I get all that, and you’re right, training does play a really big role… Even though, I will say, using a firearm in quick defense is not really the same thing as having to make an invasive maneuver on the highway. We’ve all had to make evasive maneuvers on the highway here and there so of course that’s gonna be a whole lot more second nature to know what to do but how many people have to resort to using a handgun to defend themselves with in their lifetime?
I’m not in no way arguing with you,
I just hope you see my point.
But I’m curious; despite all that’s been talked about, what’s the purpose for Glocks for example on why they don’t have a manual safety? Even though the folks supposedly back in World War II carried their 1911s with the hammer cocked in the safety off, most 1911 carriers depend on that saftey but why do some guns have thumb safeties and some don’t? Not counting 1911s or the ones that are a lot like them…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The point about the car is that firearms aren’t the only times in our lives where we have to perform actions under stress and often those actions are more complicated than disabling a manual safety. You’re right that many people drive a car and many of us have had to avoid an accident, but in terms of the percentage of time spent avoiding serious accidents that’s generally a small percentage of the time we’re on the road (of course depending on the roads you drive on). While it may be more second nature than using a firearm, it’s still not as if most of us are Formula 1 drivers.
The comparison of a normal commuter performing emergency maneuvers as opposed to someone that shoots regularly and practices drawing regularly say in drills against a timer then disengaging a manual safety seems reasonable to me. I don’t know anyone outside of professional drivers that practice emergency maneuvers in a car. I know a lot of people that practice drawing a firearm and take courses. Now is that most gun owners? Probably not. But that again gets back to the point of training. I can say that in the 29 defensive courses related to firearms that I have taken, I have yet to see a student forget to disengage a manual safety if that firearm was their dedicated carry pistol.
Does that mean that forgetting to disengage a safety doesn’t happen? No I’m sure it does, but in my experience I think it’s more to do with people that lack familiarity with the firearm. I have absolutely seen students use loaner pistols that have manual safeties and the student forgets to use that safety.
When I press my magazine release, insert a new magazine, and send the slide forward with the slide stop none of that is a deliberate thought process on my end. It’s an ingrained behavior from thousands of repetitions. The same is true when I shoulder my AR and swipe off that safety as the sights come into view.
I do think people have to be honest with themselves about what degree of training they will pursue. If you buy a pistol with a manual safety and never train to use it I think you’re setting yourself up for failure. The same is true if you buy a DA/SA pistol but never use the DA when you shoot.
As far as the why some firearms don’t have manual safeties, that’s because some firearms are designed differently. That’s a function of both decisions by the designer and requirements of the user depending on certain contracts. IIRC there actually have been smaller batches of Glocks made with manual safeties for certain contracts, the Glock entry to the MHS trials had a manual safety, and certainly other striker fired pistols can be had with a manual safety, including the P320 and M&P.
On the commercial market it seems like Glocks sell without manual safeties. That doesn’t mean those purchasers are “right”, it’s simply a point that it doesn’t seem to dramatically hurt Glock’s bottom line. While there are people that would buy a Glock with a safety, my guess is Glock determined that market isn’t large enough to warrant the effort.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk