Stop Safety Discrimination! All Safeties Deserve Respect!

[kurtm]

Tyro, there IS a reason everyone went away from "Speed unloading" on the clock, even USPSA! It was down right dangerous! Detonations, rounds over the berm, rounds WAY too close to the competitor. But like Moltke pointed out...."your a senior if all your stories start with way back when", so I won't even go in to all the details. Needless to say we are ready for a whole raft of re-learning

[dcloudy777]

You are however going to shove it in there as quickly as possible while running by with your mind on the next section of the stage. I've seen people miss the bucket completely. I've seen people grabing it back out because they forgot a target.

Oh, and i've seen them land backward with the muzzle towards the shooter.

Any of those should mean an instant "STOP" range command, right?

It's an "extra layer of safety" that doesn't provide an iota of extra safety, and penalizes certain types of gun.

[CJW]

Vlad, that is a bit of a strawman—if the muzzle is not in a safe direction or if the gun is not in the bucket, it is a DQ anyway.

I still do not think, even if you allow a grip safety in a bucket to count as a safely abandoned pistol, that you are going to see droves of 1911/2011 shooters stop using their thumb safeties. Let's assume that we use the Blue Ridge rule where grip safety but no thumb safety is a Procedural instead of a DQ—that should be enough to remind these shooters that we expect them to use the thumb safety. Then in your cases above the thumb safety is on when the pistol goes sailing past the bucket onto the ground; no difference. The backwards pointing pistol was put in the bucket with thumb safety on, but it is still a DQ. The only difference is that the muzzle down pistol placed correctly in the dump bucket will not earn the shooter a DQ if the range equipment itself managed to confound the shooter's best efforts.

That's it.

[Moltke]

The risk for injury is greater putting a loaded gun back into a holster (attached to a person) than a bucket (attached to a table) so it makes sense that you could and would easily establish different conditions for dumping a pistol vs reholstering one.

Considering the danger is actually during the act of abandonment and not the prolonged condition of a firearm there shouldn't be such importance placed on the matter after the act. What I mean to say is once the gun is down in a bucket and the shooter moves away, if the gun hasn't AD'd then its not going to. With reholstering the same applies. Once it's secured in the holster then its not going to just start shooting off.

The additional risk reholstering hot is because during the act of abandonment the container is attached to a person so if an AD occurs the bullet may not be headed in a safe direction and separately there is a risk of an unintended 2nd act of abandonment such as bouncing it out, it falling out, getting knocked out by an arm, getting knocked by a long gun, or in some other way coming free after the reholster.

Back to the central point of the thread, if the gun has functioning passive safeties and doesn't AD when dumped, then what was unsafe? Nothing. So why have that rule? ..... Because we always have, and its going to make people feel better. If thats what it takes to make the sport work then OK, but its nice to hear about a match that manages their risk differently.

[Bryan 45]

Mark P, please comment on this.

When people use the thought process of "I shoot a Glock because all I have to do is throw it in the bucket", the snow ball starts rolling down the hill.

And for the record, I shoot a Glock because it's a lot cheaper than a 2011. And ground it with the care a loaded firearm deserves.

[Doug H.]

As Mark is fond of saying, there need to be multiple layers of safety to prevent accidents. That way you need several simultaneous errors to produce an event. To my knowledge a Glock has 3 separate passive safeties where as a Series 80 with functioning grip safety has 2 and a Series 70 with functioning grip safety has only one passive safety.

Some say it is a disadvantage to shoot a 1911/2011 because you to have to put on the thumb safety, but I think it just balances out the disadvantage for those shooting Glocks. Must be a reason so many people shoot something other than a Glock in 3 gun.

Doug

Edited November 3, 2014 by Doug H.

[Vlad]

Vlad, that is a bit of a strawman—if the muzzle is not in a safe direction or if the gun is not in the bucket, it is a DQ anyway.

Yep, but it can be the difference between a DQ and a call for an ambulance. The point I was trying to make is that I see and hear of more stupid things happening when people abandon guns then when they draw them. Given that stupid does happen, lets keep the stupid down to a DQ instead of a sucking chest wound.

A 180 break sucks and it is a DQ, but a 180 break with the finger on the trigger is worse. We are running around with scissors here, lets not pretend we are not throwing around deadly weapons.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Vlad

[Sterling White]

When did this happen or are you trying to play the what ifs?

