TargetTalk

Some of you may be interested in an article in the current (Winter 2006, Vol. 14 no. 1) "Ergonomics in Design", a quarterly publication of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. It is entitled "Human Factors Issues in Firearms Design and Training". It even got the cover photo! EID is the application oriented pub of HFES. In this case it describes the introduction of a group of mostly firearms innocent Human Factors experts to shooting and firearms, and gives their take on many design and training issues. Nothing extraordinary, but possibly interesting. For those unfamiliar with ergonomics, very briefly, it is the science/art of designing interfaces between humans and the man-made systems we all use, so as to maximize usability, effectiveness and minimize risks/injury. (Hope I don't get thrown out of the 'union' for this description!)
Richard Newman

Where can we find a copy?

Richard:

Does it address match-level design or is it another in the stream of Law Enforcement design articles?

Steve Swartz

Sparky and Steve,
First, I would expect any large library, and certainly any university library should have copies. If not available, even small libraries can get the journal via interlibrary loan.
THe focus of the article isn't on specific training techniques or detail design. It is focused more on the issues of general training, avoiding injury and differences in design which make "transfer of training" a problem. That is, when you have two similar but not identical ways of doing something (e.g. releasing the safety of a pistol) you are more likely to make errors when going from one to the other. In this case, you can fire unintentionally, or fail to fire in a defensive situation. I think the most interesting aspect is the take of some very smart scientists who have just been introduced to a brand new (to them) technology.
Richard Newman

I got onto the publications web site, but could not find the article you mentioned. I would also like to have a copy for my library files, if possible.

Thanks, Don in Oregon

Well, it may not be as good of an article as it sounds.

http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_arc ... 02130.html (the post talks about it half way down the page)

And here's a summary of the article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 214532.htm

nneely wrote:Well, it may not be as good of an article as it sounds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 214532.htm

No kidding....

Look at some of the gems there:

In some cases, it's nearly impossible to tell when there are still bullets in the chamber

Really? I've used just about every type of modern cartridge firearm known to man and I've yet to find one that fits their description.

And of course:

In terms of design, HF/E research can help to determine a recommended standardized design for safeties and cylinder releases. Perhaps there should also be different standards for firearms design for different purposes, such as home defense versus law enforcement. One promising area is the "smart gun," which would recognize and be operable only by the owner

John Moses Browning did not need these people, and neither do we now.

Yeah, Jose, after looking at this it appears as though this is part of the "get rid of guns by insisting on impossible technology" movement.

There appears to have been a lot of "things are not as they appear" stuff in the world lately . . .

Jose,
Remember what I said initially. These are intelligent but firearms innocent folk. That an experienced shooter like yourself can reliably tell if a chamber is empty doesn't mean the naive folk can. If we assume that 10% of the US are pro-gun and 10% are anti-gun, that leaves 80% who don't have a real clue. Including these people. What this article shows is what a group of technically skilled people oriented towards efficient and safe design of things see when they look at an assortment of firearms. As someone who has designed much deadlier weapons than firearms, I can say that the first thing the authors would do if this was a work assignment is to get MUCH more knowledgeable about firearms. But most of the 80% won't get more knowledgeable unless we teach them. Look at this as a window into the world of that 80%
Richard NewmanBIYDUC

Richard Newman wrote:Jose,
Remember what I said initially. These are intelligent but firearms innocent folk. That an experienced shooter like yourself can reliably tell if a chamber is empty doesn't mean the naive folk can. If we assume that 10% of the US are pro-gun and 10% are anti-gun, that leaves 80% who don't have a real clue. Including these people. What this article shows is what a group of technically skilled people oriented towards efficient and safe design of things see when they look at an assortment of firearms. As someone who has designed much deadlier weapons than firearms, I can say that the first thing the authors would do if this was a work assignment is to get MUCH more knowledgeable about firearms. But most of the 80% won't get more knowledgeable unless we teach them. Look at this as a window into the world of that 80%
Richard NewmanBIYDUC

I understand what you are saying.

But their lack of subject matter expertise did not stop them from making statements they are simply not qualified to make (the loaded chamber bit) or to conjecture about what the solutions should be.

Different design standards for home defense and law enforcement firearms? Sorry, even I can spot a politically driven position when it is waved in front of me. That statement is right out of New Jersey's smart gun mandate, which exempts police from the requirement to have smart guns X years after the first gun of that type is marketed anywhere in the US.

These guys need to stick to lanwmowers and kitchen appliances.