Will Striker Fired Pistols w/ Short and Light Triggers Cause More Acc Discharges ?

[Straight Shooters]

When I read that even the LA Sheriffs Police themselves have had a significant increase in NDs when they switched over to striker fired guns I stopped believing this is a lack of training problem.

Here are some of the most highly trained LE professionals out there, who have received much more extensive training than the average Joe to "keep their finger off the trigger" etc, and it's still happening to them.

The article mentions they are giving the officers additional training but cost is potentially limiting the amount they can provide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some quotes from the LA Times article:

"Rise in Negligent Discharges Accompanies LASA Transition to Striker Fired Pistol"
Posted by Bob Owens on June 14, 2015 at 5:25 pm

"Cindy Chang of the L.A. Times has noted that the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department (LASD) is experiencing some “training scars” as they transition from double-action/single-action Beretta 92s to striker-fired Smith & Wesson M&Ps, with their number of negligent discharges more than doubling from 12 to 30.

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have more than doubled in two years, endangering bystanders and occasionally injuring deputies. The jump coincides with the department’s move to a new handgun that lacks a safety lever and requires less pressure to pull the trigger.

But the sharp increase in accidental discharges has prompted an investigation by the Sheriff’s Department’s new inspector general. Critics say this type of semiautomatic, which is widespread in law enforcement and includes the Glock used by many agencies, is too easy to misfire.

With striker-fired guns, officers are trained to keep their fingers straight along the frame of the pistol until the last possible second… a theory that works well in training, but which has failed time and again under stress, as the LASD and other departments nationwide have noted."

 

[Straight Shooters]

And here is another article that showed how common it is for highly experienced and trained LA police officers to STILL put their finger on the trigger when under stress, even when they've been trained not to do so.

Additionally the article states that NO AMOUNT of additional training will eliminate the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wrong Gun: Why The Most Popular Gun for Law Enforcement Is a Mistake"

Posted by Bob Owens on May 8, 2015 at 9:01 am

"The Los Angeles Times has published an editorial this morning that is sure to cause some uncomfortable conversations (and more than a little denial) in law enforcement agencies around the country:

The underlying problem with these (Glock) pistols is a short trigger pull and the lack of an external safety. In real-world encounters, a short trigger pull can be lethal, in part because a significant percentage of law enforcement officers — some experts say as high as 20% — put their finger on the trigger of their weapons when under stress.

According to firearms trainers, most officers are completely unaware of their tendency to do this and have a hard time believing it, even when they’re shown video evidence from training exercises.

For more than 35 years, officer-involved accidental discharges with Glocks and Glock-like weapons have been blamed on a lack of training or negligence on the part of the individual cops. What critics should be addressing instead is the brutal reality that short trigger pulls and natural human reflexes are a deadly combination.

As the comments to the article clearly show, people are getting spun-up about the article, without really understanding it… or maybe they are simply in denial.

Mechanically, Glocks and similar pistols are incredibly solid and reliable designs. What they aren’t is forgiving.

Utterly predictable and normal human physiological responses (startle response, symmetric sympathetic response, etc) and psychological mistakes (forgetting the check the chamber on a design that requires the trigger to be pulled for disassembly) have repeatedly lead to hundreds, if not thousands of negligent discharges. Many of those have been fatal.

Agencies that switch from other pistol designs to Glocks (and to a lesser extent, other short trigger pull, no external safety guns) typically see their number of negligent discharges soar.

Agencies that switch away from Glocks to more forgiving designs typically see their negligent discharges decrease.

There has been institutional resistance to admitting that Glocks and similar designs are not good guns for law enforcement officers, and for each and every negligent discharge, there is a rush to blame the individual officer and the lack of training time most agencies have with their firearms.

That’s all well and good… and utterly irrelevant.

It has been proven time and again that NO AMOUNT of training will eliminate the issue. In one videotaped training session after another, about 20% of officers end up putting their fingers on the trigger of their guns when they shouldn’t, and most of them don’t even realize it, and are stunned when they are shown the undeniable truth in the video.

According to experts I interviewed who have trained tens of thousands of police officers this is consistent, regardless of the level of training.

We can continue to deny that “humans are gonna be human,” or we can accept that people will make mistakes and switch to designs that have longer first-shot trigger pulls which are more forgiving.