[Jadeslade]

You know Vlad, I used to be a rigid, safety first kind of guy, but I'm younger now. When I realized that gun conditions in dump boxes were based on "opinion", rather actual data I came to realize that grip safeties actually are safe and that Glocks are no safer than any other pistol. And conditions for pistols at 3 Gun matches are variable, just like any other condition of the match. But it is not based on actual true documentable data, research, anecdotes or anything but theory. So not really worth arguing that strongly for or against. On the other hand, speed unloading is a cringe worthy activity that I would prefer to be behind hard cover for should I have to observe that again. Seen with my own eyes. In Texas. At a real 3 Gun match.

[Moltke]

"Good job on the CoF but upon close inspection of your firearm afterwards the safety was off and so since someone who wasn't you, at some point in the past that isn't now, might have accidentally shot the dirt, or caused someone to be scared, so... we have to DQ you for being unsafe even though nothing unsafe happened..."

I'd also like to point out that clearing guns with people still downrange to "save time" resetting a course of fire is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than an untouched gun sitting in a bucket with the safety off but people do it all the time

[Sterling White]

I'd also like to point out that clearing guns with people still downrange to "save time" resetting a course of fire is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than an untouched gun sitting in a bucket with the safety off but people do it all the time

^^^^^^^^ This - leave guns alone until everyone has cleared! Or point the drop boxes into a berm.

[Vlad]

I'm not really fond of speed unloading either. Just flick the damn safety and don't throw the gun in there like a madman. Odds are no one is winning or losing the match based on it. If I was a safety first kinda guy I wouldn't shoot 3gun.

Exactly what is the argument you guys are making? It is too hard to flick a safety or make sure your spring holding it up is strong enough? Really? You are trying to tell me that it is that hard to do but we should be running around with guns even if we lack that level of coordination?

[Tyro Shooter]

Kurt

I was not thinking of the Speed unload as much as Speed, accuracy and the correct pre planning of coming up upon slide lock after engaging the last target. (Shotguns)

(in all fairness this only happened once to me, at the Nationals a few years ago, and I was as surprised as everyone else.)

I agree speed un-loading = bad things are gonna happen here soon!

i guess nothing beats knowing you equipment and how to activate the safety's,and properly setting your gun down on the move.

[Jadeslade]

I think it's about the dump boxes, really. Non standard, etc. I don't think you will find that anybody really disagrees with just put the safety on. I think it is more that unsupported claims that this way of dumping (version a) is safer than this way (version B. )are being made. And that gun type a is safer than gun type b. We require guns be left in a "safe" condition, which varies from match to match based on opinion of match director. Not to be confused with actual gun safety, which is a way of being. I am still a believer in safety first. Just not in the idea that any of the different methods or criteria are any safer than others.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Jadeslade

[Vlad]

Fair enough, if your argument is that 2lb trigger on Glocks or M&Ps or whatever are probably a bad idea and possibly less safe then 2011 with working grip safety, I wouldn't disagree with you all that much. If your argument is that we need better dump receptacles, yep I agree. I wouldn't even have a problem with "chrono" stages were equipment gets checked for safety

But that is not what the first post was about, to my reading.

In the last 3gun argument I got into on this forum, people were telling me that we should man up and not stop people for losing hearing pro because that's the competitors equipment hence their problem. Well maybe we can man up and flick on safeties on our equipment, I think we can manage the couple of ounces of finger pressure.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Vlad

[Moltke]

None of that is what the first post was about. It is about treating a gun that was decked safely, without AD'ing, with passive safeties working and engaged as a "safe" act.

Not as a "best practice" but as an acceptable one.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Moltke

[Vlad]

So out of curiosity what other safety rules would guys like removed? 180s (such as they are already)? AD's into a berm? dumping a shotgun in a barrel with the muzzle up instead of down? Can I get a list of what other rules you guys don't like?

[Jadeslade]

I don't think anybody is advocating safety rules be removed. More like calling a spade a spade.

[Vlad]

I don't think anybody is advocating safety rules be removed. More like calling a spade a spade.

Sorry, what? I'm pretty sure the whole safety on thing is a safety rule. As far as I can tell people think it needs to be removed. I suppose you can argue that it isn't a safety rule because you disagree it helps with safety, but then we can make the same argument about every safety rule if you don't like it.

[Jadeslade]

Vlad. Reread the entire thread and any two previous ones on this forum. The safety on rule is not a safety rule. It is a convention by all of us. Good grief.

