CraigC
Sixgun Nut
One of several dumb mistakes that could've and should've been avoided. Not an excuse to condemn "Africa carry".
Lots of half cocked theories but nothing of substance.
It means it's commonly safely practiced by A LOT of individuals and other than the stupidity shown by the shooter referenced in the OP, there is ZERO evidence to the contrary.
Your analogy is way off. There is no inherent danger in this method of carry
And I'm just asking if there are any that condemn it.
What's considered a safe distance from the muzzle? Anything like shooting a pocket pistol?
What about the barrel/cylinder gap on a revolver?
Did you put any thought whatsoever into this argument?
You do realize we're talking about a flintlock here, right?
If you're worried about gases and particles at the muzzle, you would be far too terrified to fire a shouldered flintlock
Again, there is nothing here but nanny pontificating, unfounded fears and uninformed opinions to support the notion that this carry method is inherently more dangerous than any other.if others want to do actions that can be dangerous to them selfs and others around them
You need a government entity to tell you how to carry a rifle??? Are you unfamiliar with the concept that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? In other words, the fact that it is not included in a hunter's safety course is not proof that it is an unsafe practice.But it still isn't even listed in any of the hunter safety literature. And there is some evidence.... a missing finger.
No, there is inherent danger in jerking your rifle through brush by the muzzle. That should be obvious.Apparently, there is inherent danger; as evidenced by a missing finger.
Live gun = live wires. In either case, it doesn't take much for something bad to happen. Analogy is good whether or not you understand it.
I'm not going to look but I did provide positive evidence from authoritative sources (not the gov't) support the notion that Africa carry is indeed safe and acceptable.By you continuing to refuse to just answer my simple question, you must not be able to cite anything.
Exactly.But to answer yours, I don't see anything specifically condemning it.
Yes, I'm sure the government researched and provided information on ALL possible, safe methods of carrying a rifle.However, that it isn't included in the 4-5 methods listed in the hunters safety literature, that kind of sends the message that its not one of the top 4 or 5 ways to carry.
You alluded to a great fear of escaping gases and particles. The angle of the grip is irrelevant. The proximity of the hands to the muzzle is.No.. it's really not like it since the slide is timed to open after the bullet, and most of the gases, leave the barrel
And your hand is clamping a grip that is at a roughly 90 degree angle to the barrel so there isn't anything close to the same inherent possibility that your hand is going to slip forward to the end, or over, the muzzle like it could if grasping close to the end the barrel.
Same here. The escaping gases through the barrel/cylinder gap on a revolver may be generated by as much as 65,000psi of chamber pressure. Grip said revolver like one would an autoloader and bad things will happen to your weak thumb. By your logic, or lack thereof, this makes it too dangerous to fire a revolver two handed. Yet if done properly (there's that word again), we can fire them safely with our hands relatively close. Firing a 10,000psi muzzleloader with your hand near the muzzle is probably MORE safe, not less.The frame near the head/primer shield most of the gases forward. Grip is roughly at a 90 degree angle to the barrel. Really not very similar at all.
It should be obvious where the logic and reason lie in this argument.I think you should be asking yourself that based on your retorts.
The point remains. If you're 'that' afraid of having your hand anywhere near the muzzle, then my deductive reasoning tells me you'd be terrified to fire a shouldered flintlock.Uhh.... as eastbank pointed out... No, we're not talking about flintlocks. Were you trying to make a point with that comment?
Masculinity has nothing to do with it. You described a fear of escaping gases and particles, I just extrapolated upon that.You don't win arguments by trying to attack someone's manliness.
You need a government entity to tell you how to carry a rifle???
Are you unfamiliar with the concept that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? In other words, the fact that it is not included in a hunter's safety course is not proof that it is an unsafe practice.
No, there is inherent danger in jerking your rifle through brush by the muzzle. That should be obvious.
The analogy was not poor because I didn't understand it, thank you very much.
I'm not going to look
but I did provide positive evidence from authoritative sources (not the gov't) support the notion that Africa carry is indeed safe and acceptable.
They do this partly because of tradition.
Yes, I'm sure the government researched and provided information on ALL possible, safe methods of carrying a rifle.
You alluded to a great fear of escaping gases and particles. The angle of the grip is irrelevant. The proximity of the hands to the muzzle is.
The point remains. If you're 'that' afraid of having your hand anywhere near the muzzle, then my deductive reasoning tells me you'd be terrified to fire a shouldered flintlock.
Masculinity has nothing to do with it. You described a fear of escaping gases and particles, I just extrapolated upon that.
No, he lost a finger because he jerked a rifle through the brush by the muzzle and violated rule #1. Has NOTHING to do with the carry method.squach lost a finger carrying a loaded rifle muzzle first over his shoulder thru brush
Same thing could've happened with an other carry method.
No, he lost a finger because he jerked a rifle through the brush by the muzzle and violated rule #1. Has NOTHING to do with the carry method.
.
BS. It proves nothing, except that "it" happens when people aren't paying attention. It is NOT inherently more dangerous than any other method. This singular incident is exactly that and statistically insignificant....it proves that African carry has more inherent risk than other carry methods.
So would staying home away from all the dangers one might encounter in the real world.Other methods of carrying would have prevented it.
I believe that is what Craig is trying to tell you that over the shoulder carry of a rifle and especially a 4 1/2 foot long Kentucky rifle, is perfectly safe in the right situation, through an open field with no one in front of you.
It goes without saying that you keep your frickin hand away from the muzzle at all times.
Exactly! You don't go crawling under low hanging trees with your rifle over your shoulder any more than you would ford a chest deep creek with it hanging down by your side. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
.Has NOTHING to do with the carry method
Part of the firing mechanism got snagged.
Other methods of carrying would have prevented it.
So, YES, the method of carry has A LOT to do with it.
A surgeon acquaintance of my fathers was standing around talking, during a break in black powder hunting season, leaning on his smoke pole, when he put a .58 caliber ball through both hands.