DA/SA handguns like the Sig Sauer “P”-series, the Beretta 9 series and PX4 series, CZs, Smith & Wesson’s metal-frame semis,Ruger’s SR series, etc. can be shot just as fast and accurately as any short trigger pull design (the claim that the long double-action first pull creates misses is a myth), and that longer first-pull requires more deliberate action and is far more forgiving of our physiological and psychological mistakes.

Glock has an incredible marketing machine and customer support and a solid design that works exactly as designed, each and every time.

Unfortunately, until they start manufacturing failure-proof people, Glocks and other short trigger pull guns are going to be a bad choice for professions where high stress is a constant."

---------------------------------------

And NO, I am NOT a Glock hater.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

1. There is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge, only negligent discharges.

You're right -- unless the discharge is due to a mechanical failure of the weapon. (I've had that happen ONCE in many, many tens of thousands of rounds fired over the past 20 years or so.) But, happily or unhappily, humans aren't machines. Under stress, when tired, when hurt, when frightened, or when distracted or not focusing on the task at hand -- all of which can happen at the same time -- people will continue to make mistakes. And, whether you call it an "accident" or a "negligent" discharge, the result is the same -- an unintended action that can cause pain or have very negative consequence.

Training -- and, maybe, extra learned steps in a gun handing routine -- can help. The training, however, may have to be specific to the weapon being used. How do we learn to function better under stress or to be more "mindful" when we should be? Flight simulators help pilots to do that, but there are few training equivalents for firearm users that we can access or afford.

While it's not always an option, devices on (or later added to) the weapon can make unintended discharges less likely, if used properly. Proper use becomes a training issue.

We should be talking about how best to make the changes that will us more safe, and not focusing on the words used to describe the problem. How do we start?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

...That’s all well and good… and utterly irrelevant.

It has been proven time and again that NO AMOUNT of training will eliminate the issue. In one videotaped training session after another, about 20% of officers end up putting their fingers on the trigger of their guns when they shouldn’t, and most of them don’t even realize it, and are stunned when they are shown the undeniable truth in the video.

According to experts I interviewed who have trained tens of thousands of police officers this is consistent, regardless of the level of training.

No amount of training will eliminate the issue? I disagree. But as I note below other factors may affect outcomes, too.

As a person who spent a number of years years doing training design and delivery for a variety of different jobs and job levels, I know that Just because training hasn't worked to solve a particular problem doesn't mean it can't work. The underlying issue isn't always TRAINING. MOTIVATION can also be a factor.

One of the first practical questions we used to ask when we were developing a remedial training program to address a problem or developing procedures to do a given task or process more effectively was to determine whether those who weren't doing things right COULD do them right if their life depended on.

If the answer was YES, then while training might make it easier for them to do it right, if there was no MOTIVATION to do it right, then training alone wouldn't solve the problem. Sometimes the problem was as simple as a worker's/employee's misunderstanding of what was really expected of them on the job.

From what I've seen, most LEOs don't consider handguns to be their primary tool -- pepper spray, stun guns and/or TASERS are likely to be the weapon of choice, when they have a choice. I would argue that if striker-fired guns seem to be causing problems, then current traning really hasn't addressed the problem properly, or the people taking the training don't really know or care what is really needed. LEOs aren't all as FOCUSED on using their handgun as you might think. Many would rather not.

While my knowledge of police training isn't extensive, I do suspect that officers in most departments -- even those considered to be providing the best training -- really don't get THAT MUCH WEAPONS TRAINING. And certainly not that much WEAPONS SAFETY TRAINING! Ten minutes here, ten minutes there, and little or no refreshment or evaluations, later. (I say these things based on discussions with a number of LEO friends, some retired, some active, and a son who is a State Trooper. I've also talked with an instructor who works with Special Ops troops at Ft. Bragg -- not LEO, but students who are intensely focused on their own effectiveness.)

Even an "extensively-trained" LEO probably doesn't receive as much firearms TRAINING in a year's time as a civilian who spends a couple of days at an off-site school, and I suspect even THOSE off-site civilian classes don't address things like "finger placement" as intensely as they should. Some LEO firearms training is focused on tactics -- how to do what they have to do without getting themselves killed. That is clearly what the simulators are intended to do. All of this training stuff is bundled into a bigger package and called EXTENSIVE FIREARMS TRAINING. It's arguably misleading.

