Do you trust your safety?

[mildot]

if its mag fed but an open bolt would that be a dsc1 fail sure i read that is considered unsafe in case it accidently chambers if bolt catches on something ??? could be wrong

 

 

if its mag fed but an open bolt would that be a dsc1 fail sure i read that is considered unsafe in case it accidently chambers if bolt catches on something ??? could be wrong

 

if its mag fed but an open bolt would that be a dsc1 fail sure i read that is considered unsafe in case it accidently chambers if bolt catches on something ??? could be wrong

 

Just imagine 2 rifle sat next to each other one loaded with the safety on and one with the bolt open! Now which one will you walk in front of if you had too!!!!!!!!! I bet you choose the open bolt one every single time! ;-)

 

p.s not that im suggesting anyone walks in front of a rifle...... but now think if you out shooting with someone who are you going to trust more! open bolt or bolt close but with safety on! OR IS THE SAFETY ON!!!!!!!

[bradders]

FFS

[Ronin]

FFS

 

 

Now see what you've started….

[Guest Stacka]

for me round in the chamber, saftey on....

 

the best safety catch is your trigger finger. Keep it well away and the round wont go off. Iv done 8 years traipsing around with a loaded weapon system or another and never had a Naughty Dennis/Neil Dimond or No more Dollar.

 

id clear the weapon if handing it to another, or if appropriate make a declaration - "weapon loaded, and made ready"

 

and again i suppose its who your shooting with.....and for me most people thing im a c"*t so i have no shooting pals.

[Missed]

Over the years I have carried various weapon systems with one in the chamber, however, civilian shooting is somewhat different and as such it pays to understand that any mechanical device can and will fail at some point. One other thing, no such thing as an 'accidental discharge' only a negligent discharge!

[gbal]

Over the years I have carried various weapon systems with one in the chamber, however, civilian shooting is somewhat different and as such it pays to understand that any mechanical device can and will fail at some point. One other thing, no such thing as an 'accidental discharge' only a negligent discharge!

While 'negligent discharge' seems to be the 'prefered' military term,and you seem to have such experience,it is not so universally the civilian term.There is a very big overlap in meaning-most accidents have a (human) component of 'negligence' in their "cause',whether proximal (eg lack of attention) or distal (eg lack of maintenance in the past),but not all,to the legal/civilian mind.

 

Consider this: a stalker in his final few yards approach to his intended shooting location-let's say a large tree offering steady support-has his rifle loaded-round in chamber,safety on- but as he carefully and slowly approaches,he stumbles on a hidden branch and tumbles into a large bush.One twig slips the safety,and another pulls the trigger: negligent or accidental discharge?

 

For me,that is accidental,as I cannot see any negligence,or anything that a reasonable,prudent person could have done to avoid the 'accident'.Of course,if by definition,every unintended discharge-perhaps a better generic word-is deemed 'negligent' we are simply playing silly bugs,semantically. I imagine that legal intelligence would make the distinction,to assign 'blame'/responsibility or not.

[bradders]

 

 

Now see what you've started….

I didn't start anything, Spud started it.

 

Anyway, Bradders don't have no time fo dis, I'm off to Bisley to shoot for the French in the Agincourt

10 in the mag

1 up the chamber

Finger on the trigger

Safety off

 

 

Vive la France

[gbal]

I didn't start anything, Spud started it.

 

Anyway, Bradders don't have no time fo dis, I'm off to Bisley to shoot for the French in the Agincourt

10 in the mag

1 up the chamber

Finger on the trigger

Safety off

 

 

Vive la France

Allez ,mon brave

 

Don't forget the quaint French custom of removing any offending English finger which upsets them in these Agincourt jeux sans frontiers.

 

bon chance

 

georges

[Missed]

gbal, I understand your point, however in my opinion the case which you allude to is still negligence. The stalker in question could have prevented the discharge by either not closing the bolt, or by not chambering the round. Ultimately, the nut behind the butt is responsible for his equipment, but as you say, there is a difference in mindset between forces and civilian. ND is the term used by the forces because such incidents are usually investigated and many years ago they concluded that negligence was the prime cause of such discharges.

[brown dog]

gbal, I understand your point, however in my opinion the case which you allude to is still negligence. The stalker in question could have prevented the discharge by either not closing the bolt, or by not chambering the round. Ultimately, the nut behind the butt is responsible for his equipment, but as you say, there is a difference in mindset between forces and civilian. ND is the term used by the forces because such incidents are usually investigated and many years ago they concluded that negligence was the prime cause of such discharges.

 

Yes.

 

An accidental discharge is only ever due to a technical equipment failure.

Anything else involves an element of operator negligence.

 

(Much as the police no longer talk about RTAs, having changed to RTCs - the word 'accident' implies zero negligence.)

 

 

Semi Autos and 'one up the spout'.

