Poll: Magazine Disconnect... Good idea or bad idea for CCW... Talk amongst yourselves.

[mjbskwim]

Sorry but you would be an idiot to just let someone take your gun from you,loaded or not.
Then the cops will kill him,cause you just told them he has your gun.
If I am carrying a gun,the last thing that will happen is a struggle.
Someone is gunna get hurt bad enough to end the attack,NOW
We ain't struggling to see who gets the gun.I'll leave that to the cops,it's part of their job.

Y'all are buying into all the instructor's BS instead of just keeping away from the problems.
Struggles,when guns are involved,aren't going to go like they do in class.

If a guy comes after you,when he knows you have a gun and just shot his dog (or not) he isn't quite right. I'll guarantee he will pick up the mag,you just dropped right in front of him,slam it back in the gun and shoot your A$$

But good luck with that type thinking.Make sure to call the family before 911,so they can leave the house (seeings how he now has your wallet and address.)

 

[Thebastidge]

A gun is a tool for emergencies. I may need to fire it under less than optimal conditions. Not having a magazine is one of those potential conditions.

 

[1S1K]

I can understand some of the thought behind people wanting to disable their own weapon, but at the same time I don't agree with it. I believe in proper gun handling and retention and I don't believe in safeties. I don't care if a gun has one or not, as I don't use them or trust them, every gun should be treated as loaded and ready to fire at any time so why would you not want it to? I also agree that a mag disconnect is for lawyers and is just one more thing to have fail.

 

[Greg]

Sorry but you would be an idiot to just let someone take your gun from you

mjbskwim,
I don't appreciate being called an idiot. Your insult does not further the conversation.
Regarding the rest of your post:
~ I don't understand why you think "the cops will kill him . . ." There aren't any cops out in the woods.
~ " . . . the last thing that will happen is a struggle." If you close your mind to possibilities, you can't prepare for them. Just because you have a gun does not guarantee there won't be a struggle. I won't belabor this other than to say that learning to recognize when you are making an assumption is an important skill.
~ "We ain't struggling to see who gets the gun. I'll leave that to the cops, it's part of their job." Do you really think the cops will arrive during a struggle? By the way, that's a rhetorical question.
~ Regarding the guy picking up the magazine and putting it back in, you missed my point. This buys time - a lot of time. He would have to orient the pistol into a grip, he may or may not try to fire at this point, then bend over to get the magazine, then orient the magazine properly or just try to put it in backwards and then try again, then point at me, then fire. This whole series of actions is an eternity in the situation I portrayed. Far more time than I'd need to finish the fight in a less lethal manor. I realize my statement has many assumptions built into it. However, I'm exploring a single contingency here.
~ Regarding the person having my address and going there to attack my family, my wife doesn't have worry about what the juries would think. So, in a home invasion situation, she could fire without worries about the legal aftermath. Your assumption that my wife can't shoot is incorrect.

 

[Michael]

IMHO, it is a bad thing. If you've shot enough tactical matches (and I mean decent ones where you're crawling through stuff and other difficult maneuvers), you've probably had your mag released unintentionally.

BTW - everything I can find on the internet seems to indicate that the LCP does NOT have a magazine disconnect. Apparently they added it to the new 9mm pistol though.

 

[mjbskwim]

I like my name in red.Cool

mjbskwim,
I don't appreciate being called an idiot. Your insult does not further the conversation.
Regarding the rest of your post:
~ I don't understand why you think "the cops will kill him . . ." There aren't any cops out in the woods.
~ " . . . the last thing that will happen is a struggle." If you close your mind to possibilities, you can't prepare for them. Just because you have a gun does not guarantee there won't be a struggle. I won't belabor this other than to say that learning to recognize when you are making an assumption is an important skill.
~ "We ain't struggling to see who gets the gun. I'll leave that to the cops, it's part of their job." Do you really think the cops will arrive during a struggle? By the way, that's a rhetorical question.
~ Regarding the guy picking up the magazine and putting it back in, you missed my point. This buys time - a lot of time. He would have to orient the pistol into a grip, he may or may not try to fire at this point, then bend over to get the magazine, then orient the magazine properly or just try to put it in backwards and then try again, then point at me, then fire. This whole series of actions is an eternity in the situation I portrayed. Far more time than I'd need to finish the fight in a less lethal manor. I realize my statement has many assumptions built into it. However, I'm exploring a single contingency here.
~ Regarding the person having my address and going there to attack my family, my wife doesn't have worry about what the juries would think. So, in a home invasion situation, she could fire without worries about the legal aftermath. Your assumption that my wife can't shoot is incorrect.

OK I hope by hurting your feeling that maybe you have considered a different alternative to letting the bad guy take your gun.

If you called the cops,and I'm ASSuming you would if he had your gun,they would most likely be real ready to shoot him,since you told them he took your gun.
Bad guy has gun=cops ready to shoot bad guy. But I missed the wood thing I guess.

Struggle,especially out in the woods,aint gunna happen.If you advance on me in the back country,aggressively,I will have the gun out and ready to shoot.I am not fighting with anyone when I posses a firearm.

All I was saying is it's the cops job to wrestle with someone when they are armed,not mine.
In this situation or not.

I am ASSuming that if the guy is trying for my gun,he just may know how to put a magazine in a normal semi auto hand gun. Most 5 year olds do. Should buy you at least 3 seconds.
Less than lethal after he just took your gun?
You couldn't even keep the gun and you are now a REAL threat to this guy? Hmmm

And last of all,I am not ASSuming anything about your wife.But she may be off guard when your vehicle comes in the drive,thinking it is you.
Why put this on your wife and kids?

If I am struggling to keep a gun,I shouldn't carry one or even own one.
I would be an idiot to let someone take my gun without shooting that person first.

If he is trying to take my gun,he has now become a threat to my life.

 

[orygun]

Struggle,especially out in the woods,aint gunna happen.If you advance on me in the back country,aggressively,I will have the gun out and ready to shoot.I am not fighting with anyone when I posses a firearm.

If he is trying to take my gun,he has now become a threat to my life.

This about "covers" it.

 

[Greg]

Shoot first and ask questions later – WOW!! A magazine disconnect certainly won't be of any use for that plan. Note that I am trying to steer the conversation back to the original question.

Your average hiking trail is 18" - 24" wide. Everyone is "advancing" on you. In fact, many people run these trails. Does this fall within the definition of "aggressive"?

From the other person's point of view: here you are jogging along your favorite trail in the woods. You come around a corner (there are corners in the woods.) The man five yards away, draws his gun because you are "approaching him aggressively". What will your reaction be? Tueller taught me that I should accelerate my run because even if the man who drew is in the 90th percentile of draw speed, I will still plow right into him.

At this point, who will the juries (again plural) see as the attacker vs. the victim? It is far more likely that those people will identify with the jogger rather than the over reactor. My point here is that who is perceived as the attacker will vary among the jurors.

For the situations I am in, grappling has a pretty decent probability. The only avoidance is to give up my primary form of exercise and recreation. I accept this risk and choose my firearm accordingly.

My dog-attack-in-the-woods scenario has several permutations that I was hoping to explore, but I can't seem to get through the simplest version with any improvement to my understanding. If someone out there can offer me advice for my specific situation, I would appreciate it. I am always (or at least atttempt to be) open to learn from other people.

 

[dan10mmman]

A. I can see no need for adding an other mechanical device that can and will interfere with the guns ability to do it's job of keeping me and mine alive and well. I dont know how often you carry a gun, but in my experience I have had my mag release activated by no known source. I have had this conversation with others who carry all the time. Come home at night and taking your gun off you find the mag loose. It happens, On the range, in competition, out on the steet. I can not even count the many times I have seen a mag change and the shooter gets one shot and the mag falls out. that one shot could stop the fight. If the gun had only gone "......."but the mag safety wouldn't let it, totally different ending to the story.

B. Never ever give your gun away in the middle of a fight. I'm sorry but that part of your story just isn't logical to me. Like asking a tiger if he would like you to sharpen his claws for him befor he eats you. I do not carry a gun for the purpose of giving it away to anybody who feels like attacking me for any reason. I honestly do not care why they want to kill or injure me or my family. I only know that I can and will survive.

C. It wasn't broke, Don't fix it !!!

as an afterthought I am not trying to dis on anybody, just my $.02 nothing personal

 

[Greg]

Clarification: I wouldn't give up my pistol if I could avoid it. Did anyone reading this thread actually think I would just hand my life over without a fight? I have been talking about a situation where I am already injured and am now struggling to keep control of my pistol, but can't.

I have been trying to analyze that critical moment when someone is overpowering me and I can tell that they will be able to take my pistol. Back to my example: while I'm getting the dog off me, the owner approaches from my right. I try to get him in my sights. Note that there is a time lag between having one target (the dog) in your sights and then having the second target (the owner) in your sights. As I do this, he secures kote-gaeshi. At this point, I still have my pistol in my hand, but it is now pointed at me. Then in that situation specific situation, disabling the pistol would help.

As a sidebar, it is very curious to me that so many people think that they can't be disarmed. I wonder what it must feel like to be so powerfull. A firearm is not a magic wand you wave and everyone kneels before you in terror. Anyone can be disarmed. If you think you can't be, then you haven't actually let someone try. There is always someone more skilled, bigger, smarter, faster, or just plain more numerous.

Hopefully, no one will just say, "You'd be an idiot to let someone point your own gun at you." If want to write that, please don't, because you've missed the point. I really hope that I can get a better response than some of the previous such as, "Struggle . . . aint gunna happen" or "Someone is gunna get hurt bad enough to end the attack,NOW". For some, my hypothetical situation could never happen to them. So, they don't see the value of trying to help me. They just want to bang on their shields and proclaim their power because it couldn't happen to them. If someone here has the ability to envision and entertain a hypothetical situation, please chime in. If you are going to write, "You are stupid and weak.", please don't bother. You are wasting not just your time and mine, but everyone else reading this thread.

 

[VW_Factor]

Is this a trick question?

 

[SargentMac]

Clarification: I wouldn't give up my pistol if I could avoid it. Did anyone reading this thread actually think I would just hand my life over without a fight? I have been talking about a situation where I am already injured and am now struggling to keep control of my pistol, but can't.

I have been trying to analyze that critical moment when someone is overpowering me and I can tell that they will be able to take my pistol. Back to my example: while I'm getting the dog off me, the owner approaches from my right. I try to get him in my sights. Note that there is a time lag between having one target (the dog) in your sights and then having the second target (the owner) in your sights. As I do this, he secures kote-gaeshi. At this point, I still have my pistol in my hand, but it is now pointed at me. Then in that situation specific situation, disabling the pistol would help.

As a sidebar, it is very curious to me that so many people think that they can't be disarmed. I wonder what it must feel like to be so powerfull. A firearm is not a magic wand you wave and everyone kneels before you in terror. Anyone can be disarmed. If you think you can't be, then you haven't actually let someone try. There is always someone more skilled, bigger, smarter, faster, or just plain more numerous.

Hopefully, no one will just say, "You'd be an idiot to let someone point your own gun at you." If want to write that, please don't, because you've missed the point. I really hope that I can get a better response than some of the previous such as, "Struggle . . . aint gunna happen" or "Someone is gunna get hurt bad enough to end the attack,NOW". For some, my hypothetical situation could never happen to them. So, they don't see the value of trying to help me. They just want to bang on their shields and proclaim their power because it couldn't happen to them. If someone here has the ability to envision and entertain a hypothetical situation, please chime in. If you are going to write, "You are stupid and weak.", please don't bother. You are wasting not just your time and mine, but everyone else reading this thread.

If you are already injured to the point that someone can take your weapon, then you can shoot them and be justified. Here's why...
Able-Bodied > Injured
Strong enough to take your weapon > Not strong enough to retain it
Skilled enough to take your weapon > Not skilled enough to retain it

There are three conditions that exist in this situation that make a shooting justifiable.
Means/Ability - He is in proximity to take your weapon.
Opportunity - He is within distance of you to do you harm.
Intent/Jeopardy - He is attacking you and attempting to take your weapon.

I don't care why someone is trying to hurt me. If I shot your dog in self defense, if you're a wanna be banger trying to get initiated, or if I nailed your wife and you found out. If you try to attack me, I will respond with the necessary, justifiable force to end the attack.

 

[mjbskwim]

Just to further the argument,it was never said your situation had anything to do with being injured.
And if I am injured,the 6/12 rule comes into play.
Most definitely I am putting rounds in the Mo Fo.

 

[Greg]

If you are already injured to the point that someone can take your weapon, then you can shoot them and be justified. Here's why...
Able-Bodied > Injured
Strong enough to take your weapon > Not strong enough to retain it
Skilled enough to take your weapon > Not skilled enough to retain it

There are three conditions that exist in this situation that make a shooting justifiable.
Means/Ability - He is in proximity to take your weapon.
Opportunity - He is within distance of you to do you harm.
Intent/Jeopardy - He is attacking you and attempting to take your weapon.

Thank you. This is the kind of information that helps.

 

[mjbskwim]

If you are already injured to the point that someone can take your weapon, then you can shoot them and be justified. Here's why...
Able-Bodied > Injured
Strong enough to take your weapon > Not strong enough to retain it
Skilled enough to take your weapon > Not skilled enough to retain it

There are three conditions that exist in this situation that make a shooting justifiable.
Means/Ability - He is in proximity to take your weapon.
Opportunity - He is within distance of you to do you harm.
Intent/Jeopardy - He is attacking you and attempting to take your weapon.

I don't care why someone is trying to hurt me. If I shot your dog in self defense, if you're a wanna be banger trying to get initiated, or if I nailed your wife and you found out. If you try to attack me, I will respond with the necessary, justifiable force to end the attack.

It seems this would be common knowledge if you are carrying a weapon for self defense.

 

[SargentMac]

It seems this would be common knowledge if you are carrying a weapon for self defense.

You'd think so, but with all these people having a problem shooting their attacker BEFORE they lose their weapon, I figured it was worth pointing out.

 

[mjbskwim]

You'd think so, but with all these people having a problem shooting their attacker BEFORE they lose their weapon, I figured it was worth pointing out.

That's funny right there

 

[Greg]

By the way, I have a good algorithm for deadly force decision making. I have studied the statutory criterial in detail and can recognize IDOL situations. I understand what Ayoob means when he says, 'Here, Now, and unavoidable".

I offered thanks to you SargentMac not because I learned something, but because it was refreshing to have someone actually trying to educate rather than just talk about how tough they are and how dumb I am.

 

[SargentMac]

By the way, I have a good algorithm for deadly force decision making. I have studied the statutory criterial in detail and can recognize IDOL situations. I understand what Ayoob means when he says, 'Here, Now, and unavoidable".

I offered thanks to you SargentMac not because I learned something, but because it was refreshing to have someone actually trying to educate rather than just talk about how tough they are and how dumb I am.

Greg, I apologize if I offended you. I wasn't referring to you specifically with my remark about people not shooting an attacker. I'm just always surprised by the number of people who are willing to fight over their own firearm.

 

[Yournamehere]

I don't CCW, so for those purposes, I don't know if it's good or bad, though I don't generally like magazine disconnects in pistols (I own a Hi-Power and used to own a S&W 5906). I don't feel it makes the gun "safer", or at least not as much as it makes the guns more inconvenient, especially without a decocker as on a Hi-Power. I feel like it should behave like it's single action cousin, the 1911, and I should be able to lower the hammer with the magazine out as on a 1911, so after I safe it, I don't have to place the mag back in to set the hammer down and "know" it's safe. Furthermore I don't like devices that render my gun inert, that's what my hands and brain are for.

I understand the argument that if the gun is taken from you, you can release the magazine and render it inert so it may not be used against you, but I'd rather have the capacity to not lose the gun in the first place. That aside, I just want the gun to work as a "regular" single action (or double action in cases other than Hi-Powers) should, it's just one less nuance to have to tip toe around.