You cannot put a price on safety and as Incubus says, our cadets don’t need to use the same drills as regular troops do. However, the hugely irritating thing is that not long after introducing the revised drills, they are changing back and that does nothing for cadet confidence in using the weapon.
You would like to have thought that the authors of the PAM would have staffed their original proposals through the cadet organisation beforehand!
The thing which irritates me about it all is the idea that applying the safety catch makes the rifle safer during the drills.
It’s an invalid point. All that applying the safety catch does is prevent the trigger from operating. The trigger doesn’t make the weapon fire, it’s only one part of the whole process. Once a stoppage has occurred the rifle simply cannot fire even if one were to operate the trigger.
The only time the rifle can fire again is once the drills have been carried out, the working parts have gone forward and another round has been fed into the chamber.
Throughout the entire IA and stoppage drills the state of the safety catch makes no difference whatsoever.
The other irritating thing is that this change is being pushed under the guise that “Clearly cadet organizations are not happy” when in truth, it’s just one ACF commandant makeing his points heared…I don’t believe that anybody asked the ATC opinion, nor the SCC as far as I’m aware.
Who ran a safety or risk assessment for the original change? There had to more to it than just commonality.
As is stated above, the safety catch makes no difference during the stoppage and IA, the weapon will not fire, which is why it is a stoppage.
A safety catch is not applied during a stoppage on a .22 rifle during a stoppage (misfire etc) so why should it be required.
I think and fell, from my experience, that this magical Safety Catch on the L98 possibly gives cadets a false sense of security. They should be thinking about more than whether it is at S or F.
[quote=“juliet mike” post=13910]As is stated above, the safety catch makes no difference during the stoppage and IA, the weapon will not fire, which is why it is a stoppage.
A safety catch is not applied during a stoppage on a .22 rifle during a stoppage (misfire etc) so why should it be required.
I think and fell, from my experience, that this magical Safety Catch on the L98 possibly gives cadets a false sense of security. They should be thinking about more than whether it is at S or F.[/quote]
The safety catch on a No 8 doesn’t make a difference as it prevents the bolt operating and the firing pin has already gone forward.
However with the L98, the safety catch does stop the weapon from firing whilst clearing a stoppage i.e. working parts go forward when the cadets finger is holding onto the trigger = Instant bang* and as the cadet is focusing on the stoppage not the weapon, the rifle is more likely to be pointing in the wrong direction. At the end of the day, we are meant to be training cadets the discipline of shooting, not getting them ready for battle.
As for a sense of security with the weapon, if it helps cadets be more confident with the weapon than I am all for it. It also drums in the need for cadets to “think safe” leading to better drills.
Finally it helps demonstrate to the ignorant outside the organisation that we take weapon safety seriously. (Although counterpoint this with the L81A2 where it is dangerous to use the safety catch and cadets are instructed not to touch it).
A very pertinent question, however I suspect that it may have been one person’s decision as a quick win -something they’ve wanted to get through for ages and have tried to do without going through the correct channels. If you was the ACF Commandant responsible for cadet safety, you would be a bit miffed if they had made a change like this without consulting you. Cue kneejerk “change it back mentality” on the ground that a safety change was sneaked in without going through proper channels and explaining the decision process to the said Commandant.
*I have seen this happen live with the L98A1 (it was a method some cadets used to fire blanks faster). As far as I am aware the weapons were serviceable and I assumethis same principle applies to the L98A2.
If they are holding onto the trigger the weapon won’t fire as the hammer will be prevented from moving forward onto the main sear until the trigger is released.
They should still be in control of the weapon even during a stoppage, it isn’t actually that difficult. If a cadet or adult is waving the weapon around while trying to clear a stoppage they should not pass the WHT.
The main thing that annoys me is that I will now look like a chump when I have to tell the cadets that the new thing that I taught them last week is now wrong.
[quote=“talon” post=13932]They should still be in control of the weapon even during a stoppage, it isn’t actually that difficult. If a cadet or adult is waving the weapon around while trying to clear a stoppage they should not pass the WHT.[/quote]I’m not concerned with the passing of the WHT but with the actions during live firing.
It seems to me that locking out the trigger as a first action and unlocking it again only when the aim of the rifle has the firer’s full attention is a useful precaution against the potential of an over-exuberant firer under pressure, perhaps in a timed practice, accidentally operating the trigger before they had intended. The cause of such an ND would be poor drills but that doesn’t really help anybody at the time.
