Automatic safety for pistols.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m starting to think that this idea was narrow focused to hammer-fired guns and not thought was given to non-hammer guns. It’s been asked numerous times, at a high level and detailed level, how it would work and there is no response other than “it’s theoretically applicable”.

Not betting my money or life on “theoretically applicable”...

This seems to be a solution searching for a problem imho...
 
An external "safety" as shown in the OP's drawing is a recipe for disaster.
All it takes to defeat the function is a piece of sand/dirt/clothing/mud/etc preventing the hinged device from fully closing when holstered.

There are already far more functional designs that:
work
aren't butt ugly
safer
don't add additional weight
don't add additional bulk
don't interfere with operation of the slide

One is this device for Glocks: https://taudevgroup.myshopify.com/products/striker-control-device

Reliance on "safety devices" for the safe operation of a firearm is an accident waiting to happen. It promotes complacency, carelessness and a lackadaisical attitude toward gun handling. Proper training makes any gun safe.

Care in reholstering is every bit as important as drawing/unholstering.
 
I said this earlier...the op is unfamiliar with handguns.

When I was 12 I designed a train that could travel 300 miles and hour in an underground tunnel. Beat Elon Musk to the punch by a couple of decades. Better design than his as well.

I also designed an "earth submarine" that could hold 20 people and dig through the earth to find jewels and such and rescue trapped miners.

These would have worked well if I knew anything about trains or mining.

That's the issue with this idea. It could work until you learn how handguns work then it doesn't.

I wish the OP luck.

tipoc
 
Not sure if you guys read my post. But for striker fired you could take the same principle and have something protrude into the plunger of the firing pin safety block on a Glock. Glock/M&P safety plungers are dumbbell shaped, plenty of space to stick something in there. This would interrupt the travel of the trigger / trigger bar rearward. Of course now there's the new hole that could introduce debris inside but it could be done.

Tailgator, yes I think you could actually embed the entire lever so that it fits flush into the frame when depressed. If you imagine the same lever thinner, narrower. It's way overbuilt in the picture, as thick as the slide wall which is unnecessary. Have you seen "Zev" glock aftermarket slides? They mill so much away, one could choose to mill a partial thickness or full thickness longitudinal track to fit a lever in without detriment. Hey, it's already half way done here http://www.zevtechnologies.com/Dragonfly-w-RMR-Abs-Co-wit-in-Titanium-Gray-Glock-34-Gen-4- And in this case, nothing is adjusted with the timing even with the change in mass. Don't like the lever idea? How about a spring loaded button with a ramp that interfaces with a rod and slides the rod to the rear, interrupting a part of the action. That way everything could be flush when depressed, no protruding joint.

I still don't think there's a market in the civilian world for this in the USA. It sounds like the OP may have immigrated from another country so it's a possibility the target is a different market. Here, a person would have to spend their money to get their slide milled and get it professionally installed. If they could do it themselves, they may be comfortable enough with firearms that they would be less likely to feel the need for another safety. It would void warranty, may decrease resale value since it's a permanent addition. And to adapt it to other guns the hardware would have to be of different lengths. But, if you have LOTS of money and time and would like to be able say you invented it, I say go ahead. But if you were thinking about investing your life savings into it and expecting a good return, I'd be cautious.
 
Thanks to everyone for your ideas and feedback. I hope I don't paddle. :D
giphy.gif
 
What does it do?
1. The safety was off when I put it in the holster. Somehow I opened it in holster or I forgot about it and it fired involuntary.
2. I saw a bear in the forest. It was running towards me. I'm panicking. I pulled my gun. didn't shoot. I tried again. No... I forgot the safety off. The bear hurt me.
Eliminates such problems.
Just load your gun and put it in the holster. A hundred percent now safe. Pull your gun. A hundred percent shoots.
"My invention solves the problems encountered in extreme conditions..."
"When there is a round in the pipe i forgot it. I put my gun on my hip or holster. It's safe with my invention.(drop condition excluding)
When I don't have my invention.
Not safe...
Open to involuntary fire now."
"My invention provides maximum security. Because it closes the front of the firing pin."
Click to expand...

I applaud your effort and "putting the idea out there." It's not easy to do, and folks can be pretty critical. Firearm development is hard, and that is why there have been few truly revolutionary advancements in the field in the last 100 years.

