CAF MP SUES DND AND SIG SAUER

[Eaglelord17]

And any NCO on the line should kick them off right away. The issued holster is mandated as part of the safety system for the pistol. Trying ti do something else should get you kicked off the range immediately. This was heavily emphasized to us in the train the trainer course. If someone NDs or god forbid shoots them selves and they didnt use the authorized holster, they would automatically be liable for not using the pistol as directed.

Sounds like a pretty crappy pistol to have adopted if it must be placed in a very specific holster to be safe. Please correct me if I am wrong but the pistol doesn’t even seem to have a safety of any sort on it?

 

[MilEME09]

Sounds like a pretty crappy pistol to have adopted if it must be placed in a very specific holster to be safe. Please correct me if I am wrong but the pistol doesn’t even seem to have a safety of any sort on it?

No manual safety, the holster is the black hawk T series, it can be drop leg, molle or belt mounted. Personally I prefer drop leg in winter, and belt in summer.

 

[brihard]

Sounds like a pretty crappy pistol to have adopted if it must be placed in a very specific holster to be safe. Please correct me if I am wrong but the pistol doesn’t even seem to have a safety of any sort on it?

A manual safety is not a desirable feature in a combat pistol. A proper holster performs most of the same work a rifle’s safety would.

 

[Eaglelord17]

A manual safety is not a desirable feature in a combat pistol. A proper holster performs most of the same work a rifle’s safety would.

I like DA/SA systems if that is the path taken. It greatly reduces risk without losing much of anything. Even a token safety like the Glock trigger safety seems better than absolutely none at all.

 

[Haggis]

I like DA/SA systems if that is the path taken. It greatly reduces risk without losing much of anything. Even a token safety like the Glock trigger safety seems better than absolutely none at all.

Without a LOT of practice, it's often hard to get an accurate first shot at distance with a DA/SA. Sometimes one shot is all you get. Most coppers don't practice as much as they should/could so the simpler a duty firearm is to shoot, the better.

 

[KevinB]

A manual safety is not a desirable feature in a combat pistol. A proper holster performs most of the same work a rifle’s safety would.

Unfortunately Canada’s choice of holster isn’t ideal either.

 

[KevinB]

I like DA/SA systems if that is the path taken. It greatly reduces risk without losing much of anything. Even a token safety like the Glock trigger safety seems better than absolutely none at all.

DA/SA is about the worst of all worlds.

1) You get two drastically different trigger pulls.
2) 10-12 lbs of DA pull isn’t conducive to great shooting - I know a few folks who used to be able to do it pretty easy, but they where the exception that proved the rule.
3) Despite being a bit of a meme, the whole ‘this is my safety Sir, finger’ aspect is correct. Don’t put the finger on the trigger unless you are planning on engaging.

 

[markppcli]

Sounds like a pretty crappy pistol to have adopted if it must be placed in a very specific holster to be safe. Please correct me if I am wrong but the pistol doesn’t even seem to have a safety of any sort on it?

Need to break the cycle of using what ever as a pistol holster. The old green biachi holsters we issued fit the browning so badly you can pull the pistol out from behind without undoing the flap. The ones we issue now are safer and actually retain the pistol.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Without a LOT of practice, it's often hard to get an accurate first shot at distance with a DA/SA. Sometimes one shot is all you get. Most coppers don't practice as much as they should/could so the simpler a duty firearm is to shoot, the better.

True, but without any safety you also run risks and still require a bunch of training to be both effective and safe with the pistol.

Those same coppers who would struggle shooting with a DA/SA for a service pistol would also carry extra risk of NDs with a pistol with no safety.

Generally with a pistol I favour safety as the actual usage of it/shooting with it is much lower than how much you handle it.

Like anything it is a compromise. Glock seems to have done a better job with at least having a safety on the trigger itself. They don’t seem to have anywhere near the same issues as Sig does.

DA/SA is about the worst of all worlds.

1) You get two drastically different trigger pulls.
2) 10-12 lbs of DA pull isn’t conducive to great shooting - I know a few folks who used to be able to do it pretty easy, but they where the exception that proved the rule.
3) Despite being a bit of a meme, the whole ‘this is my safety Sir, finger’ aspect is correct. Don’t put the finger on the trigger unless you are planning on engaging.

It comes down to what you value in a service pistol. Some obviously value the shooting capability as the number one priority. Nothing wrong with that but for the vast majority using pistols that isn’t how they will be mainly used.

As I was support trades, for me it is more about not shooting yourself or anyone else with a bunch of troops who were very questionable on handling skill sets than engaging the enemy with it. Many who struggled with handling a C7 let alone handguns.

As such I am more concerned about the user error side than anything else. I think mitigating that is more important than a better initial trigger pull for how little we actually will use pistols and for the likely operators of said pistols.

You can train that out, which is the method the CAF has chosen, but based on that picture above and my personal experiences with the military I have severe doubts that they will effectively train and keep up on said training to the point of mitigating the risk of not having any safety.