I am also annoyed at the flip-flop of rules and do have some sympathy for those who have already re-briefed according to the Pam, but it should never have been changed in the first place.
[quote=“incubus” post=13934]I’m not concerned with the passing of the WHT but with the actions during live firing.
[/quote]
If they are waving the weapon around during live firing they get chucked off the range.
[quote=“talon” post=13936]If they are waving the weapon around during live firing they get chucked off the range.[/quote]There is quite a range of options between “waving it around” and “being aimed”. A few degrees of elevation or deviation can cause damage to the range furniture if a shot is released, or even send a round out of the RDA (barrack ranges are a particular concern). I’m not saying that we will have an “unthinking moment” incident but there is a risk.
Yes there is supervision but will the intervention be in time?
I quite agree that we don’t want cadet’s top be nervously and accidentally firing the rifle before they’re ready…but we should be addressing this with proper training, not with simply expecting them to apply the safety catch.
We train them to remove the safety catch during a snap practice and not to fire until a target appears. We trust that they do it right.
We also train them (or should be, because it’s in the Pam) to keep their finger off the trigger until they are ready to fire. We trust that they’ll do this right.
We confirm the above by testing them.
Why then, do we feel the need to introduce a redundant action during a stoppage?
We should do both, as we have done for some years now.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=13944]We train them to remove the safety catch during a snap practice and not to fire until a target appears. We trust that they do it right.
We also train them (or should be, because it’s in the Pam) to keep their finger off the trigger until they are ready to fire. We trust that they’ll do this right.
We confirm the above by testing them.[/quote]
All generally in calm situations when they are focussed on shooting the rifle or when it is unloaded. Introduce a time limit to the action and focus can drift.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=13944]Why then, do we feel the need to introduce a redundant action during a stoppage?[/quote]Trust only goes so far and experience shows that even the most competent firer can make errors. Applying the safety catch in the IA seems to be sensible to me.
So, now that we are loading in the standing position, why not also ready in the standing position? It is a lot easier than readying in the prone.
Why should we apply the safety catch on the unload as the first things we do are removing the mag and emptying the weapon, rendering it inert?
To be clear: I don’t have an issue with the IA drill not involving the safety catch but it is the consequences thereafter which I have issue with. If all that is needed is a tap then carry on; if you need to start clearing stoppages I do feel that the safety is best engaged. For simplicity of drills, IA=safety+look seems best.
If the rifle fails to fire on operation of the trigger, for whatever reason. How then does applying the safety catch make the rifle any safer?
Until the stoppage is cleared their is no increased level of danger with not having the safety catch applied.
When the stoppage has been rectified then firing is recommence unless ‘Stop’ has been ordered, so no safety catch should be applied. With properly trained cadets their is no drop in safety levels.
Actually incorrect. As demonstrated during the FUNCTION TEST, the trigger would have to be squeezed while the working parts go forward, then RELEASED (the audible POP as the secondary safety sear disengages) then be re-squeezed. This is why the weapon does not automatically re-fire when the bolt goes forward after firing a shot.
Actually incorrect. As demonstrated during the FUNCTION TEST, the trigger would have to be squeezed while the working parts go forward, then RELEASED (the audible POP as the secondary safety sear disengages) then be re-squeezed. This is why the weapon does not automatically re-fire when the bolt goes forward after firing a shot.[/quote]
Note the asterisk* - I stated that this was based on assumption with something that I had seen happen on the L98A1 . I stand corrected regarding the sear on the L98A2. 
Would have thought it would have been impossible with the A1 too, as the cocking handle had to be operated with the trigger hand.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=13913][quote=“juliet mike” post=13910]As is stated above, the safety catch makes no difference during the stoppage and IA, the weapon will not fire, which is why it is a stoppage.
A safety catch is not applied during a stoppage on a .22 rifle during a stoppage (misfire etc) so why should it be required.
I think and fell, from my experience, that this magical Safety Catch on the L98 possibly gives cadets a false sense of security. They should be thinking about more than whether it is at S or F.[/quote]
The safety catch on a No 8 doesn’t make a difference as it prevents the bolt operating and the firing pin has already gone forward.
However with the L98, the safety catch does stop the weapon from firing whilst clearing a stoppage i.e. working parts go forward when the cadets finger is holding onto the trigger = Instant bang* and as the cadet is focusing on the stoppage not the weapon, the rifle is more likely to be pointing in the wrong direction. At the end of the day, we are meant to be training cadets the discipline of shooting, not getting them ready for battle.
