Gun safety comment

[Mister Frag 0]

This goes back to the "Funny Bush Pic" thread that got closed. I'm sorry for bringing it up, but since it concerns gun safety, I thought it would be prudent.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I thought a bullet in the chamber couln't fire unless there was a magazine in the gun.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Who told you that !?! Sounds like "famous last words".

<span id='postcolor'>

Both posters are actually correct, it just depends on the gun in question.

Many firearms have what is called a magazine disconnect, which disables the trigger unless a magazine is inserted into the gun. It is meant as a safety feature to prevent a negligent discharge, but it can also become a liability if the magazine disconnect is unintentionally activated on a defensive firearm. A deformed or poorly fitting after-marked magazine is often the cause, but this doesn't really matter if the gun doesn't go "bang" when you need it to. For this reason, disabling the magazine disconnect is one of the most popular modification on Browning Hi-Power pistols.

So yes, some firearms will not fire even if there is a round in the chamber as long as there is no magazine inserted, but others will. Furthermore, a firearm that might ordinarily not fire could have been modified to do so anyway, so don't rely on built-in safety mechanisms, and always practice safe gun handling.

[Mister Frag 0]

I would have loved to add my comment to the original thread, but by the time I came across it, it was locked.

Since many of us either are around real firearms already or will be around some eventually, I thought it would be prudent to point some of this out.

I also can't stand it when someone says something that is true, and is then immediately corrected or ridiculed by another person.

[Guest]

By far most guns do not have a magazine disconnect. This is especially true for military firearms. You are doing people a disfavour by telling them of that feature and making it sound like most guns have it.

[Mister Frag 0]

I never said that most guns have it. Furthermore, I explicitly said not to rely on one even if you believe one to be there.

The Browning Hi-Power is a military handgun, by the way. It has been used by the military since Word War II, and NATO adopted it before switching to the Beretta 92. It is still in use by NATO and many other countries.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 30 2002,10:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By far most guns do not have a magazine disconnect. This is especially true for military firearms. You are doing people a disfavour by telling them of that feature and making it sound like most guns have it.<span id='postcolor'>

Honestly, if someone is out in the field and recalls something they read on an internet messageboard before they recall their weapons training then maybe the genepool might be better off without them.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Oct. 30 2002,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Browning Hi-Power is a military handgun, by the way. It has been used by the military since Word War II, and NATO adopted it before switching to the Beretta 92. It is still in use by NATO and many other countries.<span id='postcolor'>

Except for the fact that the military version has the mag disconnect "feature" removed. Not only does it improve the reliabilty of the weapon but it also gives a better trigger pull and you can switch mags faster.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 30 2002,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Except for the fact that the military version has the mag disconnect "feature" removed. Not only does it improve the reliabilty of the weapon but it also gives a better trigger pull and you can switch mags faster.<span id='postcolor'>

Provided you are talking about guns made by Fabrique Nationale during the German occupation of WW II, you are correct. By comparsion, that number is relatively low.

I have a Belgian-made Browning Hi-Power from the early 80's that was made under a military contract, and it does have the magazine disconnect.

[Bart.Jan 0]

I think it doesn't matter if gun has magazine disconnect or any other kind of safety. "Never point with gun to yourself or your friend even the gun is unloaded !" -> I saw similar moto written in many ammunition depots. You can never know if gun has some defect. 1mil times is everything all right but for 1mil and 1 you kill somebody and nobody will listen that this gun has magazine disconnect so it's not possible to shoot.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Oct. 30 2002,20:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a Belgian-made Browning Hi-Power from the early 80's that was made under a military contract, and it does have the magazine disconnect.<span id='postcolor'>

I used (and cleaned) a Browining Hi-Power in the military several times. It had no mag disconect and I am sure that it was relatively new. It is possible that the military removed the m.d, but it would be strange.

[Mister Frag 0]

It may be that the gun you handled had the magazine disconnect removed, but the standard Browning Hi-Power and its many clones almost always have one.

[FSPilot 0]

Gun safety conversations definately shouldn't involve failsafes. Let's take a look at that word: FAIL... and then SAFE. In other words, when safety fails, this should help you.

Gun safety is being careful with a gun, keeping it pointed downrange and so forth. Not relying on magazine disconnects or the "safety", if there ever were a one-word oxymoron.

[Guest]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Oct. 30 2002,235)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gun safety conversations definately shouldn't involve failsafes.  Let's take a look at that word: FAIL... and then SAFE.  In other words, when safety fails, this should help you.<span id='postcolor'>

We were taught the principle of double failure: that is two independent integral safeties should be able to fail without you and your surroundings being in any danger.

For instance: if you have removed the magazine and removed he firing pin you should still not look inside the barrel. If you have removed the magazine, removed the firing pin and put the safety on then it is considered to be safe.

[FSPilot 0]

It's essentially the same thing with airplanes. Almost every system has a backup (I hear they even have two engines on some planes nowadays ).

Not only am I considering safety, but what is your sergeant going to think when he sees you staring down the barrel of your own rifle? Magazine or no magazine. lol

Food for thought.

[Mister Frag 0]

All that is still no substitute for safe gun handling.