Do these striker-fired weapons need a different type of training than has been provided in the past? Probably -- because they ARE different.

I think some of the experts being cited and quoted may have personal (or professional) agendas that might not be clear to their audience. More safety training -- arguably training of a different nature or with a different focus -- may be needed. That seems more realistic than claiming that no amount of training will do the job.

 

[Straight Shooters]

Interesting point of view Walt, but I think the point of the article could best be summarized as - old habits are very hard for even professionals to change especially when they're under the kind of stressful situations LE officers find themselves in.

I also think the percentage of civilians who "spend a couple of days training at an off-site school" as you mentioned is really tiny. You do make a good case for requiring it though, but watch out for the zealots who will fight any kind of required firearms training an affront to their right to own and possess a gun.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Interesting point of view Walt, but I think the point of the article could best be summarized as - old habits are very hard for even professionals to change especially when they're under the kind of stressful situations LE officers find themselves in.

We agree on your points above. That's also some of the MOTIVATION part of the "change" equation.

Being a cop can be stressful in many different ways -- without regard to the possibility of getting SHOT!! A surprising number of agencies continue to force their people to work rotating shifts, and some LEOs seem permanently sleep-deprived. That affects every aspect of their lives. You'd think the bosses would learn... It takes a very resilient family to survive intact.

I also think the percentage of civilians who "spend a couple of days training at an off-site school" as you mentioned is really tiny.

I agree -- civilians who take such multi-day training are a relatively small part of the shooting population, but if even that "good" (arguably costly) training doesn't address some of the basic "safety" issues, we shouldn't be surprised that various POLICE AGENCIES (which have been under terrific budget pressures for the last 7-10 years) don't address it as it should be addressed, either.

 

[jrdolall]

I guess I am a "zealot" as I am totally opposed to any mandatory training.

Let's say that we decide to require mandatory training to own a firearm or carry a firearm. Who is "in charge" of the training? Who evaluates the training and determines that a person is "qualified"? What do I need to train with? Suppose I get my training using a Glock. Do I then need further training if I use a revolver or a 1911?
While I believe that there is very little substitute for good training, in firearms and everything else, there is absolutely NO workable solution to some mandatory training initiative in the USA.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I guess I am a "zealot" as I am totally opposed to any mandatory training.

Let's say that we decide to require mandatory training to own a firearm or carry a firearm. Who is "in charge" of the training? Who evaluates the training and determines that a person is "qualified"? What do I need to train with? Suppose I get my training using a Glock. Do I then need further training if I use a revolver or a 1911?

While I believe that there is very little substitute for good training, in firearms and everything else, there is absolutely NO workable solution to some mandatory training initiative in the USA.

I wasn't advocating mandatory training, but I'm not sure it's all that bad an idea. Doing it will be harder than talking about it. But, when you say, "there is absolutely NO workable solution to some mandatory training initiative in the USA," others could use that same argument to say there's no way we can have a general concealed carry standard and licensing approach that allows carry across state lines and legal juridictions. But, right now my NC concealed carry permit is recognized by about 27 states, and the number goes up each year.

Here in North Carolina, you must go through roughly 2 days of training (including live fire) and demonstrate a level of proficiency before you can apply for a concealed carry permit. That sort of requirement seems fine -- as the training standards are clear, and addresses the key legal issues associated with the use of lethal force: what is and isn't allowed, where you can carry, what your obligations are as someone licensed to carry concealed, and what the legal ramifications are if you don't follow the rules.

None of that is simple, and while it's not gun-handling training, per se, it is training of a sort, stipulated/defined at the state level that is recognized by other states. I would never have thought that possible a few years ago.

 

[TwinReverb]

First, in response to that article that was quoted, having two different trigger pull weights makes training more complicated. If we're making a gun more forgiving, this works against us. The USAF, for one, mandates round in chamber, hammer back (because you just chambered one and there's no command in the manual of arms to drop the hammer), holstered. And they successfully punish everyone who doesn't follow the safety rules. It's not rocket science.

Still having more than one trigger pull does create more chance of missing in a heated situation. That was proven a long time ago. But that doesn't matter to the argument of whether Glock is good or bad.