As for a sense of security with the weapon, if it helps cadets be more confident with the weapon than I am all for it. It also drums in the need for cadets to “think safe” leading to better drills.
Finally it helps demonstrate to the ignorant outside the organisation that we take weapon safety seriously. (Although counterpoint this with the L81A2 where it is dangerous to use the safety catch and cadets are instructed not to touch it).
A very pertinent question, however I suspect that it may have been one person’s decision as a quick win -something they’ve wanted to get through for ages and have tried to do without going through the correct channels. If you was the ACF Commandant responsible for cadet safety, you would be a bit miffed if they had made a change like this without consulting you. Cue kneejerk “change it back mentality” on the ground that a safety change was sneaked in without going through proper channels and explaining the decision process to the said Commandant.
*I have seen this happen live with the L98A1 (it was a method some cadets used to fire blanks faster). As far as I am aware the weapons were serviceable and I assumethis same principle applies to the L98A2.[/quote]
I agree with CT here wholeheartedly. Let’s be completely straight about this.
Absolute safety of the cadets is paramount. No excuse or argument I’m afraid can alter that fact. It doesn’t matter if it’s Shooting, Fieldcraft or even Drill. Safety of the young people in our care must come first, always.
Rules and Regulations in all the disciplines that we teach are vitally important and are the cornerstone of everything we must do. But, no matter what the R&R’s say, if a safety factor can be emphasised which will prevent a tragedy, no matter how unlikely, then that’s fine by me.
Shooting is a discipline the ACO takes great pride in and enabling a cadet to “think safe” with a weapon, improve their grouping and attain marksmanship badges is for me as a SAAI/RCO is fantastically rewarding. We don’t prepare them for war, we are not some form of Hitler Youth for heaven’s sake.
Safety first, always.
yeah…to be fair it was blank rounds firing from the hip at an angle of 45 degrees (maybe a little more) into the air whilst crouching. I can’t say it was the safest or particularly conventional way to hold the weapon!! :blink:
Also I am going back nearly 20 years and to a CCF unit so conventional isnt really expected
Just to give my tuppence worth on the situation…
I would tend to agree with others here, that if the applicable IA was something as simple as the tap, then in theory, applying the safety catch is not really necessary. However, would we really want to bring another option into the equation, i.e. differing safety catch regs for the various IAs? I think not, as that would/could cause confusion.
Back in the early 1990s, when I did my “B Qual” course at Aldershot (all other students were Army), we split into 2 syndicates who shared the same Gallery range - 1 group using FPs 1-4 and the group I was in, using FPs 17-20. At times, whilst we were at 100yds, the other group could be back at 300 yds and vice versa. On 1 detail, I was telephone orderly and we were shooting on the 300 yd point - the other group was at 100 yds (I was not that convinced we were within the 200 Mil rule!). One of the firers at 300 yds had a jam, so started IAs - working parts to rear, mag off, quick look in chamber. His rifle was pointing everywhere - including towards the other group - finger on the trigger etc, as he tried to free the jammed round (his Safety Sup did not pick him up on his lack of weapon handling skills). Happy that he had freed the jammed round, without further checks, he put the working parts forward and casually fired off the action with no regards to point of aim (which was certainly biased to the left, towards the other group at 100 yds). I can still remember the look of shock and bewilderment on the firers face as the round that was left in the chamber fired, as he failed to do proper checks! Very lucky it did not hit anyone at 100 yds. In this instant, I doubt applying the safety catch would have prevented the incident, as I expect the firer would simply have selected “F” to fire off the action anyway. However, it does potentially illustrate an example where applying the safety catch for IAs is an added and warranted precaution.
That day on the range, was quite eventful - a bit later, as we were shooting at 300 yds, 2 teenagers on mountain bikes, cycled across the 100 yd point! They were VERY lucky not to be shot!
P
That was a lucky day indeed hotshot.
It also, if coupled together, shows that no matter remote we think an incident could occur it can.
How much trouble is it to apply a safety catch anyway? Now I’m the first to admit that obviously it won’t make much difference in some IA’s, conversely, though if it doesn’t make much difference then why not do it anyway.
It will give those cadets and, dare I say, Adults, who perhaps are a little nervous coming to LF for the first time that extra psychological reassurance.