For example, when a friend of mine comes by and asks to handle one of my firearms, I'll remove the magazine, and visually and by touch verify that the chamber is empty. I then hand the gun to my friend, while keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

What does he do? He repeats the same procedure I just went through seconds earlier -- he verifies that there is no magazine inserted, and that the chamber is empty. When he hands it back to me, I go through the same drill again.

Abiding by these formal procedures is neither silly nor time-wasting, and the only people who get to handle my firearms understand that. They have had firearms training similar to mine (I've gone through tactical courses with many of them), and would insist on doing it this way even if I didn't.

When you do that, you'll never find youself saying "Gee, I really thought that handgun wasn't loaded. I had it out just yesterday and unloaded it then, and I don't know who could have loaded it between then and now."

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Oct. 31 2002,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only am I considering safety, but what is your sergeant going to think when he sees you staring down the barrel of your own rifle?  <span id='postcolor'>

I would tell him to mind his own business and not to question a superior officer

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All that is still no substitute for safe gun handling.

<span id='postcolor'>

Of course not, I was just illustrating the principle of tripple checking. One should never look down the barrel of a weapon or point it at someone you don't intend to shoot. Also a proper procedure checking that the chamber is empty is also required. When handing a weapon to somebody you remove the magazine and then remove the round in the chamber having the weapon angeled in a way that the person who you are giving the weapon to can see you removing the round (or showing that the chamber is empty)

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Oct. 31 2002,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All that is still no substitute for safe gun handling.

For example, when a friend of mine comes by and asks to handle one of my firearms, I'll remove the magazine, and visually and by touch verify that the chamber is empty. I then hand the gun to my friend, while keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

What does he do? He repeats the same procedure I just went through seconds earlier -- he verifies that there is no magazine inserted, and that the chamber is empty. When he hands it back to me, I go through the same drill again.

Abiding by these formal procedures is neither silly nor time-wasting, and the only people who get to handle my firearms understand that. They have had firearms training similar to mine (I've gone through tactical courses with many of them), and would insist on doing it this way even if I didn't.

When you do that, you'll never find youself saying "Gee, I really thought that handgun wasn't loaded. I had it out just yesterday and unloaded it then, and I don't know who could have loaded it between then and now."<span id='postcolor'>

agreed

we can conider that there are two safety sytems with guns , the gun's mechanical one , and you

and the second fails more often than the first

[Major Fubar 0]

The best policy is not to point guns at anything you don't intend to shoot!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Oct. 31 2002,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only am I considering safety, but what is your sergeant going to think when he sees you staring down the barrel of your own rifle?  Magazine or no magazine.  lol

Food for thought.<span id='postcolor'>

"sir , i've handled more guns in my entire life than you during all your service time , and since you're a sergeant , you should be experienced enough to see that the gun is safe , now , would you mind your own business and let me doing my stuff now sir ?"

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Oct. 31 2002,01:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"sir , i've handled more guns in my entire life than you during all your service time , and since you're a sergeant , you should be experienced enough to see that the gun is safe , now , would you mind your own business and let me doing my stuff now sir ?"<span id='postcolor'>

Except for that he would be saying the 'sir' part

[ran 0]

yeah , but i talk about back in the good ol' days

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Oct. 31 2002,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah , but i talk about back in the good ol' days <span id='postcolor'>

Oh, in that case it wouldn't have been a sergeant but a second lieutenant who would have ripped me a new one if I talked to him like that. Plus I would have gotten guard duty and cleaning duty plus some form of colletive punishment for the entire platoon.

So I would probably not said anything but: Yes, lieutenant, sorry lieutenant, it won't happen again. And then perhaps just got guard duty.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 31 2002,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Oct. 31 2002,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah , but i talk about back in the good ol' days <span id='postcolor'>

Oh, in that case it wouldn't have been a sergeant but a second lieutenant who would have ripped me a new one if I talked to him like that. Plus I would have gotten guard duty and cleaning duty plus some form of colletive punishment for the entire platoon.

So I would probably not said anything but: Yes, lieutenant, sorry lieutenant, it won't happen again. And then perhaps just got guard duty. <span id='postcolor'>

french soldiers like to mess around with their officers

though i wouldn't have said that to every sarges i've met

[ralphwiggum 6]

may I refresh your memory denoir? before speaking about existence and distribution of safety devices, someone failed to check chamber and almost got his kneecap blown.

my position is that you ALWAYS take every precaution, regardless of the situation. and for all kids on this forum, make sure you understand that safety is priority.

[Jester983 0]

I just took a gun safety class this weekend (more of a hunting class) and the instructor put the definition of the safety as this

"A safety is a mechinical device that sometimes fails. Dont rely on your safety. You are the safety"

I think thats a good way to put it. And no matter how many times someone says the gun isnt loaded, you should check for yourself.

Its really all common sense if you think about it. I always thought gun safety was stuff that you had to study over and over again and again, but after i took my hunting class i was totally surprised that its just common sense.

I probably repeated some stuff but now that i know about gun safety i want to point out some thigns. Thats just my two cents.

[OFPunk 0]

HERE is where i got the pics. It has a few other prominent anti-gun politicians violating the most basic rules of firearm saftey.