ye olde gun safety

[mothergreen]

know how folks myself included always jump on pics people take with their guns and fingers in the trigger? well it seems to be a recent thing that people started caring about that.



try as I might I couldn't find the picture of John Thompson holding the stockless version with his finger on the trigger.

what does all this mean? nothing really.. I just thought it was kind of interesting.

[Lon Moer]

[Pulsar]

Curse you for posting that picture, that rifle is on my serious want list and you just reminded me of it. I fell in love with that thing when I did a clean and oil to a customers Browning Semi-Auto .22 (horrible name for a gun aint it?)

But yeah, it is a recent thing. I remember reading an article a year or two ago talking about how military and police are trained. How 15 years ago it was ok for the finger to be inside the trigger guard but not on the trigger, or 30 years ago finger on the trigger was fine if the safety was on, and talking about the new standard being the finger just outside the trigger guard, but at the ready.

[mothergreen]

sorry lol but hey when your bank acount recovers you'll thank me. interesting, might that have to do with each new generation being less and less exposed to guns?


lon, that scary picture doesnt belong in this thread! shivers!

[M. Sage]

Or it could have to do with people actively trying to find more ways to avoid accidentally shooting their friends...

[Turbinator]

Or it could have to do with people actively trying to find more ways to avoid accidentally shooting their friends...

I will vote for this answer. If you go back in time 100 years ago, firearms were available but not nearly in the same #'s they are now. The population was smaller back then, too. Just through natural statistics, the number of people getting negligently shot (as opposed to purposely) would have been smaller. With the proliferation of the population, as well as the introduction of more firearms, it's only natural that the pure number of incidents would rise. I for one am happy that people made a conscious effort to find other ways to reduce negligent incidents, other than just trying to ban guns.

Turby

[WolfMansDad]

Depends on the gun.

I keep my finger outside the trigger guard on all my guns EXCEPT my single-action vaquero. It's ergonomics are different from modern designs, and it's awkward to handle it with your finger indexed. Most modern firearms are cocked, or half cocked like the glock, pretty much all the time, and you should never trust a safety with your life. With them, it makes sense to keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. With something that has to be manually cocked, there's no real need. You can pull the trigger all day long, and it's not going to fire until you thumb the hammer back, even if whatever safety it has fails.

[M. Sage]

I will vote for this answer. If you go back in time 100 years ago, firearms were available but not nearly in the same #'s they are now. The population was smaller back then, too. Just through natural statistics, the number of people getting negligently shot (as opposed to purposely) would have been smaller. With the proliferation of the population, as well as the introduction of more firearms, it's only natural that the pure number of incidents would rise. I for one am happy that people made a conscious effort to find other ways to reduce negligent incidents, other than just trying to ban guns.

Turby

I don't even know if it's really because of that, in particular. Firearms training has moved forward. A lot of the knowledge and basic "how-to" is different now, and a lot of it is thanks to a studied, scientific approach.

People don't learn to shoot their combat pistols one-handed anymore, for example (check out all the pics of GIs using their 1911s). Now we have a few different two-handed shooting styles, and anybody thinking that the old one-handed style is going to fly would probably be looked at as very old-fashioned at best.

[FortCourageArmory]

I remember seeing "Blackhawk Down" and it illustrates the point. One of the Delta guys was getting his food in the mess hall when a Ranger captain started to berate him for having his M4 locked, loaded and the safety off. The Delta guy just looked at the captain and held up his trigger finger and said, "here's my safety, sir" and walked off to eat. Pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

[BillCA]

If you go back in time 100 years ago, firearms were available but not nearly in the same #'s they are now. The population was smaller back then, too. Just through natural statistics, the number of people getting negligently shot (as opposed to purposely) would have been smaller. With the proliferation of the population, as well as the introduction of more firearms, it's only natural that the pure number of incidents would rise.

Well.... almost. It's not the sheer numbers of AD/ND's that one should look at, but the number per gun-handlers (per capita even). 100 years ago, more people were familiar with firearms (per capita) than today. I dare say that a visit to SF in 1900-1910 would reveal that most men and a significant number of women knew how to shoot a gun or at least handle one safely. Today, there is a huge portion of the population that has never even held a real gun of any kind.

Photos of turn-of-the-century folks will often show a finger on the trigger for three reasons. First, they knew that their guns were empty for the photograph (or at least in a safe condition). Second, many of the firearms still had an external hammer that had to be cocked. Lastly, because these were free men who used their guns as they were intended - hunting, protection or target shooting - and the finger on the trigger was symbolic of being ready to use it at any time.

I think today's photos that show the finger-on-the-frame isn't necessarily bad. In posed photos it demonstrates a commitment to safety, illustrates discipline and denotes at least some level of training (especially in group photos). This technique is less than about 20 years old so it is a fairly recent invention.

Re: One-handed Shooting
Not to burst the bubble about the superiority of two-handed shooting (yes, it's more accurate), but the SF troops are practicing one-handed shooting and there's a move to teach it (and point-shooting) to regular troops again. The reason is simple. Your offhand may be busy - trying to drag a buddy to safety, holding your empty/jammed primary weapon, using the radio, etc.

[mothergreen]

nobody would tell JMB to keep his booger hook off the bang switch if he somehow could post here

[FinalBoss]

Very good points

[Rob P.]

125 years ago people KNEW that a firearm was loaded because it WAS loaded. ALWAYS. This is not true in today's world where people know that a firearm is UNloaded but we're supposed to treat it like it is loaded.

It has nothing to do with fingers or triggers. We invent rules that say "keep you finger off the trigger" to perpetuate the awareness that it is a gun and not an everyday tool for food and defense.

And the new design of self cocking / always dangerous handguns don't help. There is a reason JMB made the 1911 SA only. SA guns can't go off "accidentally" even if you pull the trigger unless the hammer is cocked. And the hammer isn't cocked unless you're going to shoot something. So, even if lil' Joe Jr did get his hands on the gun and pull the trigger he can't do anything with it unless he cocks the hammer first. And any kid big enough to cock a hammer had already had firearms training enough to know who, what, when, and where to shoot.

So, at the time, trigger fingers on triggers didn't mean anything.

[mothergreen]

I thought he made it SA cuz DA technology didn't exist yet

good points by all. remember make your children gun proof not your guns childproof

[Turbinator]

First, they knew that their guns were empty for the photograph (or at least in a safe condition).

Hmm, just like all those negligent shootings where the shooter "knew" the gun was safe?

Turby