Second, the man tries to make Glock out to be evil because they're good at marketing. So what? So is Sig, also a big player in LEO and military sales.

Third, he cries that we can't make people perfect. How's this Glock's fault? How many NDs did the Army have in WW1? WW2? How many NDs did cops have in our country before Glock arrived? It's not a logical argument.

It's like comparing injuries, motorcycle versus car, and deciding that motorcycles are evil because people in an accident on a motorcycle are more likely to be severely injured than those driving cars. Even if it looks like it's logical on paper, it's not enough justification to demonize motorcycles.

Bottom line, even if he's right, it makes only 1% difference. So it's not worth fretting about.

 

[X-Rap]

Pretty sure Utah non res. will cover you in at least 36 states, one of which is yours and all you need is a couple hours in a classroom and the rest you can do by mail so training has a minimal amount of relevance.
I get a little cagey when anyone suggests mandatory training will improve our condition as gun owners.

 

[GLOOB]

No amount of training will eliminate the issue? I disagree. But as I note below other factors may affect outcomes, too.

The problem could probably be eliminated with stringent testing, if you could fire or at least temporarily reassign the individuals that fail said testing.

But I also think that the problem might be correctable to a satisfactory degree with the RIGHT training. As I mentioned in a previous thread, this problem could really benefit from the right training equipment. I an thinking electronic training guns with sensors that can detect the position of the trigger finger. And an IR laser diode that can detect if the gun is pointing at a valid target. Run some sims and keep tally.

But let's be honest. The statement is true. In any large population of humans, some are going to be at the ends of the bell curve, and they can't always be fired.

 

[JTQ]

TwinReverb wrote,
The USAF, for one, mandates round in chamber, hammer back (because you just chambered one and there's no command in the manual of arms to drop the hammer), holstered. And they successfully punish everyone who doesn't follow the safety rules. It's not rocket science.

For clarity, are you saying the USAF requires the M9 to be carried with a round chambered, hammer cocked, and holstered?

 

[TwinReverb]

Yes, JTQ, the USAF carries M9, per the manual on the subject, AFMAN 31-229, round chambered and holstered. I'll quote it:

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/afman31-229/afman31-229.pdf

(Keep in mind, individual USAF bases can amend this publication to their liking, but this is the vanilla default.)

"A2.2. Loading.
The person arming must proceed to the clearing zone with the pistol barrel pointed up, slide locked to the rear (open) and decocking/safety lever in the “safe” (down) position (red dot not show-ing). They then must:
A2.2.1. When directed by the clearing barrel attendant, enter the clearing zone and place the muzzle
into the clearing barrel aiming point. Do not place fingers into the trigger guard.
A2.2.2. Visually inspect the pistol to ensure the decocking/safety lever is in the “safe” (down) position (red dot indicator not showing).
A2.2.3. Insert and lock a loaded magazine into the pistol, depress the slide stop, and move the decock-
ing (safety lever) to the “fire” (up) position (red dot showing).
NOTE: When completed, a round ofammunition is present in the chamber. When there is a round in the chamber, the extractor protrudeslaterally (showing red) making it possible to check visually (and to
feel) if there is a round in the chamber without having to retract the slide or remove the magazine to check the number of rounds in the magazine.
A2.2.4. After loading is complete, holster the pistol (fingers off the trigger) and secure the holster flap
or thumb break.
A2.2.5. Do not remove the pistol from the holster except in the line of duty or when clearing it for
turn-in."

So basically when they lock and load for duty, load magazine, send slide forward (chamber round), safety off, holster it.

Does that mean every cop and/or civilian in the world needs to carry like we do? No, do as you wish.

When speaking to several of my friends who carry in line of duty or have in the USAF with the M-9 (because I'm an aircraft mechanic, so I don't have first hand experience with the M-9, but I do with the M-16), the hammer is back when you do this because the slide used to be locked back.

When I go and arm up (like when I've been permitted to store my Glock at the armoury while on base), I've had a clearing barrel attendant assist me before. When they're reading the steps and they get to "ensure safety positioned to safe", I just nod and say "it's a Glock, the safety isn't a lever" and we proceed to the next step. Otherwise my manual of arms is identical to theirs (except my holsters are pressure, not thumb break, usually).

