17Sept04

Comments on frangible have been on both sides of the issue. Some think it is fine. However, this one is typical:

"Since my agency made the switch to lead-free/frangible, we have had nothing but trouble. We buy and consume one million rounds a year. We tested all brands. All demonstrated themselves to be unsatisfactory. Issues range from hard primers, to bullets disintegrating in magazines, to abbreviated shelf life, to cycling problems. Our selection was finally based, not on the best performance, but of the least of the poor performances! In any event, it is good for practice only. If is not suitable for any serious application, so we have to be careful not to get it mixed in with the good stuff.

A final note. We've been informed that bismuth is as undesirable as lead. No disposal facility will take it.

Looks as if the tree huggers are really keeping us 'safe,' eh?"

/John

17Sept04

Training based on "condition"

At yet another range where we conduct training sessions I see the familiar sign posting safety "rules." There is something about safe gun handling and not having alcohol on the range, but the last admonition is always the same: "Keep all guns unloaded until ready to use. The people who write this stuff obviously don't carry guns and have never given a conscious thought to the serious employment of any firearm. However, you see this same posting, even on ranges where "training" is supposed to be taking place. The concept of continuously carrying a gun in a high state of readiness has never crossed the minds of most people who administer typical ranges and who have these signs printed and posted.

We call it the "condition" approach to firearms training and handling. With this erroneous philosophy, the supposed condition of the gun is the only thing that matters. There are (1) loaded guns, which are "dangerous" and must be handled carefully (better yet, not handled at all), and there are (2) unloaded guns, which are "safe" and may be handled casually and heedlessly. On such ranges, loaded guns are the recipient of morbid, pathological fear and are considered to be so dangerous that they really shouldn't be handled at all, much less carried in a holster. On those same ranges, despite all the hollow rhetoric to the contrary, supposedly unloaded guns are routinely handled carelessly. Indeed, they are handled with what can only be described as casual contempt, and all the dribble about "Let's all pretend they're loaded" falls on deaf ears.

So, once the "condition" of the gun is known or supposed, the handler can decide how it should be looked upon and handled. Accidents continue to happen when this philosophy is in place, because "safe" and "loaded" guns keep getting mixed in with each other! This is the resident school of thought on "cold" ranges, and there is no way any kind of competent training will ever take place so long as it is in place, because students will either look upon guns with illogical fear or nonchalant disdain. Neither is healthy or productive.

The correct philosophical approach to serious firearms training is the "the condition doesn't matter" method. This was first articulated by Uncle Jeff in his four rules, but all four can all be rolled together in the universal admonition: DON'T DO STUPID THINGS WITH GUNS! The "hot range" concept logically flows from this philosophical conclusion. Now, we handle all guns correctly, all the time. We don't have to "pretend" they're loaded. They ARE loaded, continuously, and all students need to become accustomed to it.

The US Navy routinely practices night carrier landings of jet aircraft. There is great danger associated with the practice, and, once in a while, an eighty-million dollar aircraft is piled up in the process. Such incidents are regrettable but are accepted as the price we must pay if we are to have competent pilots. There is no way night landings can be "simulated." Pilots need to know they can do it, so they must actually do it. Regrettably, this correct philosophy has not filtered down to small-arms training. Some still naively believe we can train people to carry and use pistol and rifles in a dangerous environment by never actually doing it in training.

All training involves risk. Unfortunately, on what passes for training ranges, "safety" is defacto defined as “a maniacal preoccupation with the utter eradication of all risk, to the point where everyone promptly forgets why we're even there." If we're going to truly prepare our students for real fighting, we must accept the risks that are inherent to real training, and stop conning ourselves with "pretend" training. We're going to have accidents either way. One way, they at least serve a purpose. The other way, they are all in vain.

/John