I’m not so sure I subscribe 100% to the theory that when someone looks away to the left when answering a question that they’re being dishonest, but as a professional tech trainer in a very competitive industry, I have yet to meet someone who did do that who wasn’t either fibbing or under pressure to give a less than completely truthful answer. And he does exactly that when he says he unreservedly recommends it just moments after saying that it’s unnecessary. Tells me he’s on the fence.
I like the “keep it simple stupid” principle. If you add something to the mechanism then you make it more complicated and chances of the malfunction grow.
Well, that’s certainly the first time someone has accused me of being dishonest because of eye movements in a 480p YouTube video. I guess it’s not possible I was glancing at my cue cards which are off to my out of shot.
As far as the Gadget itself goes, it doesn’t actually complicate the gun. If it breaks, it just becomes a regular, non-moving striker plate. Plus test units have well over a half million rounds through them with no issues.
Regarding KISS: for me, the odds and consequences of firing my pistol while holstering outweigh the odds and consequences of a mechanical problem caused by the Gadget. But I won’t argue with someone who gives it some thought and makes a different choice.
December 30th, 2016 at 5:27 pm
I’m not so sure I subscribe 100% to the theory that when someone looks away to the left when answering a question that they’re being dishonest, but as a professional tech trainer in a very competitive industry, I have yet to meet someone who did do that who wasn’t either fibbing or under pressure to give a less than completely truthful answer. And he does exactly that when he says he unreservedly recommends it just moments after saying that it’s unnecessary. Tells me he’s on the fence.
December 31st, 2016 at 8:28 am
I like the “keep it simple stupid” principle. If you add something to the mechanism then you make it more complicated and chances of the malfunction grow.
January 1st, 2017 at 7:06 pm
Well, that’s certainly the first time someone has accused me of being dishonest because of eye movements in a 480p YouTube video. I guess it’s not possible I was glancing at my cue cards which are off to my out of shot.
As far as the Gadget itself goes, it doesn’t actually complicate the gun. If it breaks, it just becomes a regular, non-moving striker plate. Plus test units have well over a half million rounds through them with no issues.
January 1st, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Craig Douglas had this things on his T-Glocks for, like, a year of ECQC evos. If they didn’t break there, they’re unlikely to.
January 3rd, 2017 at 1:27 pm
Regarding KISS: for me, the odds and consequences of firing my pistol while holstering outweigh the odds and consequences of a mechanical problem caused by the Gadget. But I won’t argue with someone who gives it some thought and makes a different choice.