Comments on: Accidental vs. Negligent http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/ The taste of bacon is the taste of freedom Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:26:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Ahab http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-388 Ahab Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:36:40 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-388 Personally, I'd call that an accidental discharge - since the gun isn't designed to fire like that but does as a result of it's condition. Personally, I’d call that an accidental discharge - since the gun isn’t designed to fire like that but does as a result of it’s condition.

]]> By: Sailorcurt http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-387 Sailorcurt Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:22:36 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-387 As member of the <a href="http://www.usnst.org/" rel="nofollow">US Navy (reserve) Marksmanship Team</a>, we shoot National Match grade M1911/M1911(A1) and M9/M92FS pistols. Because of their very light trigger pull, the shock of releasing the slide can often disengage the sear and allow the hammer to fall without pulling the trigger, causing a "slam fire". We know this to be the case and it is only specific to the National Match pistols. Standard practice is to hold the hammer back with the thumb while releasing the slide to prevent this from happening. The question: Even though a slam fire in this case is caused by the pistol configuration itself and not by the operator violating one of the four rules, because it is a known issue with a work-around, would this type of slam fire be properly termed an AD or an ND? This is not intended as a trick question and it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I'm just offering food for thought. <i>That’s one reason (the main reason?) why carrying a 1911 with the hammer back and the manual safety engaged is preferred over carrying it with the hammer down and a live round in the chamber.</i> Actually, the original designs of the M1911/M1911(A1) did not include a transfer bar which meant that in condition 2 (round in chamber, hammer down) the hammer was resting directly on the firing pin. Therefore, carrying in condition 2 was definitively unsafe, therefore, condition one was the ONLY safe method to carry a 1911 with a round in the chamber...not "the preferred" method. I don't own a more modern version of the 1911, but I believe that they incorporate a transfer mechanism to alleviate this safety issue. My understanding is that most people still carry 1911 style pistols in condition one to prevent them from having to cock the hammer prior to firing. Makes sense to me...but even modern 1911s and revolvers are extremely unlikely to AD even with a round in the chamber (cylinder) and the hammer down. As member of the US Navy (reserve) Marksmanship Team, we shoot National Match grade M1911/M1911(A1) and M9/M92FS pistols. Because of their very light trigger pull, the shock of releasing the slide can often disengage the sear and allow the hammer to fall without pulling the trigger, causing a “slam fire”.

We know this to be the case and it is only specific to the National Match pistols. Standard practice is to hold the hammer back with the thumb while releasing the slide to prevent this from happening.

The question: Even though a slam fire in this case is caused by the pistol configuration itself and not by the operator violating one of the four rules, because it is a known issue with a work-around, would this type of slam fire be properly termed an AD or an ND?

This is not intended as a trick question and it really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, I’m just offering food for thought.

That’s one reason (the main reason?) why carrying a 1911 with the hammer back and the manual safety engaged is preferred over carrying it with the hammer down and a live round in the chamber.

Actually, the original designs of the M1911/M1911(A1) did not include a transfer bar which meant that in condition 2 (round in chamber, hammer down) the hammer was resting directly on the firing pin. Therefore, carrying in condition 2 was definitively unsafe, therefore, condition one was the ONLY safe method to carry a 1911 with a round in the chamber…not “the preferred” method.

I don’t own a more modern version of the 1911, but I believe that they incorporate a transfer mechanism to alleviate this safety issue. My understanding is that most people still carry 1911 style pistols in condition one to prevent them from having to cock the hammer prior to firing. Makes sense to me…but even modern 1911s and revolvers are extremely unlikely to AD even with a round in the chamber (cylinder) and the hammer down.

]]> By: Boyd http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-385 Boyd Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:21:28 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-385 And even in the rare case where there might have been an AD, the failure to follow the safety rules turns it into a case of ND. And even in the rare case where there might have been an AD, the failure to follow the safety rules turns it into a case of ND.

]]> By: John Hardin http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-378 John Hardin Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:13:39 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-378 Many exposed-hammer automatics have the same problem. I think it was Ayoob who related the story of a LEO who was carrying a holstered .45 (Ruger?) auto on a stack of books, and it slipped and fell, landing on the hammer and discharging a round through his head. I believe in this case it discharged because he'd lowered the hammer with his thumb rather than using the decocking lever, and the internal safety mechanisms didn't engage. That's one reason (the main reason?) why carrying a 1911 with the hammer back and the manual safety engaged is preferred over carrying it with the hammer down and a live round in the chamber. Many exposed-hammer automatics have the same problem. I think it was Ayoob who related the story of a LEO who was carrying a holstered .45 (Ruger?) auto on a stack of books, and it slipped and fell, landing on the hammer and discharging a round through his head. I believe in this case it discharged because he’d lowered the hammer with his thumb rather than using the decocking lever, and the internal safety mechanisms didn’t engage.

That’s one reason (the main reason?) why carrying a 1911 with the hammer back and the manual safety engaged is preferred over carrying it with the hammer down and a live round in the chamber.

]]> By: Ahab http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-376 Ahab Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:01:50 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-376 Colt style revolvers and reproductions should be carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber. On the old revolvers, the hammer rests on top of a live round and a sharp blow to the hammer could cause the gun to discharge. This problem fixed in Ruger type revolvers. Colt style revolvers and reproductions should be carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber. On the old revolvers, the hammer rests on top of a live round and a sharp blow to the hammer could cause the gun to discharge.

This problem fixed in Ruger type revolvers.

]]> By: Alcibiades McZombie http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-375 Alcibiades McZombie Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:50:44 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-375 What about those single-action revolvers I hear so much about? I hear you are not supposed to carry a round under the hammer for safety reasons. What about those single-action revolvers I hear so much about? I hear you are not supposed to carry a round under the hammer for safety reasons.

]]> By: Rustmeister http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-372 Rustmeister Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:50:53 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2007/09/27/accidental-vs-negligent/#comment-372 Yeah, as far as I know, the Japanese Type 94 is the only fully functional pistol capable of an AD. Yeah, as far as I know, the Japanese Type 94 is the only fully functional pistol capable of an AD.

]]>