 

Yes when on a 2 way range if the situation requires it. But then, extensive training, common understanding and rigidly enforced drills/NSPs taking place within a disciplined and hierarchical organisation are key.

 

I've personally spent 7 sad weeks on the board of a courts martial into a death in Iraq that was entirely about a shooting death that was precisely due to lack of training, lack of discipline and confused weapon states.

 

When you've spent 7 weeks in a courtroom listening to evidence whilst face to face with the parents of the dead individual and the chap who shot him -whose life was also ruined - and, with them, heard in medical detail precisely what 5.56 ball does to a human chest cavity (in this case, of their son / friend) when fired at a range of less than 2ft; well - you become a little less 'gung-ho' with regard to weapons states.

 

Google '5.56 wound' if you want a taste of reality, and have a strong stomach.

 

So, yes to 'one up the spout' on a 2 way range, when the situation requires it (or on a 1 way, when trg for 2 way); and when all individuals have extensive training, common understanding and rigidly enforced drills/NSPs are taking place within a disciplined and hierarchical organisation..............but, for civilian sporting use, the contrasting reality is that 99% of non-mil are untrained, some will be 'rule averse' and, in terms of 'common understanding', most will not, for example, even understand what 'made safe' means.

 

Semi auto - or any rifle - options for people playing when not actually about to fire: Unloaded/ Loaded but not made ready / Made safe.

 

Movement 'Ready', by untrained individuals operating without common understanding, in an undisciplined (in the true meaning of the word - I don't mean 'disorderly') environment, when not about to fire is a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

 

...emotionally scarred? Maybe. But that's what reality can do to you

[gbal]

gbal, I understand your point, however in my opinion the case which you allude to is still negligence. The stalker in question could have prevented the discharge by either not closing the bolt, or by not chambering the round. Ultimately, the nut behind the butt is responsible for his equipment, but as you say, there is a difference in mindset between forces and civilian. ND is the term used by the forces because such incidents are usually investigated and many years ago they concluded that negligence was the prime cause of such discharges.

OK- I have no problem with military useage-"When in Rome....but this works two way-lets talk civvy in civvy street.But it's not important,and I accept that most unintended discharges (my preferred term,until culpability/not is established) - not just in the military-have a negligent component,usually the prime cause.But not all.

 

In the shooter scenario,is there some point at which the shooter would have a round chambered-well,yes of course there has to be,otherwise he never shoots.So,just as he rests his rifle on a branch,it breaks -or something else happens-and the rifle falls and safety if on is moved,and trigger snags and discharges the rifle...

We could debate almost ad infinitum and there may be clearer scenarios....at the very least,for the civil world,there has to be a scale of negligence-and corresponding blame/responsibility. The stalker scenario seems less culpable than most careless handling discharges.

Whatever-the real focus should be on what does/does not constitute safe rifle handling.An empty chamber has to win,with a few exceptions (open bolt semi,with no safety,where our twig might 'cause' a slam fire),but it is at least discussable whether other options are 'reasonable',(perhaps a very small greater risk of discharge-and that such unlikely discharge would carry a very small risk of harm-eg on a remote stalking estate,in winter).There are no absolutes,though some clearly established guidlines,which usually include some 'as far as is practicable' factor-and therein is often where convenience nudges closer to 'increased risk' and may become unacceptable-but to whom?! (a not too extreme version is slipping the safety well in advance..'because it would startle the deer',no-the answer there is a safety fit for purpose,or acceptance that the stalk might not result in a shot.)

g

[brown dog]

....at the very least,for the civil world,there has to be a scale of negligence-and corresponding blame/responsibility.

 

Of course there is: http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/lecture-notes/invol-mans-lecture.php

[ejg223]

In Germany local rifle manufacturers have for years led to believe safeties that act on the trigger are not safe and rifles could go off if dropped from the high seat etc. Over the years this led to the over-engineering of safeties making some quite awkward to use. If one wants to sell a rifle in Germany one is better off with a firing pin safety ala M98.

ASH came up with a solution to make the T3 more user friendly for the German market....

http://www.buema-hochwang.de/shop2/index.php?a=78

 

In a hunting rifle I think the highest risk is a too lightly adjusted trigger. Purely for hunting I feel safest with my old 98, not because of the firing pin safety but because of the 1909 two stage trigger. Although tuned and really crisp it breaks at around 2.5lbs but has a huge first stage travel until one hits the firing stage. Feels good.

edi

[gbal]

Of course there is: http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/lecture-notes/invol-mans-lecture.php

BD,thank you for providing the legal reference.Car accident,brake failure,serviced day before,manufacturer announces model recall next day,manufactured to 6 sigma....but this is one of the 3/4 failures per million.Who is throwing the first stone?

 

Rising above detail,the point I was presenting is that there is no "safe'- "unsafe" dichotomy-it's a continuum.

