Oh they will. Count on it.The good news is that any motivated solider can learn about 3-4 the skills using a pistol on a civy range as they will in the military, that is if JT and crew don't screw us gun owners over any further.
Oh they will. Count on it.The good news is that any motivated solider can learn about 3-4 the skills using a pistol on a civy range as they will in the military, that is if JT and crew don't screw us gun owners over any further.
"Unfamiliarity". Even GO/FOs should successfully complete TOETs and a PWT before being issued a pistol.So, like, there's no direct correlation with rank then, right?
That point, specifically in favour of LEOs, was brought out during the recent injunction hearing against the May 1st Liberal "assault-style" gun ban OIC. The witness told the judge that the ban denied LEOs (and by unspoken extension, CAF members) the ability to conduct off-duty practice with their privately owned but now prohibited AR platforms.The good news is that any motivated solider can learn about 3-4 the skills using a pistol on a civy range as they will in the military, that is if JT and crew don't screw us gun owners over any further.
Actually, it appears that the Sig P320 won the M17/M18 competition largely because Sig quoted a price that was significantly cheaper than the Glock entry — the two company’s pistols receiving essentially identical scoring in all other aspects of the competition.The M17/M18 has been taken into service by the largest NATO forces over all other competitors including the much vaunted Glocks, which are a ton cheaper.
Which is exactly what Glock did to win the Ottawa Police contract. The deciding factor, from what I've read, was that Sig added the manual safety, something Glock refused to/couldn't do. When the original RFP came out to replace the Browning, one requirement was a manual ambidextrous safety. This was to mitigate the risk of NDs by casual users.Actually, it appears that the Sig P320 won the M17/M18 competition largely because Sig quoted a price that was significantly cheaper than the Glock entry — the two company’s pistols receiving essentially identical scoring in all other aspects of the competition.
A manual safety also helps if you have a foreign object in the holster, which is what Sig Sauer alleges contributed to this specific CANSOFCOM incident.Which is exactly what Glock did to win the Ottawa Police contract. The deciding factor, from what I've read, was that Sig added the manual safety, something Glock refused to/couldn't do. When the original RFP came out to replace the Browning, one requirement was a manual ambidextrous safety. This was to mitigate the risk of NDs by casual users.
So, that would infer that, in this instance, if it occurred as described by Sig, either the manual safety wasn't engaged or this wasn't an M17 but a stock P320, which is what the media article stated.A manual safety also helps if you have a foreign object in the holster, which is what Sig Sauer alleges contributed to this specific CANSOFCOM incident.
On that point, we have this gem from Op ATTENTION: https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/99003/index.do?q=Colonel"Unfamiliarity". Even GO/FOs should successfully complete TOETs and a PWT before being issued a pistol.
This case is an excellent example of why I hate NDA S. 129. NDA s 124 (Negligent Performance of a Military Duty) may have been more appropriate and easier to prove as the prosecution doesn't have to prove the alleged offence was contrary to both good order and discipline. The LCol in this case didn't have to prove anything. The onus was on the prosecution to prove that the LCol wasn't aware of the TSO, that the TSO made an ND an offence, and that the LCol was not aware of proper handling drills.On that point, we have this gem from Op ATTENTION: https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/99003/index.do?q=Colonel
8 months into a 9 month tour, after almost weekly mandatory TEOT refreshers (I know because I was there doing them), a LCol successfully argued he had no knowledge of the TSOs on ND and worse yet, the C7/C8 Carbine manual that contained all the drills he needed to know to DAG Green. Even more ridiculous was the amount of Jr NCMs who didn't get the luxury of "beyond reasonable doubt" and paid fines in the neighbourhood of $1000 per round.
if someone discharges into a clearing bay, then a "good job that it happened here. Now tonite and tomorrow you be spending time with the M/CPL doing weapon drills till he tells me your skills have improved".
Until the discharge is deemed to have been cause by a mechanical malfunction, which is raised as a defence. Policies that have absolutes are not always workable.Or, as in my previous units, that's an immediate charge and you lose 7 days pay. If you happen to be an Officer, it's more of course.
That kind of 'promise' can help incent you to do your drills right.
I'd like to see the statistics on 'technical' versus 'accidental' malfunctions.Until the discharge is deemed to have been cause by a mechanical malfunction, which is raised as a defence. Policies that have absolutes are not always workable.
I have been witness to two in over four decades of shooting. One involved the 9mm SMG C1, which the gun plumbers determined had a badly worn sear. The other was on a civvy range where a pistol slam-fired during an emergency reload. This was caused by a broken firing pin spring. IIRC it was an older 1911 before the firing pin blocks were used.I'm pretty sure the percentage of mechanical malfunctions is minuscule in comparison to operator error.
I have been witness to two in over four decades of shooting. One involved the 9mm SMG C1, which the gun plumbers determined had a badly worn sear. The other was on a civvy range where a pistol slam-fired during an emergency reload. This was caused by a broken firing pin spring. IIRC it was an older 1911 before the firing pin blocks were used.
The overh=whelming majority of unexpected (or, to quote the CBC, "inexplicable") discharges are the result of what IT folks call an "ID ten T" error.