Automatic safety for pistols.

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

george91

Moderator
Hi, folks!


I invented automatic safety for pistols. Easy to cocked and locked carry. When you put the pistol behind or put it in the holster. It automatically closes the front of the firing pin. Yes, should I get a patent? What are you thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All of my carry guns already have an automatic safety. It's between my ears!
Certainly don't want some pin mounted, spring operated abomination hanging on the side of the slide.
 
The problem I see is that a great many shooters today hold the pistol with the thumbs held along the side of the slide. I envision that this grip style would very likely cause the safety to engage while shooting ... which is not the intent.

Also ... how does it work with a striker-fired pistol?
 
Some people might find a "holstering" safety attractive.

Here are some requirements that make sense to me.

1. It should not add significant weight or size to the pistol.
2. It must not interfere with normal operation of the pistol.
3. It must not force the shooter to adopt an unusual or very specialized grip on the pistol.
4. Ideally, it should not require a special holster.
5. To the extent possible, it should not unduly detract from the appearance of the pistol.
 
It will be much more difficult to pursue a patent now that you have “published” the concept.

Interesting idea though.
 
Are grip safeties not good enough if you wanted that extra level of safety features? Also what happens when you lay your design on it’s side? How much force/weight to disable the firearm, what if someone grabs your slide in a self defense situation?
 
You are free to apply for a patent should you choose.

I would not be interested in the product. My guns have all the safeties they need. Keeping my finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard is another safety. Using my brain is the #1 safety.

This, and I’m being honest and sincere, sounds/looks like something California gun haters would dream up for a new law to add another safety to guns that are seen as not having a “manual safety”, like Glocks. It just hinders the ability to use a firearm as it was designed by the mfg and puts the operator at greater risk instead of reducing risk.
 
The illustration appears to be of a Glock slide. The Glock pistols have three safeties; the inertia safety on the trigger, the firing pin block in the slide, and the drop safety of the firing mechanism. Then, as others have pointed out, there is the number one safety, the shooter.

Sadly because Glocks are so easy to shoot (grab and pull the trigger) a great many people who do not have adequate training, and people with training but who lack gun handling discipline, shoot Glocks and have accidents. This does not need an additional, mechanical safety to solve it, it requires more and better training.

The problem I see is that a great many shooters today hold the pistol with the thumbs held along the side of the slide. I envision that this grip style would very likely cause the safety to engage while shooting ... which is not the intent.
Click to expand...

For me the above would be the final nail in the coffin of this idea. No offense intended.

Dave
 
I mean no disrespect to your ideas/designs and applaud anybody with the drive/smarts to pursue stuff like this. I personally see some issues.

1-Thumbs forward grip as mentioned.
2-large unwieldy/unsightly.
3-Gun folks tend to be traditionalist and don’t want extra complication for fear of adding another failure point. Some folks lost their minds over the GADGET for Glocks and that was a pretty ingenious, simple well thought out idea.
4-There have been other more elegant ways to accomplish what you are looking for (grip safety, squeeze cocker etc.)

Me I want a modern P7esqe firearm with a squeeze cocker but I am weird and would like be the only guy who wanted it.

My suggestion would be try to figure out something, simple, unobtrusive and able to be retrofitted ala the GADGET.

Again props to you for trying.
 
To my eyes this looks like a hammer fired pistol rather than a Glock due the visible firing pin and cutout at the rear of the slide. I assume the safety protrusion is a last physical barrier that an external hammer would strike.

The safety being unintentionally engaged by thumbs can be addressed by thinning and recessing all the portions in the middle of the safety (where thumbs would go) into the slide so they fit flush. The choice of where to leave the protrusion that activates the safety would affect what type of holster would be effective. Belt slides won't press against the safety near the muzzle so maybe a compromise. You may as well go with a design that fits flush or nearly flush after the safety is depressed so it would fit in existing holsters. As it is, this safety doesn't need to be so thick or tall. The internal hammer safety of revolvers are small stamped steel as under normal use they would never see much stress.

