Muzzle discipline in BAND OF BROTHERS

Status
Not open for further replies.
MTO said:
I don't recall whether it was depicted in the miniseries, but Ambrose's book recounted that one of the lieutenants was shot badly by a nervous sentry (while they were in Holland, I think), and during the Battle of the Bulge, one paratrooper ND'ed himself in the femoral artery with a captured trophy Luger. I would think that a proper mindset backed by the four rules that would make you mindful of where your muzzle is pointed would make you think twice before sticking a loaded pistol in your trousers.
Click to expand...

Both incidents were in the miniseries.
 
I think it illustrates how we all must enforce all of the rules, all of the time, regardless of rank. I told my seven year-old: "If you see someone breaking the rules, tell them, I don't care how old they are."

There are two ways to look at this:

There is a reason there are four rules. You have to break all four of them for something bad to happen, right?

OR

It doesn't matter how they did it in WWII, it doesn't matter how your uncle who was a marine in Vietnam did it, it doesn't matter if I was in Impact three days ago and one of the staff flagged me with an X-frame S&W. We all are responsible for enforcing all of the rules all of the time. If muzzle discipline is better now than it was in WWII, we can take credit for better education in general, better forces, better equipment, better training, and the fact that all levels of training and discipline are better now than then, or even during the first Gulf War. We are responsible for making it a better force than our fathers and grandfathers had.

When I see safety violations, it depends on how severe they were. If it was small, I bring it up in the AAR. "I saw a few soldiers sweeping with their muzzles." I also make sure I say something when I DIDN'T see any safety violations. If it's someone who significantly outranks me, I will do it in private. If it's a legitimate situation where they were just doing a lot of things at once, getting in or out of a vehicle, something like that, I pull them aside and tell them. "Man, you flagged me with your muzzle, just wanted to make sure you know." If it's someone who's just effing off, and it's not the first time I've warned them, I will let them have it in public. HARD.
 
Awhile back I posted the question about when did trigger finger forward along the frame become a taught safety practice. The consensus was around 1980.
So far no answers from WWII or Korean veterans.
 
WWII was a different time. Everything I've read indicated that they were much more lax about what we'd consider to be fundamental safety assumptions like "keep your finger out of the trigger guard" and "don't sweep with your muzzle."

Read thought GI accounts of the war and you'll run into references to accidental shootings in training, in base camp, and sometimes in combat.

Jeff Cooper was a WWII Marine vet but he didn't really codify and publicize his "Four Rules of Fireams Safety" until after the war. And his Four Rules were seen as kind of revolutionary at the time in that they explicity stated what was supposed to be "common sense" up until then.

As to the fingers outside the trigger guards, that's also a more modern thing. Heck, even U.S. cops routinely put their fingers on the trigger pretty much whenever the gun was out of the holster up until the 80's or so.
 
I can think of a not so clever term to describe much of the observations here.

Armchair quarterbacking.

Not only was WWII a different time but the mid 1900s were a different time where common sense ruled and lawyers were acually allowed to defend the innocent. There were not three thousand and twenty four people on hand to judge what went wrong and right and who was responsible for it all AFTER THE FACT.

If I had 20/20 into the future none of this would be a problem for the people who love to be able to see 20/20 into the past.

This is a thread that is parallel to the threads about muzzle discipline in a gun store. It is a good theory but it just is not going to happen. There is too much going to on and the practicality behind it is a waste of time.

It is not that muzzle discipline takes a back seat. There are bigger things going on than firearms safety in the middle of a war zone. This might be revolutionary to some and I will probably make a few enemies here but muzzle discipline is not the end all be all of firearms safety as a whole lot of green firearms enthusiasts just love to point out all the time such as: "This total A Hole swept me at the gun shop, man I told him..." or better yet "the muzzle was pointed up at the sky, if that gun had gone off the bullet could have come down and killed someones puppy..." Keep your finger off the trigger and your muzzle pointed away if that is the practical thing to do.
 
It also might be noted that the M-1 Garand safety is inside the trigger guard.

That is where I would keep my finger in combat too.
You have to have your finger in the trigger guard to take the safety off in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But if you are being shot at, running, on patrol, exhausted, tired, dirty, and in an all out war, muzzle safety is not the most important thing on your mind, common sense is. In boot camp, (60's era) you're taught basic safety on the range but hitting the target was the major objective.
 
So, earlthegoat2, you think there are times it's ok that the staff of a gun store points a gun at you? What IS the most important thing at that time? Would you care to delineate your set of asterisks for when it's ok to throw out the safety rules?

In my house, on ANY range or field of fire I am on, make no mistake. The four safety rules are absolutely the be all end all of firearms handling.
 
Original posters questions:
Was muzzle discipline taught, emphasized and enforced in WWII combat areas? Or, is this the typical hollywood goof.

Any WWII or Korea vets who can speak to the question? (I include Korea, b/c much of our Korea tactics were right out of WWII).

I for one would love to hear from a veteran who was there, not likely as they are disappearing fast :(and probably not online.
 
