h a l f b a k e r yCrust or bust.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A rubber attachment behind the trigger that would make it much more difficult to pull since it would need to be compressed before the trigger could be pulled into it's fire position. It would be designed to make it much more difficult for a child to pull the trigger.
Had this idea for a while, never
threw it out because it would be mistaken for something trying to make a loaded gun safe to have around kids which it obviously wouldn't.
Might add some layer of additional protection to a properly locked and stored gun though.
Ehh, I'll throw it out there.
Advertise like this!
http://static3.busi...-revolvers-1913.jpg
[xaviergisz, May 18 2014]
another vintage ad
http://vintage-ads....al.com/3387293.html
[xaviergisz, May 18 2014]
Grip Safety
http://en.wikipedia..._safety#Grip_safety
Possibly a better way to do it. [Custardguts, May 18 2014]
[link]
|
| |
Lemme get this straight...you're a shootist ? |
|
| |
//I'll throw it out there// and we'll throw it back. Most if not all firearms you can get a stronger pulling action right off the shelf. |
|
| |
//Lemme get this straight...you're a shootist ?// |
|
| |
I don't think so, that sounds pretty committed. Just a
gun owner. I've got a 4" diameter grouping at 100
yards with my 30-06 so there are probably worse
shots than me out there, but it's not a lifestyle or
anything. |
|
| |
//Most if not all firearms you can get a stronger
pulling action right off the shelf.// |
|
| |
Well, not like this. The idea is it would be something
you leave on the gun when it's stored so you could
fire it in an emergency situation, but it would be very
ver very hard to pull the trigger. It would be
something you would take off when you were firing it
for sport or practice. |
|
| |
But I don't know, is another layer of protection
against accidental firing a good idea? I'm not even
sure it is. People might think it's enough and leave it
out. |
|
| |
Like I said, thought I'd throw it out there. Kind of an
interesting concept. |
|
| |
How about no guns? Save a lot of rubber. |
|
| |
Triggers can already be calibrated to whatever
weight the owner wants. Some have heavy triggers
out of the box (see: M1895 Nagant). Almost every
gun owner prefers a lighter trigger, and I suspect that
anyone who keeps a gun for self defense would tell
you that a heavy trigger would seriously hurt their
ability to fire accurately and defend themself. If the
situation is bad enough to warrant a gun, then you
need all the help you can get and no "safety" features
to get in the way. |
|
| |
Besides all of that, here is the root of the problem;
children get killed by guns because the gun owners
are idiots. Why on earth would a loaded gun be in a
position where a child could get to it, "trigger pull
stiffener" or not? If the owner is that much of an
idiot already to let their child get ahold of a gun,
then they are probably also too much of an idiot to
utilize extra safety features. Like it or not, nomatter
how many devices and solutions are invented, kids
are still going to get killed as long as stupid people
have guns. |
|
| |
If you made it very stiff, you could include a crosspiece to brace your legs on. That way you could hold the trigger with both hand and push with your legs to overcome the resistance. |
|
| |
It would mean lying on your back, feet towards target to shoot your gun, but you are out of the way of counterfire down there so a good idea anyway. |
|
| |
For rifles it would be easy - the cross piece would be at the end of the barrel. Sort of like a bike pump but with bullets coming out and no hose. But for a pistol, the shooters legs will be too long for all except the very short or very flexible. Here, the foot crosspiece would be more like stirrups, one on each side leading down parallel to the barrel. One could mount a sight between the feet to help with accuracy. |
|
| |
If the stirrups were hinged it could be possible to leave your feet in them, allowing you to get up and run around between shots. The stirrups could actually be built in to "shooting boots". The pistol itself, attached to the shooting boots, would be suspended between your legs, but pointed down and so in a safe position. |
|
| |
I guess the idea would be to have something that would make the gun much harder for a child to shoot that's readily apparent just looking by looking at it. A trigger that's been adjusted to be harder to pull would look the same as any other trigger. |
|
| |
The more I think about it the more I think I'd want something like this, not as a primary way to prevent a child from accidentally firing a weapon, that being primarily addressed by properly locking the gun up as I do, but as a second line of defense. |
|
| |
I don't care if I have to squeeze the trigger with both hands to fire the weapon if somebody breaks into my house if it would offer some additional measure of protection against an accident. After all, no safety measures are 100%. Why not have an extra measure of safety? |
|
| |
I'm on the fence with this one for the public, but I'd buy these today for myself if they were available. |
|
| |
As an aside, cigarette lighters sold in the UK, if
they
use a flint-and-wheel, are designed so that it's
difficult to use them unless you apply a
substantial
amount of force. This is intended to make them
somewhat childproof. It doesn't interfere much
with
adult usage, although you seldom have to aim a
lighter with much precision. |
|
| |
However, if the aim to prevent very young
children from pulling the trigger, there must be a
better way. For example, a safety catch such that
buttons on opposite sides of the grip must be
pressed and slid - a bit like the childproof bottle
caps that have to be squeezed at the sides and
turned. This would take only half a second for an
adult to do, and wouldn't then interfere with the
firing. |
|
| |
Here's a perspective from an emotionally detached, numbers only viewpoint: A certain percentage of guns will be stored unsafely. If a percentage of those guns has this feature, I would assume that there would be fewer accidental deaths from the group equipped with the trigger dampers. If that's the case it's hard to argue against reduced accidental deaths. |
|
| |
That is unless, the previously noted un-intended effect is people with these dampers forgoing better gun safety procedures which is entirely possible. The "I have an airbag so I don't need a seatbelt" effect. |
|
| |
That's why I want them, but might not trust other people with them, stupidity being as popular as it is. |
|
| |
