Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Outlaw75, Jun 20, 2020.
If it is actually unloaded it won’t, but plenty of people have said “I always unload so it isn’t a problem” and proceeded to put a hole they didn’t mean to into something/someone.
Yes, but you can't access the sear lever without locking the slide back. I may be wrong, but an ND would be pretty much impossible at that point. Hence the reason for my confusion.
That’s the real difference. If you have a pistol that requires dry firing, and you make a mistake, your mistake can have consequences. If your pistol can be field stripped without dry firing, you can avoid that risk.
I don’t think the gun will come to any harm if you decide to take the risk anyway, but, again, if you make a mistake there’s a good chance something/someone will be harmed.
edit: correcting the autocorrect
Pull the trigger if you want. S&W just gave you another option in the event you don't want to pull the trigger to disassemble your gun.
If you shoot something disassembling a Glock, you can only blame yourself tor failing to ensure the mag was removed and the chamber was empty.
With the S&W, if you shoot something when disassembling your S&W, you can not only blame yourself for failing to ensure the mag was removed and the chamber was empty, but you can also blame yourself for choosing to ignore a safety feature the manufacturer gave you to make disassembly safer.
Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.
If you didn't need to access the lever, you wouldn't need to lock the slide back prior to disassembly...which would make the chance of a ND > 0
Because the need to dry-fire for disassembly is a common criticism of Glock. I'll admit a moment of queasy every time. . .
If you can't clear a pistol safely, you shouldn't have one. ''Dry fire for disassembly'' has been a completely ignorant data point for many years. If a live round pops out of any pistol during disassembly, you done screwed up. Don't blame the pistol.
Reminds me of when Glock was first trying to break into the LE market. Many early adopters were experiencing NDs during the disassembly process. It got so common that Glock formed teams of trainers to go out to departments adoption their pistols to run classes for the officers to prevent bad PR and possible lawsuits.
This reminds me of officers who would disassemble their pistols and discover that there was a round in the barrel when they removed it from the slide
In what sense is it “ignorant”? Are you saying you don’t really need to dry fire?
I don’t think it’s really a data driven concern so much as a logical one. Human mistake+dry fire=bad outcome. Logically, you want to eliminate “bad outcome” as a possibility you must eliminate either human mistakes or dry firing. People have been trying to eliminate human mistakes for as long as people have existed, and have clearly failed, so any answer that counts on eliminating human mistakes is suspect.
You can argue that you consider the risk a fair trade off to get a less expensive weapon, or that you are willing to pay more for extra parts to eliminate it, but either way it‘s more a logic point than a data point.
Field stripping a classic Sig is a great example. To throw the take down lever remove the slide you have to lock the slide open, this the user is forced to clear the weapon because of the way it’s designed.
Glock could have designed their pistol to remove the requirement to pull the trigger for disassembly, but they chose not to. The designer’s choice forces the end user to reliably do the right thing to avoid a ND. Can most people do this most of the time, yes. Some people are going to make mistakes though, and the design doesn’t prevent that.
You are looking at it as a matter of competence. “If someone can’t...they have no business interacting with....”
But for other people it isn’t about competence, it’s about possibility and severity. Of course someone can clear a firearm, they can do it 10,000 times without a single failure. People can and should go their entire life without making that mistake. But if a mistake is possible, and the severity is high, that’s a risk. It will continue to be a risk no matter how competent the users are.
I’ll give you an example: the fuel fillers on cars are sized to prevent filling your tanks the wrong type of fuel. It’s not perfect but it eliminates some errors. The fuel fillers on airplanes do not have those protections in place. But everyone involved in fueling airplanes is trained, and the incompetent ones are filtered out quickly, so it’s generally not a problem.
Except when it is. Every few years a plane crashes because a chain of errors added up to plane with full tanks but just enough usable fuel to get off the ground. If the fuel fillers on airplanes were keyed, that type of error would be much less likely.
Same sort of things apply to guns. There are guns that require the safety to be disengaged to unload, and some people recognize that as a a risk and don’t like it. There are guns that require dry firing to field strip and some people recognize it as a risk and don’t like it. There are guns that require pulling the trigger while a round is chambered to put them in their designed carry configuration, and some people recognize that as a risk and don’t like it. All of those things are perfectly fine if done correctly, but if they can be eliminated with a different design without causing other problems, why wouldn’t you do that?
If your post has been removed, please evaluate your future posts to stay away from drifting into impugning users
That's completely unacceptable.
And those hammer fire gun with the decockers . I remember where an officer decocked his Sig, removed the mag and proceeded to shoot a hole through the table.
I can tell you this. I have carried, fired and cleaned many guns over the years. I’ve carried Glocks for the last 18 years. Never once have I pulled the trigger without checking to see it the chamber was cleared, unless I was firing the gun. Yes people make mistakes. But for the ones that forget to clear the chamber and end up shooting someone, or something important, they made more then one mistake.
The rules are simple. Drop the mag. Clear the chamber. Point in safe direction and pull the trigger.
But we still see people get all worked up about guns that have to be dry fired vs those that don’t, to disassemble.
I feel that it’s about the same as those that get worked up over manual safeties on striker fire guns.
The answer is simple for both. There are many different guns on the market. Pick the one that fits your needs and skill sets.
I own several Polymer frame striker fire guns, three of which are M&Ps. Having to have to move the sear lever down does insure that you remove the magazine and pull the slide to the rear. But to me, it just one more part to break on a gun. Oh! Don’t try and put the slide back on the gun if the sear lever gets bumped back up while cleaning.
Now don’t think that I’m putting down the M&P. It happens to be my favorite polymer frame striker fire pistol.
Here are just some of the polymer frame striker fire pistols I own.
Having a gun that I have to decock before It can be disassembled is no big deal for me. For some people this is scary, for some it’s just a concern, and for others it’s a dislike. But for what ever reason, if a gun that has to be decocked is not for you, just but one that doesn’t require it.
I find it interesting to look at who gets worked up.
Look at this thread: Someone asked what it was for. That was answered with a simple explanation of why the feature exists. Nobody was worked up. Nobody even said it was a good feature, just “here’s the reasoning behind it, and some people like it, others don’t consider it important.”
Then people started coming in to say things like “anyone who would value that feature shouldn’t own guns”, which sounds pretty worked up. It clearly offends some people that the feature exists.
For the record, I’ve owned guns that require dry firing, and I’ve owned guns that don’t. I have never especially cared one way or the other, but I do recognize that eliminating the need to dry fire objectively removes a risk. Do I think I will make a mistake? No, of course not, nobody does. Do I think that I’m better off if other people’s guns have that feature? Well yeah I’ve been to enough public shooting ranges to know that my biggest exposure to gun risk is not that I’m likely to make mistakes, but that other people are likely to make mistakes that impact me.
I do not agree. I have never felt at risk by any weapon I have owned where pulling the trigger was required. A round cannot teleport into a chamber. Clear a weapon right, take apart. Pulling the trigger makes no difference if the chamber is empty.
Shrug. As I said, “some people recognize it as a risk and don’t like it.” That ‘some’ do would imply that others don’t. You’re one of the others. No big deal.
Some where made like that as other have said, But it will not hurt the firearm if you choose to pull the trigger to take the slide off. I am used to doing that way as i started out with glocks. So i just do the same practice for the M&P's. I would not worry about hurting anything in the pistol. I have been doing for a long time with my 1.0 M&Ps.
Separate names with a comma.