So I can't speak for the rest of the military, but that's how the USAF rolls, and we've had no problem either making people do right (through training) or punishing those who are negligent with their pistols. Last I was in Iraq, the rule from the base commander was that all unintentional discharges, negligent or not (because our weapons were a bit worn out) the person responsible received non-judicial punishment (Article 15), which could include losing rank. We carried M-16s without a round in the chamber, M-9s with.

So at least in the military "universe", we can handle striker fired pistols with short/light trigger pulls. The Glock, at 5.5 lbs, isn't a short or light trigger. It's middle of the road compared to the Remington 1911R1 and the Walther PK380 and other hammer-bearing semi-auto pistols I've shot (their initial trigger pull might be longer/harder due to having to bring the hammer back and then forward, but the subsequent follow-up shots with hammer already back are far lighter than a Glock). Oh, and yeah, the M-9 is lighter (I've shot a rental at the shooting range I am a member of).

 

[JTQ]

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure you understand how the M9 works.

When you ...

ensure the decocking/safety lever is in the “safe” (down) position (red dot indicator not showing).

and then you…

Insert and lock a loaded magazine into the pistol, depress the slide stop, and move the decock-
ing (safety lever) to the “fire” (up) position (red dot showing).

The hammer will follow the slide down and be on safe and the hammer will be decocked. When you move the safety/decocker to the fire (up) position, the hammer will stay down and the safety will be off.

By the description you posted in the above post, USAF is carrying the Beretta 92FS/M9 basically like most civilians carry the gun, with a round chambered, hammer down, safety off.

They do not carry the gun holstered with a round chambered, and the hammer cocked as you said in your previous post. I'm going to guess practically nobody carries a Beretta 92FS/M9 with a round chambered and the hammer cocked. We'll assume your previous post was a typo.

 

[jrdolall]

But, right now my NC concealed carry permit is recognized by about 27 states, and the number goes up each year.

I hold a permit in Alabama where the only requirement is paying the fee to the local sheriff and passing the screening and I think they are honored in 30 states+-.
I am totally FOR training but I don't see any way it can be done on a national scale without getting the Federal Government involved and screwing it all to Hell. I sincerely wish there was some way to have solid training on just the basics of gun use and safety but NYC, Chicago, Detroit, etc aren't going to play along no matter what Alabama does.

 

[AKElroy]

I am refering to striker fired pistols without thumb safeties, ones like the H & K VP9, Walther PPQ, Sig P320, Ruger LC9s Pro and other similar semi autos. These guns are getting excellent reviews but it got me to thinking maybe there's a downside to them.

I know the idea of having a thumb safety on any gun is a sin to some of you, but think about it. Some of these guns have less than 1/2" travel in the trigger combined with a light pull. It just seems to me that without the extra protection a manual safety offers they are potentially an accidental discharge just waiting to happen. And the trigger blade safeties they do have seem like a joke compared to what a manual thumb safety provides.

Yes I know one should keep their finger off the trigger until ready to fire, and you should keep the gun holstered as well, but in a high stress environment in the middle of a dark night I could envision an accidental discharge happening rather easily with bad results.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

For folks worried about it, Alex Hamilton has been adding thumb safeties to Glocks for years, with glock's blessing and warranty. He has done work for me in the past, a very good guy to do business with.

 

[GLOOB]

Some of these stock triggers are kinda light and short. The Glock opened up a new modus operandi, but competition dictates that there are always going to be "improvements."

 

[TwinReverb]

They do not carry the gun holstered with a round chambered, and the hammer cocked as you said in your previous post. I'm going to guess practically nobody carries a Beretta 92FS/M9 with a round chambered and the hammer cocked. We'll assume your previous post was a typo.

Upon reviewing the manual, only G models (not military) are cocked upon racking the slide, meaning the range model could've been a G, and my buddy could be wrong. My apologies.

However, it's still noteworthy that the safety is placed to off with a chambered round, hammer back or not. Which is still my point: military types in the USAF run around with the pistol ready to go bang.

I agree: safety/ND threads are the only place a Glock stock trigger is short/light.

EDIT: just an additional fact for pondering: the M9 first trigger pull is 13 pounds and subsequent pulls are 5 pounds, if i can believe what i read on the Internet, but the Glock standard pull is always 5.5 pounds.

