Ruger SR Series...

[JR47]

Read what I was addressing. I was specifically addressing the comment about comparison to S&W 3rd Gen in law enforcement.

Below is your original statement.

That may not be the case with SR series. Agency price for Glock may be cheaper than what you might pay for an SR series

Sir, I simply followed what you wrote. THAT is what you posted. Again, you and I cannot compare the "agency price" of a Glock to the "consumer price" of an SR series for any meaningful reason. You specifically used the SR, and NOT a "third-generation S&W".

No. Unless SR series have a DA/SA trigger, which it does not.

"Older S&W guns" also did not have a frame mounted lever, which common doctrine of use is nothing even remotely close to slide mounted levers.

Again, the question was one of the use of a safety, and a magazine disconnect. Not of DA/SA triggers, trigger pulls, or whether it was mounted on the frame, or the slide. "Common doctrine of use" is NOT a nationally defined term. In this case, it's apparently whatever you are familiar with.

During the time frame referenced, several large agencies issued, and/or permitted the use of the 1911A1 platform. SWAT, the Texas Rangers, and several State Police agencies in the Mid-West WERE "major" agencies. To them, the training associated with the 1911A1 WAS their common doctrine of use.

Plenty of people have shot themselves with guns with an additional thumb lever stuck on them too.

Yet, the claim advanced here (not necessarily by you in particular) is that the use of a safety will somehow PREVENT the gun from coming into play because the safety was overlooked. With the safety available, and in use, as taught by those departments requiring them, failure to use it, and having an ND is reduced. All that prevents a gun with other types of safety from firing (in the case of the Glock, especially) is a finger on the trigger, or anything on that trigger. Like a strap, or a part of the holster.

If the thumb lever type manual firing inhibitor only has benefits, I am pretty sure every plastic frame striker pistols would come with one, since manufacturing cost of sticking one on it is insignificant, and every agencies would be ordering pistols with it.

Glock refused to add safety levers to their product when asked to do so. The guns were designed, and accepted, for use by the Austrian military, and several other European services. You bought what he made, or went to another manufacturer, at a higher price. Note that it took until the FOURTH generation for Glock to add the back-strap option. I believe that this was to bolster sagging sales to America PDs.

Apparently, S&W, with their M&P, thinks enough of safeties to make them an option. Despite the additional cost incurred.

Did I claim any of that?

No, you didn't. However, other than that which was quoted, I wasn't specifically answering you. This is a conversation, and I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the matter.

 

[TestPilot]

Again, the question was one of the use of a safety, and a magazine disconnect. Not of DA/SA triggers, trigger pulls, or whether it was mounted on the frame, or the slide. "Common doctrine of use" is NOT a nationally defined term. In this case, it's apparently whatever you are familiar with.

Each departments do have a written doctrine of use. And, for the most part, way to operate a Glock or M&P does not vary much.

No. It is based on common training methods used by institutions, not what I am or am not familiar with.

During the time frame referenced, several large agencies issued, and/or permitted the use of the 1911A1 platform. SWAT, the Texas Rangers, and several State Police agencies in the Mid-West WERE "major" agencies. To them, the training associated with the 1911A1 WAS their common doctrine of use.

SR series does not have a 1911 trigger. Also, manipulations are not equal. For example, you always need to flip the thumb switch down for a chamber check with a 1911. I do not believe that is the case with SR.

Do not think departments can just cut and paste 1911 training program for SR training program then expect it to work.

Apparently, S&W, with their M&P, thinks enough of safeties to make them an option. Despite the additional cost incurred.

Yet, agencies that order ones with the additional thumb levers are in the absolute minority.

This is not to say that ones without it are absolutely better. I am just providing evidence that the claim that ones with one is generally considered better is false.

 

[wunderkind]

The SR40c I got to test drive was awesome. I've never shot a .40 that well before, and that's after 14 yrs of issued G22's/G23's and a personally owned G27.
If the decision to Go Glock wasn't made for me at work, I'd have to think real hard about picking up a SR40c...the safety stuff didn't get it my way, the grip felt like it was made for me, and the barrel's traditional rifling means there's no need to pony up for an aftermarket barrel for lead bullets.

 

[mavracer]

Agency price for Glock may be cheaper than what you might pay for an SR series, and Ruger's capacity to match such price agency sales wise is questionable.

