An video update from the shooter who managed to shoot himself in the leg ...

This incident was originally discussed in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=435662&mesg_id=435662

pipoman replied to the OP with a link to the following video, but his post appears to have received little attention.

In my opinion, the shooter's explanation of the accident merits viewing by those who own and use firearms. It's always beneficial to occasionally remind yourself why safe gun handling is extremely important. It only takes a momentary lapse of concentration to cause an accident and all too often "familiarity breeds contempt."

I am not sure that I buy his explanation and welcome comments from those more familiar with retention holsters than I am.

The video is at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE

but at least he has the brains to acknowledge what a total idiot he looked like and warn kiddies not to try it at home.

He was lucky he didn't lose bone, nerve and tendons.

When switching equipment like that, you want to do at least a few dry-runs with an unloaded gun before moving on, just to make sure you have your movements reset to match the different actions required. It would appear that he did not and, once he started having a problem (gun didn't disengage from holster) he did not stop and re-assess his actions. Bad move, as evidenced.

As an example, in multi-gun competitions, where a course is fired with more than one weapon, much of your training is spent practicing the transitions between guns. Of course, there is a much larger difference in transitioning from a hand-gun to a carbine or shotgun than between two different hand-guns, so harder to make a similar mistake.

A 1911 requires some practice. Retention holsters require practice too. Both together require even more practice. Throwing another handgun like a Glock and another holster type into the mix during the same session during a "fast" drill doesn't really prepare one for any real world situation, and does up the probability that muscle memory will override your thoughts in the wrong way. Glad the guy is OK and that he had the balls to post the video.

as he probably knows how to use it.

I have two firearms that I dedicate for concealed carry and I practice drawing them from a holster. I enjoy shooting my other firearms for target practice and even for practicing point shooting and other defensive styles of shooting but since I don't carry them, I don't practice drawing them.

The two firearms I do carry are both S&W J-frame revolvers. I carry a S&W Model 642 snub nosed revolver in a pocket holster and occasionally a Model 60 with a 3" barrel in an IWB holster. Both are similar in operation.

If you are going to carry different guns at different times, or multiple guns, you want them to be as similar as possible.

In my personal case, I carry a 1911, and if I were to expand my carry collection, I would restrict it to 1911-style pistols. They are made in a variety of sizes and calibers, but they all function identically, the controls are in the same places and operate the same way. It would also be best to use guns that are all the same caliber and can use the same magazines, but that is not always a viable option.

The general consensus I've seen is that if you carry a semi-auto pistol as a primary self defense firearm, and also a back-up gun, the back-up, if it can not be the same type as the primary, should be a simple double-action revolver. This makes the transition from primary to back-up as simple and uncomplicated as possible.

A CZ75B, a CZ 2075 RAMI ( which will accept the magazines from the 75B ) and a S&W 5906. All three are DA/SA and all three have the safety/decocker in the same place.

I am a firm believer in only carrying one platform for this very reason

would have blown his head off way before he blew a hole in his leg.

A gun held a foot from your face, forget drawing your gun. That would be as stupid as shooting your own leg, only more lethal.


Once more

Murphy's law goes double with guns.

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

His explanation sucks too. He is your typical "I'm a well trained gunner" . . . . . . . who fucks up more often than they admit.

That's the lesson from this.

now hold my beer and watch this.......



:rofl:

I know that isn't the norm for you hoyt, and that your knee jerk reaction is to set the guy up as some sort of villain and then paint said villain as being representative of the "typical" gun owner, but I don't think it is the most productive way of going about things. This is especially so when you can't even back up your claims with some evidence to support them (the number of gun related accidents has been on the decline for some time now).

:hi:

And I'll bet the guy who shot himself drawing was probably telling someone how friggin well trained and safely he handles guns within the hour or two prior to his gun fuck up.

But I know, all gun carriers are just as safe, well trained as you.

How about you quantify that in a manner that we can actually use. Do you have some statistical data you can point to that demonstrates that "public gun carriers" are generally unsafe?

Also, I don't carry a gun, at least not yet.

At a minimum he won't get paid again for showing off his gun handling abilities. And, who knows, he might not have had the proper permits, etc., to be playing fast draw cowboy in a crowd. He might even be a felon, mental case, or physically unable to handle a gun in public.

He's a FU because he shot himself, right?

If a person in a vehicle damages their own property and that of no one else, or hurts themselves and no one else, should they lose the right to own or drive a vehicle?

Federal or state law, I'm easy. Because I don't believe there's a statute on the books in any state that will deprive a person of his freedom to possess a firearm as a result of accidentally shooting himself; generally, you have to shoot someone else for that happen.

We're not talking about what you think should happen, Hoyt. You asserted "this guy is just upset he may lose access to guns" (post #7) and last time I looked, nobody died and made you king. The question is, on the basis of what statute do you think Mr. Grebner might actually be deprived of his freedom to possess firearms on the basis of having shot himself?

Hoyt must love NY and NYC laws.

but because he displayed that he was carrying a firearm in contrvention to the laws of NYS and NYC. Stupid laws, but he broke them in an especially stupid way, so my sympathy is... limited.

with the button style retention device can create a situation where an ND is possible. If you apply too much pressure to the release and draw your weapon, it is quite possible for your finger to snap into the trigger guard and impact the trigger firing the weapon.

this is why at least one national training center bans the use of this style of holster in it's programs

I have little knowledge of that style holster and now I have very little interest in owning one.

It's by no means unique to this one, nor as common as implied.

This guy basically set himself up by rapidly switching from one style to another.

however with this holster, the finger pressure to disengage the "lock" is significantly more than the pressure on a standard friction retention style holster which can cause the finger to "snap" into the trigger guard.

A lot of folks find that pressure more than they can apply with their index finger laid straight out so they cheat and curl their finger to create more leverage and that makes it more likely for the finger to snap into the trigger guard.

As you can probably guess, I am not a big fan of these kinds of holsters as the mechanics necessary to draw the gun puts you in more precarious position than a regular friction holster or a thumb break holster. That is why some training facilities ban their use.

Police may need some sort of retention because they are in the business of running, fences, etc. while open carrying. Most people really aren't that active while carrying open. Even then what is wrong with the Safariland style thumb break retention? There have been few issues with it for decades it has been in use.

Many police forces currently use triple-retention holsters for exactly this reason.

As far as activity, I like my Serpa because I am fairly active when I carry, and here in Arizona I mostly open carry. I've never had to worry about my gun falling out while hiking, mountain biking, crawling around cars/motorcycles when vehicle shopping, a variety of manual labor, etc.

I had retired by blade-tech for the fobus and hadn't tightened the passive retention screw for physical activity.

I now bike with my LCP in a fobus holster...I don't think it's possible to eject this little light pistol at normal human powered speeds.

Retention in physical activity is secondary.

I see a link to the original video, but what is this update you speak of?