 

Everything so far discussed,I think inevitably, is grounded in the reality that 'safety' is on a gradient,some practices are safer than others,and some more resilient in unpredictable scenarios.Many practices are unlikely to lead to an unintended discharge within a lifetime,or indeed several lifetimes,and the statistical evidence exists.UDs are very rare( but catastrophic to those involved if they do). Some 'practices/bad habits' are clearly objectionable,because the likelihood of an unintended discharge is a 'clear and manifest danger'(eg climbing over a barbed wire fence with a loaded,unbroken shotgun,perhaps with safety off,in the presence of others.Broken open,cartridges in ,alone ...lesser risk,but distinctly unsatisfactory.) And so on. But I've lapsed into detail,again,so I'll finish with another high level one:the human brain is fallible ('controls'the trigger finger ' is on a sliding scale too.)

g

[Will0]

Does anyone shoot rabbits with a semi auto .22? Do you unload between?

[brown dog]

.Many practices are unlikely to lead to an unintended discharge within a lifetime,or indeed several lifetimes,and the statistical evidence exists.UDs are very rare( but catastrophic to those involved if they do).

 

You won't even accept the accepted UK terminology and have to invent your own That's an example of precisely what I mean by 'lack of common understanding' and 'rule averse' - and that's dangerous in itself.

[tackb]

Back to the original question , no I don't trust my safety , any mechanical device can fail !

 

I will use the safety as part of safe weapon handling but in my opinion nothing trumps NEVER pointing it at something you don't wish destroy loaded or not !

 

Anyone who has shot deer with a rifle will be well aware of the damage rifle rounds cause if not google it and then imagine a friend or loved one with a similar wound , I Guarantee you will focus on safety in future !

[gbal]

You won't even accept the accepted UK terminology and have to invent your own That's an example of precisely what I mean by 'lack of common understanding' and 'rule averse' - and that's dangerous in itself.

 

Matt,I had somehow got the impression that you liked my (not original) "rules are for the guidance of the wise,and the obediance of the foolish',at least sometimes(ie when it helped your cause).Since I rather agree with it,as you full well know,I think your accusation that I am 'rule averse' ,and therefore 'dangerous' is mischievous," Unintended' is a perfectly legitimate word-I was just trying to avoid hair splitting about 'negligent/accidental/etc'-they all being,well.... "unintended"!

Different categories are used,especially where there is an underlying continuity,but some distinctions are desired (as in the legal terms in 'your' reference.There was no intention to obscure or recommend another term in general-though 'accidental' is used...not the point.. all negligent discharges are on a continuum of 'negligence',that is the important point.

 

 

Surely we can agree that negligent discharges are best minimised,and some good practice is rather better than other less good practice;all this being 'context sensitive'-eg "chamber loaded' is much more acceptable when about to return hostile fire,than because 'I sometimes see a beast over this hill."

G

[MrCetrizine]

My first gun was my Rossi; it doesn't even have a safety. I've just got used to never using a safety so I don't.

 

This is on my drag bag...

 

[gbal]

Does anyone shoot rabbits with a semi auto .22? Do you unload between?

Predicted modal response,for those who do:

 

"no" ...... "but I apply the safety if I don't anticipate another shot within..say...20 seconds"-hopefully

 

Same for bolt acton,or any repeater with a safety.

[Shuggy]

Cooper's rules on gun safety continue to work very well. Rule 1 (all guns are always loaded) is pertinent, but rule 2 (never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy) is the really critical one with regards to safeties. I always find it helpful to imagine that there is an 'always on' frikkin laser beam coming out of the muzzle.

[gbal]

Cooper's rules on gun safety continue to work very well. Rule 1 (all guns are always loaded) is pertinent, but rule 2 (never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy) is the really critical one with regards to safeties. I always find it helpful to imagine that there is an 'always on' frikkin laser beam coming out of the muzzle.

Useful advice indeed,as is the USMC instruction:

 

Treat all weapons as if loaded

Do not point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot

Keep your weapon on Safe until you intend to fire

Keep your trigger finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire.

 

 

Considering this is maybe the first exposure some recruits might have had to firerarms,it's a good set of rules.

With some minor adaptation,given the wider range of rifle actions used,and perhaps useages,they should/do work for civilians too.

 

Your idea of imagining a harmful laser ray from the muzzle might help beginners too.

 

None of this of is saying one relies on the safety,it is an important contributor to safety though and should be used.

 

It is also in quite clear language,free of special terms,whose meaning has to be learned-such special terms may be useful/necessary later,but the above remain true a very good guide,which should not be contradicted lightly,if at all.

[Missed]

Does anyone shoot rabbits with a semi auto .22? Do you unload between?

Yes, and I absolutely insisted that my children did likewise. Both the girls know how to do a 'make safe' on the .22 and as a matter of interest on quite a few other systems too. A full make safe only takes a couple of seconds; what price peace of mind?