Is it Ruger's capacity or desire?
It would seem to me better to sell 100% of your guns for profit than giving 1/2 of them away to bolster your brand, since Ruger is well established.

 

[JR47]

What happened to the comment about the Glock vs. Ruger price?

Each departments do have a written doctrine of use. And, for the most part, way to operate a Glock or M&P does not vary much.

No. It is based on common training methods used by institutions, not what I am or am not familiar with.Quote:

Then I'm sure that you wouldn't mind posting the national standards for departments and institutions. Just a web address would be fine. IF they are actually national standards, they should be virtually the same.

SR series does not have a 1911 trigger. Also, manipulations are not equal. For example, you always need to flip the thumb switch down for a chamber check with a 1911. I do not believe that is the case with SR.

Do not think departments can just cut and paste 1911 training program for SR training program then expect it to work.

Are you actually serious with that remark? I pointed out that many departments have, or had, training standards for the 1911A1. It was in reference to your commentary on standards of use doctrine. It has NOTHING to do with the SR series of Ruger. Much like the attempt to reference 3rd Generation S&W semi-autos, while calling them SR series Rugers, you seem to mix and match, not describing what is actually talked about.

Yet, agencies that order ones with the additional thumb levers are in the absolute minority.

This is not to say that ones without it are absolutely better. I am just providing evidence that the claim that ones with one is generally considered better is false.

I might take the time here to mention that, not too long ago, the standards of use doctrine were for revolvers. The preponderance of institutional memory, and experience, were with that style of weapon. All of the issues that you describe were in full force then, as well. Yet, today, just thirty years later, it is unthinkable to arm a department with revolvers.

Yet, it was from that absolute minority that today's standards grew.

To be quite frank, nobody seems to think that pistols with a safety are considered better or worse. My comments are directed towards the fact that nobody has actually made a telling point against the incorporation of a safety, unless they believe that today's people are somehow too stupid to train.

The nomenclature of the M16 rifle was markedly different than that of the M14 it replaced, often with little more than a general familiarization, and out into the field. If one can do that with troops in battle, then training pistol users to add a single step with a mechanical safety is child's play.

Are you stating that LEOs aren't capable of learning, or is it that the departments are unwilling to train it's officers to a competent standard?

Understand that this isn't meant to be a fight. You have proven capable of making cogent comments. I would enjoy hearing more from someone who understands why they believe what they do.

 

[Ed Ames]

Then I'm sure that you wouldn't mind posting the national standards for departments and institutions.

He never said anything about national standards.

He said that the common doctrine of use for slide vs frame mounted safeties was different. That doesn't mean there is some national standard, it means that the prevailing (common) training (doctrine) is different.

Commonly, instructors teach riding frame mounted safeties with the thumb. That is impossible with a slide mounted safety. Therefore the doctrines must be different.

 

[TestPilot]

I might take the time here to mention that, not too long ago, the standards of use doctrine were for revolvers. The preponderance of institutional memory, and experience, were with that style of weapon. All of the issues that you describe were in full force then, as well. Yet, today, just thirty years later, it is unthinkable to arm a department with revolvers.

Yet, it was from that absolute minority that today's standards grew.

First, modern 15~19 shot self-loaders can do what revolvers cannot. There is nothing what so ever a SR9 can do, combat performace wise, that M&P or Glock cannot.

Second, the actual trend indicated by history is that thumb switch pistols have gone from majority to minority.

...
To be quite frank, nobody seems to think that pistols with a safety are considered better or worse. My comments are directed towards the fact that nobody has actually made a telling point against the incorporation of a safety, unless they believe that today's people are somehow too stupid to train.

More things to operate, more possibility of error associated with the additional manipulation.

That has nothing to do with being stupid or smarter.

Some think that risk of error is worth it, and some do not think it is worth it. That's it.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

uring the time frame referenced, several large agencies issued, and/or permitted the use of the 1911A1 platform. SWAT, the Texas Rangers, and several State Police agencies in the Mid-West WERE "major" agencies. To them, the training associated with the 1911A1 WAS their common doctrine of use.

Just for clarification, the 1911 has never been the official duty firearm issued to Texas Rangers.

The Rangers have progressed from S&W .357 revolvers to a choice of Sig 226 in 9mm or Sig 220 in .45 to the Sig 226 in .357 sig.

Of course, every ranger I know carries a 1911... in custom leather. It's kind of a thing with them. Nice folks.