The design could be adapted to striker fired but it would be harder with more precise modifications and introduce potential for malfunction. I'm thinking, a protrusion that keeps the firing pin plunger from moving would be the most easy target that requires less deep drilling. Be warned, this looks like it would require a good bit of modification to a gun and as the laws are in this country at this time, I don't think a lot of civilians would spend their money in this way.
 
Last edited:
The safety being unintentionally engaged by thumbs can be addressed by thinning and recessing all the portions in the middle of the safety (where thumbs would go) into the slide so they fit flush.
Click to expand...

Just eyeballing it, I'm not sure they could be. The hinge pin is so far forward, and the back edge has to move nearly the width of the slide in order for the hammer or firing pin to clear, I don't see how to make the long piece flush and still have all the parts inside the slide in working positions.

I can't imagine a market for this. Sorry, OP.
 
george91,

I hate to kill someone's creativity, but I would not waste the money to patent your idea. I don't think anyone would want to modify their guns to put a large piece of metal along the side of it.

For those that prefer guns with safeties, adding the "hammer block" would be pretty useless. I don't know of any gun owners that feel the "need" for safeties beyond the ones that come from the factory. For those who really worry about safety, some end up carrying chamber empty. On the flip side, people who carry regularly worry more about being able to get their gun into play as quickly as possible.

As another poster has already mentioned, the Heckler and Koch (H&K) P7M8 had a grip that cocked the gun (and kept it cocked as long as the lever was held back). The moment the grip was released, the gun was uncocked. The gun is not supposed to discharge even if trigger is pulled or the gun is dropped. They have gotten pretty expensive since they were discontinued a few years back and they were never "widely adopted" (probably due to cost).

Feel free to bounce ideas off of us and keep on trying new ideas. One warning I will give you is that us "pro-gun" people tend to frown heavily on things that can make our guns LESS RELIABLE or potentially get us killed since we can't get it into action quickly.
 
Easy to cocked and locked carry. When you put the pistol behind or put it in the holster. It automatically closes the front of the firing pin. Yes, should I get a patent? What are you thoughts?
Click to expand...

A couple of questions and issues with the design.

I'm not sure what you mean by the portion of your statement that I've bolded. I don't know what you mean by "when you put the pistol behind... the holster..." can you explain?

When you say "when you put the pistol...in the holster" do you mean it only works when it's in the holster? Why would it be needed then?

When you say it can work with cocked and locked carry. That method is already safe so why add another layer of safety?

I see that the lever has the tab that inserts between the rear of the slide and a cocked hammer. But unless you are carrying Condition One (cocked and locked) why carry a gun with a cocked hammer? Folks don't usually do that.

If the tab is meant to rest over and behind a hammer that is lowered and resting over a live round (or an empty chamber), locking it in place, meaning that it the could not be fired with a longer da pull of the trigger, wouldn't that be a safety issue?

I don't see anything that would keep the device from flapping about loosely when not in the holster. So what keeps it from flopping around when not locked in place?

It will only work with hammer fired guns.

tipoc
 
One should rely on his batman for the maintenance and
safety of one's pistols. Pressing the trigger is the only
responsibility of the firearm's owner.


(One proviso: It is always wise to keep a standby worthy
batman in reserve.)
 
I had an firearms invention and took it as far as hiring a patent lawyer to go through the process. But it is quite difficult to get, and the lawyer convinced me that it might be futile to try, and not waste my money. So I didn't apply after all, and paid the lawyer for his time and counsel with a gift.
 
The invention begs a couple of questions. (1) What is it supposed to prevent? Accidental discharges upon holstering? (2) If so, does it happen with enough frequency to warrant the addition to one's gun? If holstering A.D.'s are not all that frequent, then the invention brings to mind the old platitude, "An ingenious solution to a nonexistent problem."
 
I must be missing something basic here. So you pull your pistol out of the holster and the spring pushes the "automatic safety" out of the way of the hammer? Wouldn't that thing be hanging out and whanging back and forth with the slide as the gun fires? How would that work?
 
There is also the problem of the device adding weight to a slide that was made to specifications for the caliber the pistol is firing. The added weight could quite possibly lead to reliability/cycling issues where none existed before...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top