Thanks, Harve. Anyone know a WWII or Korea vet? I have two in my congregation, but one was in the Navy (USS Idaho) and the other...well, with all due respect, I'm never sure how much of his stories are pure malarky and how much are true. I don't just mean his war stories, either...

Seriously, if you ever have the chance to sit down with the old timers and listen (talk less; listen more), buy 'em lunch or breakfast and do it.
Go to a Veteran's Hospital or nursing home. Find a lonely man in the lobby and buy him a cup of coffee. Even if they don't tell combat stories, just let 'em know they are appreciated.

And, if you get an answer to the original questions, post 'em here.

Thanks,
Q
 
My dad was in the 506th all the way thru.

In teaching my brother and me about handling firearms muzzle discipline was foremost.

Again, as a combat vet, my experience was that people got corrected pretty fast.
Some things get almost instinctual with the proper atitude.
If you are a liability it will be brought to your attention.

Actual shootings were rare and generally involved somebody royally screwing up.
 
Obsession with gun safety and muzzle discipline is more of a recent (last 20-30 years with modern techniques of firearms, civil liability, lawsuits, and professional awareness basically MANDATING such things for accident prevention, etc.
Click to expand...

Maybe where you live. I started shooting in 1956--53 years ago--and one bad muzzle sweep at a military academy range or in the armory would result in disciplinary action, and a second would get you expelled.

Nothing about civil liability or lawsuits--the idea was to prevent people from getting killed.

I wouldn't characterize it as "obsession."
 
I don't know about you guys but if I'm being shot at by Nazi's, I might just slip up and use my gun to point at something. Hell, I may even leave my trigger finger on the trigger!
 
Just spoke to my father-in-law regarding the topic, and he stated that during training and qualification ON THE RANGE in basic, safety, muzzle control, and finger off the trigger , etc WERE the norm, 1n 1944. Movement of troops in basic was by marching, with gun slung, and unoaded. No "at the ready" carry, etc. Infantry troops (which he was not) probably got patrol techniques instruction and packed guns at the ready, practicing assaults, ambushes, etc, but I have no info on those gunhandling rules. He did say that in theater, the handling of weapons was a lot more serious, in that they were loaded and ready, and transported in hand or on vehicles a lot, but unless someone was OBVIOUSLY reckless, not a big deal was made...they didn't chastise each other constantly over gun handling. I would have to think anyone recklessly aiming his weapon at other guys would result in the other guys getting in the fools face quickly and beating him up. For the record, while in the Phillipines, my dad tried to kill a sergeant after the sergeant sent him out on an observation patrol with a BAR with no firing pin. The two man patrol spotted some high ranking Japanese officers come out of a cave on the side of a mountain in the Phillipines. When they went to take a shot, the BAR malfunctioned, and was field stripped on the spot. When my dad found the gun was without a firing pin, he knew the sergeant was trying to get him killed (they had had differences in the past). My dad said he didn't remember what he did next, but he remembered "seeing red" all the way back to camp, and was told he grabbed an M1 (rifle) out of a rack, and chased the sergeant and tried to kill him, emptying the Garand. When he was empty, guys held him down, and he was arrested and courtmartialed. Result? The sergeant admitted doing it on purpose, was busted to corporal, and my dad lost two months pay (this was typical "punsishment" in theater, war in the Phillipines, 1943-1945). There was a war to fight, and these little "incidents" were probably not that uncommon to men serving in the jungle for 2.5 years. (A little off topic, but you might see how "muzzle discipline" wasn't even mentioned in my dad's attack on the NCO..........)
 
How about "fragging"? Which is one soldier throwing a live and armed grenade or, more commonly, a disarmed grenade into an area where a target fellow soldier or soldiers is located. Or one soldier intentionally shooting another soldier when the opportunity presents itself. I don't know how common this was during the WWII European campaign but I know some of it did happen. I do know of a fragging that occured in Kuwait during Gulf 1 that killed one soldier. I read about an intentional dud fragging that occured in Vietnam. Just intended to scare the victim on a serious level. My guess is this stuff would be pretty common in the intense combat environment that went on and on month after month. I don't think sweeping with a weapon would be much of a concern during the extended combat that is portrayed in BOB. Just my .2 cents. I've never been there.
 
I do remember hearing about troops complaing about being flagged by shoulder holstered guns, but failed to be concerned about a drop leg holster gun still pointing at them while the person was sitting down. It is definatly taught today.

My grandpa was in the army in the 40's, I will try to remember to ask him about this tomorrow for you all
 
I was in the Navy during Vietnam. Nothing was ever said about muzzle discipline at any time we were handling small arms that I remember, even when I was receiving one-on-one training with the .45. The only thing I remember is being told to keep the muzzle downrange when on the range.

Maybe some other Vietnam vets who were there can tell us more.
 
My Grandfather was a Marine Corps WW1 vet. I don't remember his muzzle discipline but he could field strip a Springfield '03 and put it back together in a jiffy. My father a WW2 era enlistee and a Korean War Vet in the Marine Corps definitely understood and enforced muzzle discipline. Myself an eightees enlisted Marine and Desert Shield/Storm vet was trained in muzzle discipline and can testify that muzzle discipline was practiced. My uncle a Vietnam Veteran who served in the US Army checks/double checks a firearm to ensure that is unloaded and then sweeps the muzzle across the room and everything in it. Maybe it breaks down to the individual branch, unit, officer, noncommissioned officer and private?
 