That said, what you are trying to accomplish with this device (preventing firing when holstered, while allowing immediate fire when un-holstered) has already been accomplished with much less-obtrusive and more elegant inventions such as the firing-pin safety and the Glock "Safe-Action" trigger, among other things.

Don't let this experience get you down. Use it as a jumping board to learn more about firearms, how they work, and how they are utilized, and maybe one day you will bring an invention to the table that is viable and changes the market.


.
 
Last edited:
1. The safety was off when I put it in the holster. Somehow I opened it in holster or I forgot about it and it fired involuntary.


Guns don't fire "involuntary" in a holster. Someone, or some thing has to pull the trigger. Which means it was in a poor quality, improper,or damaged holster. Or the shooter had their finger where it didn't belong.
Basic safe and proper gun handeling.


2. I saw a bear in the forest. It was running towards me. I'm panicking. I pulled my gun. didn't shoot. I tried again. No... I forgot the safety off. The bear hurt me.
Eliminates such problems.


Much simpler eliminated by carrying a modern designed striker fired gun, or DAO hammer fired with no manual safety to mess with.
Still completely safe if basic firearms safety practices are followed.

Just load your gun and put it in the holster. A hundred percent now safe. Pull your gun. A hundred percent shoots.

Guns are 100% safe when basic gun safety practices are followed!


"My invention solves the problems encountered in extreme conditions..."

Your invention encourages complacency, and disregard for basic safe gun handling principles!

"When there is a round in the pipe i forgot it. I put my gun on my hip or holster. It's safe with my invention.(drop condition excluding)
When I don't have my invention.
Not safe...
Open to involuntary fire now

Again, first of all "forgetting" there a round in the chamber is completely unacceptable. Secondly, even if it is forgotten safe gun handling practices negate a negligent discharge.
Guns do not fire "involuntary". They fire when some outside force pulls the trigger. Which once more is directly related to basic gun safety.

Do you see a common thread here? Seems your invention is intended to circumvent basic gun safety rules, which I am beginning to wonder if you have ever been taught. By replacing them with a mechanical device, susceptible like all mechanical devices to failure. Making a firearm idiot proof. Which is the last thing needed in the firearms industry.
 
FWIW, George does not appear to be located in the United States. I'm going to say probably Europe, and I'll make a wild guess and say Turkey. If I am correct, he is probably not conversant with the way we teach firearms safety in the United States, and he may not even understand that a proper carry holster always covers the trigger to prevent activation.
 
FWIW, George does not appear to be located in the United States. I'm going to say probably Europe, and I'll make a wild guess and say Turkey. If I am correct, he is probably not conversant with the way we teach firearms safety in the United States, and he may not even understand that a proper carry holster always covers the trigger to prevent activation.
Click to expand...

If so, and he didn’t mention that then he deserves all the backlash and criticism received. If asking for feedback, he should make it known where he is located and give some info on the gun culture/training where he is. Coming on a US website and asking for feedback will get you feedback from US shooters and the US gun culture.
 
George sounds like a salesman instead of an inventor....a "Steve Jobs" type.
This invention has no value in the current, real world.
But let the democrats take over the government and it will either be mandatory or not needed after the confiscation.
 
MoArk Willy said:
George sounds like a salesman instead of an inventor....a "Steve Jobs" type.
This invention has no value in the current, real world.
But let the democrats take over the government and it will either be mandatory or not needed after the confiscation.
Click to expand...
Nice driveby-
Although Bush himself supported several mild gun control measures and vowed to sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban if it reached his desk, his administration saw several advancements of gun rights on the federal level, especially in the courts.

A Supporter of ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control
In debates during both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush stated his support for background checks for gun buyers and for trigger locks. Additionally, he said on multiple occasions that the minimum age for carrying a handgun should be 21, not 18.
Click to expand...
So far, however, the only legislation President Obama(sic) has signed since he took office in 2008 has expanded gun laws, allowing loaded guns in national parks and unloaded weapons stored in luggage on Amtrak trains.
Click to expand...

And let us not forget who just signed the BumpStock ban...:eek:
 
When you disclose an invention publically, either by publishing a description or by taking the invention to market, there is one year available to get an initial filing date, be it a preliminary or a final patent filing. Also, now that we have moved from first-to-invent to first-to-file, someone else could take your disclosed invention and file a patent on it before you do within that year. That is why public disclosure of something you intend to patent is foolish. After that year, the public disclosure is considered prior art that makes the invention public domain and may be used as evidence in court to overturn a late-filed patent in a court dispute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top