Why not just crank up the force on a grip safety instead, saves frigging about with sensitive trigger sears. It's possible to train to shoot a pistol relatively well with a very firm grip, whereas it's basically impossible to shoot a pistol well with a very heavy trigger. You could easily have a key-lock system for disengaging the grip safety for when you want to be able to shoot more easily. |
|
| |
Couldn't just buy it and slap it on like these things but that's probably a better approach to the gun design in the first place. |
|
| |
What about something that requires a hand of a certain size to even reach all the parts of the gun needed to fire? Something like where you reach around into recessions in the grip with your fingers and thumb where there are 4 safeties that all need to be pushed before the trigger will move? Then the kid would have to perform some kind of brilliant feat of engineering to fire the thing. |
|
| |
...Pretty sure I've seen dual grip safeties before, ie a tab on both the rear and front of the grip needing to be actuated. |
|
| |
Ultimately, two child's hands probably have a similar grip range as a single adult hand. At some point the term "child" gets watered down as well - a say 14 year old large boy could easily have hands larger and stronger than many adults (especially females). |
|
| |
Whilst I think the grip safety is the easiest way to implement this - I still think securing the weapon is the only way. Maybe if you live in a combat zone, you could have a special RFID wristband-armed pistol for elf defence in the home? |
|
| |
Truly. If I for a minute thought the threat level so high and imminent that I might not have the time to unlock a thumbprint-coded safe and retreive my gun, I'd move, or perhaps just dissolve into a puddle of stomach acid and adrenaline. |
|
| |
To be completely honest, I understand the want and need for concealed carry, in some areas where armed crime is really, really rife. Additionally, I'm confident that there is zero, or very nearly that, violent gun crime committed by concealed carry permit owners. However, I think I'd just choose to move, rather than have to go forth armed. I'm certainly not interested in living in my home with loaded firearms available on every surface for rapid deployment. |
|
| |
Scratch that. I'd love to have that home and the freedom to have guns everywhere. I just don't want to be so scared that I need it.. |
|
| |
[+] Simple and effective addition to existing safety measures. Not helpful if it replaces them though. |
|
| |
//live in Europe where there are fewer guns.// |
|
| |
...and where they can throw you in jail for saying
something that displeases the government under the
"Public Order Act". For instance, quoting Winston
Churchill. |
|
| |
Uh oh, gun control debate on the horizon. Not today
please. I try not to get into debates where nobody is
going to change their minds one way or another. This
is just an idea, good or bad to make existing guns
possibly a little safer and save some lives. Maybe. |
|
| |
I do think some thought should be put into a gun that
can't be fired by a child, or would be very, very
difficult to be fired by a child. I think if anybody
were dumb enough to think that a gun was "child
safe" and thus leave it out unlocked they'd probably
be dumb enough to not lock it up even without child
resistant measures built in. |
|
| |
But like I said, I don't know that. Un-intended
consequences happen all the time. It's like the
universe has a sick sense of humor. |
|
| |
The only thing I can think of that I can't think of a
way for a child to circumvent, is a grip where you
wrap your fingers and thumbs around the grip, stick
them into recesses (so you can't put your fingers in
from
any other direction) and push 4 safeties before the
gun can fire. The child's fingers just wouldn't be able
to reach inside. They'd have to mount extensions on
their fingers and thumb. At that point you've got one
resourceful clever kid that's probably going to be able
to get around any safety measure. |
|
| |
If I get some time maybe I'll draw a schematic and
post it for review and critique. |
|
| |
Typo corrected? That's too bad. I was enjoying the " 4" diameter grouping at 100 years ". That's probably about how long it would take me to get that grouping at 100 yards. Iron sights or scoped? |
|
| |
It would be interesting to develop long range shooting skills, but my core competency concerns are handgun oriented. |
|
| |
//push 4 safeties before the gun can fire// |
|
| |
Yes, but that makes the actual shooting a hassle,
and I presume it would interfere with your natural
grip. |
|
| |
Better, surely, to have a safety catch that requires
some skill/strength/finger-length to operate
initially, and thereafter allows the gun to operate as
usual. |
|
| |
//eave on the gun when it's stored so you could fire it in an emergency
situation, but it would be very ver very hard to pull the trigger. // |
|
| |
This idea discriminates against adult women with limited grip
strength. |
|
| |
Quite a few normal average women struggle to fire a .38 S&W revolver
double
action. Just cocking the hammer requires both thumbs. Something
like a .455 Webley Mk. IV is out of the question (never mind the recoil
...). Some struggle to load
an M1911 because they can't grip the back of the slide firmly enough. |
|
| |
There are very, very few valid reasons for keeping a weapon in a
loaded state. One is personal protection when the weapon has to be
ready for immediate use - perhaps to even the odds between a female
homeowner and a male attacker. Anything that makes such a weapon
more difficult for the legitimate owener to use in a prompt and timely
manner is a really, really bad idea. |
|
| |
^ If you don't want your kids to play with your guns then don't have kids, or at least keep them locked up. That simple. |
|
| |
[Toaster], [8th], now you're talking sense. You know that this will certainly lead to controversy. |
|
| |
//If you don't want your kids to play with your guns
then don't have kids, or at least keep them locked
up.// |
|
| |
Can't I just lock up the guns instead? |
|
| |
A gun, left unattended and unloaded, does nothing. It makes no noise;
it makes no mess. It does not draw on the walls with crayon, pour
paint into your slippers, decorate the furniture with patches of vomit,
use the remote control as a chew, tear pages out of books, melt
plastic bottles on the stove, telephone the speaking clock in Brunei,
put bubble bath in the tropical fish tank, or set fire to the curtains. |
|
| |
Hmmn... watch out for next BorgCo product, small lockable metal
mesh crates for children ... |
|
| |