[Stlhead]

There is no difference between "speed unloading" and any other shot we fire. If it was sent downrange and impacted in the berm then it is safe, if does not then it is unsafe. Speed unloading is no more inherently unsafe than engaging targets. If you think that hitting your target on purpose in a safe manner should be a DQ, then how could you not allow hitting the same target (the backstop) by accident (such as a shoot through or a miss) to be a DQ as well. Rounds impacting the backstop when that is what you are shooting at can not be an unsafe act unless any rounds hitting the backstop are considered unsafe. Do people sometimes do unsafe things when dumping rounds into a berm, Hell yes, but it is not the act of dumping the rounds that is the problem, it is the shooter who acts in an unsafe manner.

Vlad, you can beat your drum on removing or adding rules all you want, the fact remains that guns don't go bang unless someone makes them go bang. If a weapon goes into a dump box and does not go bang before it comes to it's final resting place, then it is not going to go bang until some jack wagon picks it up and makes it go bang (cook offs notwithstanding, but they are outside the scope of this discussion anyway). You want to make a meaningful safety rule? Don't let ass clowns set foot on the range. Guns in boxes off safe don't cause injuries, stupid people, and people doing stupid things cause injury. This whole grip safety hating, Glock love fest is nothing more than a waste of everyones time. No mater what the final decision of the inner council of three gun oracles decide no one will be any less or more safe.

[Jadeslade]

Stlhead, I think we meant actually taking the mag out, racking the slide speed unloading, not the into berm speed unloading. I don't have a problem with emptying the gun that way, but some matches dq you for shots not fired at at a target, as you know.

[Stlhead]

I should have been more clear, my comments where directed to Kurt, who i thought was condemning burning rounds into the berm as unsafe. In rereading his post I could very well have been wrong in my understanding of his intent, if so then whoopsie me . For those matches that say burning rounds is a DQ then I advocate continuing to engage the last target to assure it is neutralized until your weapon runs out of ammo.

[Vlad]

Shrug, I seriously thing you guys are losing the plot.

You can make the argument that any rule is unnecessary, right up until someone gets killed. You can decided it isn't a safety rule because you don't like it, and I can argue gravity doesn't exist right up until my ass hits the ground.

If guns don't go bang until someone presses the trigger then you don't mind if I sweep you wish a loaded shotgun, right? I mean we can keep the clowns out and the just sweep ourselves all day.

Oh nevermind that new shooters exist, nevermind we have 12 years olds shooting this game, its all good.

Anyway, I'm out of this discussion, you guys go right ahead and convince match directors to remove any rule that absolves you of taking that fraction of second to apply a safety correctly. Just let me know which ones those matches are so I can avoid them.

[Benelli Chick]

Well instead of clearing each gun, you are now test firing each questionable gun. I think from a match management point of view thats an issue. Plus who does it? RO or shooter? Is there a question about the RO not pressing hard enough or pressing too much or whatever? I personally think it is a bad idea.

What we are talking about here is that, with almost no exceptions that I have seen, pistol dump containers are, to some extent, not very compatible with external thumb safeties. I have yet to see a good way to redesign the dump bucket to avoid this, so the end result is that, every match, a couple or three shooters will go home, their time and money wasted, because they dumped safe pistols that then had their safeties swiped off through contact with the bucket. I think a little bit of time spent checking grip safeties is well worth the benefit in shooters not getting screwed over by this problem.

You seem to think this would be some huge time sink, and yet Blue Ridge does it just this way, and I would be shocked if more than half a dozen grip safeties had to be checked for the entire match. The RO showed me the pistol. It was cleared. Then the RO racked the slide, grabbed the grip below the grip safety, pointed it downrange, and pulled the trigger. The hammer did not fall and I was good to go. This took maybe ten extra seconds, tops. If you really want to make sure it takes no extra time, then clear and score the stage as shoot, mark it as a 'potential DQ,' have the RM come by and take the shooter in question to the safe area. There the grip safety gets checked—if it works, no DQ, otherwise DQ. That takes no time away form the stage reset.

Not to beat a dead horse...but we use cheap bathroom wastepaper baskets with a 4"x4"x4" block in the back so the pistol stays muzzle down (not parallel with the ground). When you dump it, the pistol is resting on it's muzzle and while it can flop back and forth within the bucket, there is no swiping motion to be had to undo the safety. The pistol doesn't slide down a ramp, slide a cross a cute little puttputt stand with carpet or point anywhere but the ground. You do have to rest them on the ground not attached to a wall or high in the air! You DO have to bend over to place them in the bucket!

We have not had a safety knocked off by one of them yet! Yes, a couple of safeties not engaged, but the shooters do fess up! But then again, we have the JJ rule. 30 seconds and a stern growl to never do it again!

Denise