I think people understand that point. I still think not blocking trigger pull or worse releasing safeties by pulling the trigger still makes a gun safetyless!
You misunderstanding the purpose of a certain safety device doesn’t mean that is actually how it’s supposed to function. The trigger blade safety has as its purpose the prevention of a discharge from inertia. It is not meant to stop a user from pressing a trigger when he or she shouldn’t or from stopping a foreign object from pressing that trigger if that object enters a trigger guard. To go to the metaphor I used, the same is true of a firing pin block as it will also not stop any of the cases you mentioned. Regardless of whether or not a pistol has a manual safety, clearing a holster from clothing or other objects is very important. That’s why rushing to reholster is a bad idea.
I’ve yet to see any design that is completely tolerant of user negligence. Even a manual safety isn’t a full proof guarantee. I know this because the negligent discharge I had personally was with a pistol that had a manual safety, a DA pull, and a magazine disconnect. How did it go off? Because I made a deliberate decision to press a trigger on what I thought was an empty chamber and as part of using that pistol I disengaged the safety (as has been stated, “muscle memory”). Luckily I also maintained the other safety rules and did not have the firearm pointed at something I wasn’t willing to destroy, such as myself, and I was aware of my back drop so over penetration into another person or object wasn’t possible. In the reports I have read of firearms negligence both locally and nationally pressing triggers on what are assumed to be empty chambers seems to be the most prevalent cases.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m glad you put all that that way because that’s pretty much the reason why I’ll never own a Glock or any other pistol that’s like a Glock because that little blade that’s on the middle of the trigger of those things is not really a safety. From what I was told, all that is was just a device that’s supposed to prevent the gun from going off if it was ever dropped.
But I will say however though, if I ever did buy a Glock, I would definitely be buying one of those striker control devices that they make to go on the backside of the slides of those things. At least if you had one of those outfitted with that, you could use the same gesture and push in on the back of it just the same as you would on the backside of a hammer on a hammer fired pistol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And that’s completely fine. If someone wants a manual safety that’s their choice even if I choose not to. If they are training to use that safety then I think they’re likely fine. People forgetting to use a safety, which seems to be the main point of people opposed to using one, are likely not using that firearm much, and that’s a problem in itself. I would echo what others have said and say that I wouldn’t mix manuals of arms too much when it comes to firearms.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s why all my carry guns are pretty much the same with the exception of my new Springfield XDE. It has a safety but because it’s really no different from any of my three PX4’s, I just carry it it with the safety off and hammer decocked.
And you may be right about that when you say not enough shooting practice might be part of the issue but I dunno... to me, practicing at the range ain’t the same story when you’re all the sudden about to get jumped and fear, tension and adrenaline get thrown in the mix. Maybe it truly isn’t an issue and I’m once again overthinking it but no safeties on my guns is what makes sense to me.
The only one of my handguns that has a safety on it and that I’m totally fine with, is my Sig P220 10mm- One, because it’s my woods gun and two, because it’s single action only and it’s set up a lot like a 1911 to where you carry it with a hammer cocked and the safety on. I can actually carry my little Springfield that way too but since it’s just a little short barrel 45, I don’t think it’ll do much good against what I bought the 10mm for.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course fear and adrenaline play a role. I’ve done force on force with UTM and have seen it firsthand where I missed shots I know I wouldn’t have otherwise. At the same time, you still have to be able to press a trigger to the rear while maintaining a sight picture. You still might need to hit that magazine release button or side release. Despite all that fear and adrenaline regardless of the manual of arms you still need to maintain some degree of fine motor skills. Heck we do this every day when we drive a car. I can say I’ve been in far more situations where I needed to quickly maneuver a car or hit the brakes than I ever needed to use a firearm, and if I didn’t do so effectively I wouldn’t be here right now. Some people do all that while operating a clutch as well.
This is in no way meant to diminish the difficulties associated with a use of force encounter. It’s a point about the realities of the situation. To me training is the bigger issue. DA/SA, SAO, Glock “safe-action”, people have been used all of those to defend themselves. If someone wants one or the other more power to them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
There are all sort of devices and practices that enhance the safety of firearms. The practice of leaving an empty chamber under the hammer of single action revolvers is an old example. Cross-bolt safeties and thumb safeties have to be activated to be effective. Is a person careless enough to pull a trigger and violate others of the four rules going to reliably set a manual safety?
In my opinion, the Glock trigger safety is being sold short a little in this thread. It isn't as certain as an activated thumb safety, of course, but an object has to be inside the trigger guard and moving fairly straight back to deactivate the trigger safety and allow the trigger to move. Paired with a fairly long and not terribly light trigger pull, it can be handled safely by someone paying a little attention. Inattention can defeat any safety device, and is the greatest danger in gun handling.
I can understand that, and that all makes sense, I guess I’m just speaking mostly for me.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.
You can say that again. At one point, I was starting to lose interest in my Storm because of not liking that first shot when the hammer wasn’t cocked. Then after more reading and then eventually practicing, it didn’t take long before I was really happy with that gun by learning how to take advantage of that first DA shot to where I really wasn’t liking that safety anymore. Then I leaned about converting my Storm to a G...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
Carry gun Sig P365/manual safety--carried safety off--holstered safety on.
I share the confusion. The term "carried" in the context of firearms usually refers to the wearing of a loaded handgun in a holster (or "Mexican" carry, w/o holster), or the transport of a loaded handgun in a pocket. Saying you carry with the safety off but have the safety on when holstered is a self-contradictory statement.corneileous said:the duck of death said:Carry gun Sig P365/manual safety--carried safety off--holstered safety on.
So do you carry this gun unholstered, or what? I’m confused about when your safety is engaged and when not....
I share the confusion. The term "carried" in the context of firearms usually refers to the wearing of a loaded handgun in a holster (or "Mexican" carry, w/o holster), or the transport of a loaded handgun in a pocket. Saying you carry with the safety off but have the safety on when holstered is a self-contradictory statement.