malfunctions in the four stages we shot. All the failures were in the middle of the magazine, not the first shot or a failure to lock open on empty. I was shooting a 5-year old Colt gov't model with 3-4,000 rounds on it. The gun rarely has any kind of malfunction, at least before I went to IDPA. Normally I shoot at a very relaxed pace at an indoor range (no drawing or double taps!), or out in the desert with my buddies.

Anyway the IDPA match was a total blur between trying to remember the course of fire, running and shooting, and fast magazine changes, but after a while I realized "hey, why the heck am I having so many $&(/ malfunctions?" My buddy, who introduced me to the match, was convinced it was because I wasn't shooting a Glock (which is apparently some kind of magic gun that cures all issues).

Afterwards, I tried to think if what I was doing different that was causing roughly one malfunction every 10-15 rounds. Only thing I could think of was the rushed magazine changes - I must not have been seating them fully. I've seen new shooters do that, but it hadn't happened to me until I did a timed mag change under stress.

Anyway, shot my second match last week and made a concerted effort to slam those magazines home. Didn't have one malfunction all day, and I scored a lot better, too.

I guess this is a long way of saying it helps to try shooting under stress. It points out a lot of things you wouldn't expect about your technique (or lack thereof).

 

[9mmepiphany]

Only thing I could think of was the rushed magazine changes - I must not have been seating them fully. I've seen new shooters do that, but it hadn't happened to me until I did a timed mag change under stress.

This is highly unlikely if it is occurring in the middle of you cartridge stack...an improperly seat magazine will fail on the first shot.

The other observation is that, while I'm not personally a huge fan of the Glock, most failures I've seen during IDPA match do seem to involve a 1911. If you are going to continue to shot your 1911 in competition, I'd advise having it checked out/tuned up by a knowledgeable 1911 pistolsmith who understands the requirements on action shooting

 

[allaroundhunter]

I must not have been seating them fully. I've seen new shooters do that, but it hadn't happened to me until I did a timed mag change under stress.

As 9mmepiphany said, that is highly unlikely considering your malfunctions were occuring mid-mag. A failure to seat a magazine will cause problems with the first round, or the mag will just fall out; it shouldn't cause problems halfway through.

What might be happening, however, is that you might have been hitting the mag release just enough to drop the mag slightly.

 

[Arp32]

I won't argue with you guys because I don't have a clear recollection of exactly what I was or wasn't doing in that first match. All I know is that when I made an effort to slam the magazine home, I had no malfunctions. I could have nudged the magazine release, but I tend to doubt that given that I've never done that inadvertently to my knowledge.

With all due respect, since the gun is normally flawless, I'd say operator error is most likely to blame (how's that for a unique sentiment on the board!). I think maybe I'll try and recreate the malfunction this weekend just to satisfy myself.

In any case, tap, rack, bang worked just fine.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Once you go through all that, you probably end up with something like a .00001% chance of the method of clearance making any difference to a regular civilian; in fact, it makes me wonder if it has ever mattered in real life even one time.

It's a matter of battle readiness. How ready do you want to be? Would you rather have the skill to clear stoppages quickly and not need it or or need the skill and not have it?

 

[holdencm9]

It's a matter of battle readiness. How ready do you want to be? Would you rather have the skill to clear stoppages quickly and not need it or or need the skill and not have it?

I just think you maybe somewhat missed the point in ATLDave's post. It's all about risk acceptance on both ends. If you think (rightly or wrongly) that your risk of needing to clear a stoppage in a split second is crucial, then you are probably willing to accept the risk of pulling the trigger behind a squib load. Of course we could debate all day long the relative risks...but I think it is pretty safe to say that kabooms are more likely than needing to clear a malfunction in a life-or-death situation someday. That's all he meant. For some, they know that, and accept it. Others do it for matches, and accept it. Heck, it is fun to TRB super-fast! But others may not understand the risks of some failure drills and OVER-estimate the risk of an actual stoppage in a firefight that they might find themselves in. So in the interest of everyone involved, it is good to point that out. We don't want some new shooters to come read this thread and think "my goodness! I have to start practicing lightning-fast tap-rack-bang drills!" and go out and hurt themselves.

The "would you rather have it and not need it or need it and not have it?" rhetoric only goes so far. In some issues, it makes sense, like carrying an extra mag, you probably will never need it, but it is zero risk to carry it. Carrying a gun is itself an assessment of risk. I don't have any more concern than the next guy that I will need it, but after studying the risks and learning safe handling/carry techniques, the risk is near zero, and it is worth it to me to carry a weapon. But I think if we don't stand back occasionally and assess these things, we just carry and train blindly for any perceived possible risk, real or not, then the training may suffer, because you can spend more time worrying about more likely scenarios, and we may be perceived like overly-paranoid gun nuts by some and it does nothing to further our cause.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I could have nudged the magazine release, but I tend to doubt that given that I've never done that inadvertently to my knowledge.

Just out of curiosity, do you normally ride the thumbsafety with your strong thumb?

Where do you usually place your support thumb when shooting?

 

[ATLDave]

I just think you maybe somewhat missed the point in ATLDave's post. It's all about risk acceptance on both ends. If you think (rightly or wrongly) that your risk of needing to clear a stoppage in a split second is crucial, then you are probably willing to accept the risk of pulling the trigger behind a squib load. Of course we could debate all day long the relative risks...but I think it is pretty safe to say that kabooms are more likely than needing to clear a malfunction in a life-or-death situation someday. That's all he meant. For some, they know that, and accept it. Others do it for matches, and accept it. Heck, it is fun to TRB super-fast! But others may not understand the risks of some failure drills and OVER-estimate the risk of an actual stoppage in a firefight that they might find themselves in. So in the interest of everyone involved, it is good to point that out. We don't want some new shooters to come read this thread and think "my goodness! I have to start practicing lightning-fast tap-rack-bang drills!" and go out and hurt themselves.

The "would you rather have it and not need it or need it and not have it?" rhetoric only goes so far. In some issues, it makes sense, like carrying an extra mag, you probably will never need it, but it is zero risk to carry it. Carrying a gun is itself an assessment of risk. I don't have any more concern than the next guy that I will need it, but after studying the risks and learning safe handling/carry techniques, the risk is near zero, and it is worth it to me to carry a weapon. But I think if we don't stand back occasionally and assess these things, we just carry and train blindly for any perceived possible risk, real or not, then the training may suffer, because you can spend more time worrying about more likely scenarios, and we may be perceived like overly-paranoid gun nuts by some and it does nothing to further our cause.

holdencm9, you have explained my thinking far more eloquently than I could have done myself.