Or it shall result in poor handling decisions such as just not keeping a round chambered to avoid the risk, which defeats the point in not having a safety in the first place.

 

[markppcli]

True, but without any safety you also run risks and still require a bunch of training to be both effective and safe with the pistol.

Those same coppers who would struggle shooting with a DA/SA for a service pistol would also carry extra risk of NDs with a pistol with no safety.

Generally with a pistol I favour safety as the actual usage of it/shooting with it is much lower than how much you handle it.

Like anything it is a compromise. Glock seems to have done a better job with at least having a safety on the trigger itself. They don’t seem to have anywhere near the same issues as Sig does.


It comes down to what you value in a service pistol. Some obviously value the shooting capability as the number one priority. Nothing wrong with that but for the vast majority using pistols that isn’t how they will be mainly used.

As I was support trades, for me it is more about not shooting yourself or anyone else with a bunch of troops who were very questionable on handling skill sets than engaging the enemy with it. Many who struggled with handling a C7 let alone handguns.

As such I am more concerned about the user error side than anything else. I think mitigating that is more important than a better initial trigger pull for how little we actually will use pistols and for the likely operators of said pistols.

You can train that out, which is the method the CAF has chosen, but based on that picture above and my personal experiences with the military I have severe doubts that they will effectively train and keep up on said training to the point of mitigating the risk of not having any safety.

Or it shall result in poor handling decisions such as just not keeping a round chambered to avoid the risk, which defeats the point in not having a safety in the first place.

If we're not using weapons that are optimized to shoot and kill the enemy why are we even issuing them?

 

[KevinB]

True, but without any safety you also run risks and still require a bunch of training to be both effective and safe with the pistol.

Those same coppers who would struggle shooting with a DA/SA for a service pistol would also carry extra risk of NDs with a pistol with no safety.

Generally with a pistol I favour safety as the actual usage of it/shooting with it is much lower than how much you handle it.

Like anything it is a compromise. Glock seems to have done a better job with at least having a safety on the trigger itself. They don’t seem to have anywhere near the same issues as Sig does.

So you are missing some major differences in the designs of pistols.

For the striker fired firearms; Glock is not a fully cocked striker, so the trigger is required to be pulled to fully activate the striker.
The Sig P320 and M&P designs use fully cocked strikers, so the trigger pull is simply moving the striker block out of the way.

DA/SA guns or DAO, are not inherently more safe, there are short reach triggers and lower trigger pulls available in several models. The DA/SA guns that you seem to be believe are safer, require more attention to detail as one need to decock before reholstering, or it is akin to putting a SA Hammered Pistol cocked without safety back into the holster, as they both generally have trigger pulls in the 3.5-5lb arena.

It comes down to what you value in a service pistol. Some obviously value the shooting capability as the number one priority. Nothing wrong with that but for the vast majority using pistols that isn’t how they will be mainly used.

The Striker pistol is generally the easiest pistol to train. One of the reasons that most LEA’s and Government entities world wide have gone to them.

I have referred to Glock as the perfect stupid persons pistol - as it literally is so simple to operate.

As I was support trades, for me it is more about not shooting yourself or anyone else with a bunch of troops who were very questionable on handling skill sets than engaging the enemy with it. Many who struggled with handling a C7 let alone handguns.

As such I am more concerned about the user error side than anything else. I think mitigating that is more important than a better initial trigger pull for how little we actually will use pistols and for the likely operators of said pistols.

You can train that out, which is the method the CAF has chosen, but based on that picture above and my personal experiences with the military I have severe doubts that they will effectively train and keep up on said training to the point of mitigating the risk of not having any safety.

Having a safety seems at odds with your DA/SA preference above (unless it was some obsolete S&W gun)

Or it shall result in poor handling decisions such as just not keeping a round chambered to avoid the risk, which defeats the point in not having a safety in the first place.

I don’t think the Safety or Lack thereof matters in the slightest for the CAF. The vast majority of ND’s occur at clearing barrel - which shows that while weapons competency is generally low, but also that for the most part troops don’t screw around with loaded weapons and have learned to treat them with respect.

 

[Maxman1]

Love seeing dudes wearing face cam with bright armpatches.

Even better, we do have IR NATO patches that are issued in Latvia.

 

[PrairieFella]

I've done it. Its a good package, but doing it once does not equal expertise. The problem isn't with the training package, its that afterwards, most Army members rarely ever see a pistol again.



Hence my comment on training and experience.

Outside of those who carry a pistol as their principal weapon for duty (namely, MPs), who is the next largest user of pistols? Generally HQ personnel on some sort of base, who have neither the training nor the experience to competently handle the thing. Watch an average clearing bay in a HQ to see what I mean. Not a good thing, but a reality.

Crewmen issue a lot of pistols at all levels. Drivers, CCs, sometimes gunners in tanks plus all SNCOs and up generally. The chest holster attachment is pretty popular amongst us.

 

[PrairieFella]

Even better, we do have IR NATO patches that are issued in Latvia.

Orders are orders...