I went through USMC basic in 1962. all our weapons were M1's, BAR, WWII and Korean vintage equipment. We were not issued "modern" .308 rifles until after Vietnam started, (the Corp were always the last branch to be upgraded. A good example is while the Army and Air Force flew to Vietnam we had the pleasure of going on WWII troop ships).
Range safety was always strictly enforced but when we ended up in our first actions common sense took over. Our weapons were part of us, we slept with them, ate with them, cleaned them, and just about everything else. Sometimes they were loaded and sometimes they weren't, but most of the time they were locked-n-loaded. Cleaning was the biggest chore we did, mainly because of the environment, it was either wet or hot with high humidity, and no matter how tired, dirty, or lazy you were you kept your weapons clean. As an 0300 grunt our days were always cya days and wondering where we were going or doing next.
As far as muzzle safety, no it wasn't the most important issue we thought about, we had a lot of other things to think about.
 
In the late 1950's I attended a military high school. That school was staffed with several regular army enlisted men and officers to train us. A Korean war vet trained us in handling firearms. One element of the training was viewing the 1945 training film "The late company B". That film presents a number of examples of careless weapon handling that could lead to death. The film certainly shows that the Army was concerned about accidents with firearms and was training for safety.

Our trainers did not talk in terms of the four rules, but they did train muzzle pointing awareness. Mostly, it was keep your muzzle up in the air or pointed down at the ground or toward "the enemy" (down range).

Because the M-1 safety was designed to move from outside the trigger guard (ready to fire) away from the muzzle (rearward) to inside the guard (on safety) it would not be bad discipline to keep your finger inside the guard if the rifle was in safe. In that position a quick thrust forward would make the rifle ready to fire and firing would begin with rearward movement of the finger.

There may have been more trust of safeties in those days (I never heard of a properly maintained M-1 having a failure of the safety).

In the "Band of Brothers" they do show an example of careless handling of a firearm leading to death. In this case a Luger is handled by two soldiers without clearing and it fires while one of them is putting it away.
 
Last edited:
Interesting question! I sent it to my uncle & will post his answer if possible. He served in an SP field artillery unit in the ETO 1944-45.

As for me, I'm like many other posters here, in that I served in the military in a more modern era (1981-2005) & not in combat. Among other things, I ran security on a nuke weapons site in Germany & emphasized muzzle control a LOT. . .but it was also obvious that it was more than my soldiers had experienced before :) We got a lot of "up & downrange" and "finger off the trigger" on the range, but units, soldiers & their leaders varied greatly when not in a range environment.

In my environment, we had a German entry controller wound himself seriously while "clearing" his P1 (aka P38). The German troops also remembered very well that they had an MG-3 (aka MG42) ND'ed into a platoon formation a couple of years before I got to that unit in '83, and 1-2 killed and 2-3 wounded in the incident. A fellow officer, serving on a US-Italian nuke site, lost a US soldier killed by an Italian entry controller's ND (fast-draw practice gone wrong).

In other words, my experience was (a) modern, and (b) applied in an environment where ND was a far bigger threat than hostile action by terrorists, etc.

With all that said, I observed that well-disciplined units, especially combat arms units, had a higher standard of safe weapon handling that went along with their obviously high comfort level with the weapons. I would bet that a similar dynamic shaped the combat troops of WWII, in that they would use their weapons with great familiarity if experienced and well-trained in a good unit. Hastily-trained replacements were notorious in that war (and I think in every war) for getting themselves/others hurt in every possible way, however. What I was trying to do in my unit was to get my people accustomed to safe but competent/confident weapon handling in peacetime, rather than simply waiting for the Grim Reaper to teach us the hard way if we ever went to war.

One poster questioned the use of safety catches while on patrol. . . .I've read a bazillion memoirs (I'm a history type & taught it at USMA for 6 yrs), and lots of evidence indicates that the guy(s) in the very forefront make their own decisions about that, but that anyone not in extreme threat of immediate, close-range contact with the enemy tended to keep his weapon on safe. Too much chance of AD otherwise.

Like others, though, I look forward to anything we may hear from actual combat vets of the WWII era.
 
I was in the Army in the mid 1990s and trigger discpiline was more or less an afterthought. Muzzle discipline was only enforced on ranges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Here , for you guys bashing TOM GREEN and being Canadian !
Replies
5
Views
720
sturmruger
sturmruger
K
  • Locked
Super Bowl battle is dwarfed by what band of brothers faces.
Replies
12
Views
1K
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
Battle of the Bulge Re-Enactment
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mark Tyson
M
S
  • Locked
Brothers-in-Cover-up
Replies
0
Views
362
Shadowman
S
O
  • Locked
How Two People Researching A TV Show Got in a Gunfight (long)
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Monte Harrison
M
Back
Top