 

[herrwalther]

However, it's still noteworthy that the safety is placed to off with a chambered round, hammer back or not. Which is still my point: military types in the USAF run around with the pistol ready to go bang.

I carried my M9 overseas in a similar fashion. Round chambered, hammer down, safety off. This was comfortable to how I carry and carried my personal DA/SA pistols when off duty. And wanted to carry my service firearm the same way. Took a little bit of convincing to get the okay from the CO though.

EDIT: just an additional fact for pondering: the M9 first trigger pull is 13 pounds and subsequent pulls are 5 pounds, if i can believe what i read on the Internet, but the Glock standard pull is always 5.5 pounds.

I think that is pretty close. I didn't normally carry my trigger gauge in to test service pistols but the general consensus is they are around 12 pounds for DA. Glock likes to claim all stock triggers are 5.5 but they aren't always in times I have measured them.

 

[JTQ]

TwinReverb wrote,
Upon reviewing the manual, only G models (not military) are cocked upon racking the slide, meaning the range model could've been a G, and my buddy could be wrong. My apologies.

Not really true. Any Beretta 92 variant, other than the "D" model which is a Double Action Only model that doesn't have a safety/decocker lever, will remain cocked after racking the slide if the safety/decocker is left in the fire position before you rack the slide. After the slide is racked the hammer will stay back, and you must lower the decock lever (or thumb it down) to decock the hammer.

I agree: safety/ND threads are the only place a Glock stock trigger is short/light.

EDIT: just an additional fact for pondering: the M9 first trigger pull is 13 pounds and subsequent pulls are 5 pounds, if i can believe what i read on the Internet, but the Glock standard pull is always 5.5 pounds.

As you've noted, a Glock with a 5.5 lb trigger pull would be considered short and light in comparison to a Beretta M9 with a 13 lb double action trigger pull. It's not just in "safety/ND" threads, but in the real world. Have you ever wondered why there are the NY1 and NY2 trigger springs and why they were developed?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

... It's not just in "safety/ND" threads, but in the real world. Have you ever wondered why there are the NY1 and NY2 trigger springs and why they were developed?

Safety/ND issues aside for the moment -- when many police departments started moving to Glocks, back when, a lot of those departments were still using revolvers, and the new, special heavier springs (NY1 and NY2) made the guns feel more like the triggers the LEOs were used to.

A number of folks I know converted the Glocks to those springs for JUST THAT REASON. It had nothing to do with concern about negligent discharges -- they just didn't like the stock Glock triggers.

 

[JTQ]

Was it because their revolver had a 10-12 lb trigger, and they didn't like the 5 lb trigger of the Glock, or does the NY triggers give a more metal on metal lever feel like a revolver, than the spring/sproing feel of the standard Glock trigger?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Was it because their revolver had a 10-12 lb trigger, and they didn't like the 5 lb trigger of the Glock, or does the NY triggers give a more metal on metal lever feel like a revolver, than the spring/sproing feel of the standard Glock trigger?

Who knows? I don't know if THEY knew -- but they knew (at the time) what they liked and didn't like.

I've heard that argument a number of times over the intervening years also made by folks who were revolver shooters using or starting to mess with Glocks. They said they felt more like the guns they were used to. But I haven't heard that argument much in recent years...

I don't think I ever heard anyone used to using a crisp SA trigger make that statement.

 

[Saleen322]

JTQ wrote: Was it because their revolver had a 10-12 lb trigger, and they didn't like the 5 lb trigger of the Glock, or does the NY triggers give a more metal on metal lever feel like a revolver, than the spring/sproing feel of the standard Glock trigger?

While that may have been part of it, the real issue I saw was revolvers and retention holsters. Setting the safety violation aside and just talking about the mechanics, if you place your finger on the trigger drawing a revolver and the retention latch is not fully released, the revolver will still not fire because the holster impedes the cylinder from rotating preventing it from firing. Make the same dumb move with a Glock and BANG as there is no cylinder to rotate.

Yes, LE teaches (PREACHES) finger off the trigger until on target and a decision is made to fire but some don't learn. Saw it a number of times in 28 years of conducting LE training. YMMV

 

[tipoc]

I think Walt is on the right track. There needs to be an honest discussion that begins beyond the "keep the booger hook off the bang switch" stage.

tipoc