manual safety is unnecessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You DO realize that the weapon itself is a mechanical device that can fail, don't you? Even higher odds. Weapon and ammo could be the culprit.

Why don't we do this: take a poll here of all those who have been in a shooting. Tell us how your muscle memory failed and how your safety-less weapon is the only reason you are here to tell your tale. There's gotta be several hundred (if not thousands) of years of gun handling between us here. So let er rip!

Not trusting a mechanical device that has a FAR lower chance of failing than you getting into a shooting to begin with is pretty dumb, IMO.

And just HOW did all those carrying a semi auto before Gaston Glock graced the world with his product manage to live to tell about it?

And you're saying that the woman with the 1911 who couldn't remember to take a safety off is BETTER off with a safety less gun? Really? I'd say she's better off with a can of pepper spray. And so are those around her. And who starts shooting with a 1911?

And please stop with the "booger hook off the bang switch". It's such a dumb saying and doesnt give those who say it any credibility.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely agree with Homerboy! For those who don't want any safeties, good for you. It is the condescending attitude that those of us who do are not as prepared, aware, or capable that is hard to accept. I contend my manual safety makes my handling of my weapon safer, and when asked why I explain my reasons. Many don't agree. I am OK with that, and don't feel the need to be insulting in my disagreement.
 
Not trusting a mechanical device that has a FAR lower chance of failing than you getting into a shooting to begin with is pretty dumb, IMO
Click to expand...

Unless you can better define "trusting" the safety, I don't think its a dumb idea at all. In fact, it is what the NRA has been teaching in Hunter Safety for the best part of a century if not much longer.

Using anything well, without conscious thought (or under stress) is a matter of practice. We say "training" , but that often leaves the impression that we are talking about formal instruction. We're not. (ok, I'm not..;))

I'm talking about practice. What someone does, or fails to do on their second range try is meaningless. NO ONE begins with skill or experience. Some have a greater natural aptitude, and learn faster, but that's all.

With a revolver, or manually operated repeating long gun, the gun doesn't get loaded and cocked, after firing, until YOU make it so.

When you don't want to shoot, or need to move, to make the gun safe, you need do NOTHING.

Not so with a semi auto. I like having a safety, because it gives me OPTIONS.

Another thing is a manual safety (that locks in position) keeps the gun as safe as possible if something other than you pulls the trigger, or if you do when you don't mean to.

If you don't "need" it, simply don't use it.
 
Ever since I had a completely negligent discharge in my stupid overconfident youth (with a DA/SA safety equipped 45 pistol), I treat all pistols, indeed all firearms,exactly the same..they are always considered loaded, and my finger is off the trigger unless shooting is actually occurring.
Thus, I find a Glock system pistol perfectly safe. I'm glad that some folks don't, as I bought my G26 cheap from an individual who liked safeties.
 
I'm talking about practice too. 5-10 minutes a night. Make sure gun is unloaded and stow ammo away. Put weapon on safe and pick up and disengage safety Do it for 5-10 minutes. It will be so ingrained you won't even know you're doing it.

Or we can buy into the "booger hook off the bang switch" nonsense.
 
You DO realize that the weapon itself is a mechanical device that can fail, don't you?
Click to expand...
Actually, that fact is the basis for some arguments against manual safeties in designs that already provide adequate passive safeties. The argument is that by adding additional mechanisms to the gun the design complexity is increased which in turn increases the chance of the overall device suffering a mechanical failure.
Why don't we do this: take a poll here of all those who have been in a shooting. Tell us how your muscle memory failed and how your safety-less weapon is the only reason you are here to tell your tale. There's gotta be several hundred (if not thousands) of years of gun handling between us here. So let er rip!
Click to expand...
There may be a lot of years of gun handling, but I doubt that there are more than a few people posting on this thread (or reading it) who have been in a shooting. The number would be reduced further to people who have been in a shooting using a gun with a manual safety and still further to people who are also willing to post publicly about it. If there were more than one or two serious responses it would surprise me greatly. In other words, the challenge isn't going to net any useful information.
Know what else I like? MAGAZINE DISCONNECTS!
Click to expand...
I really don't care for them. That said, I do think that they might be one of the few safeties that really makes sense if the goal is keeping a gun from firing in the most common unintentional discharge scenario.

The most common unintentional discharge scenario is when the user INTENTIONALLY pulls the trigger but doesn't expect the gun to fire. A typical manual safety doesn't prevent that kind of discharge because the user intends to pull the trigger. But a magazine safety might eliminate some of those incidents--the ones when the magazine is out of the gun.
And just HOW did all those carrying a semi auto before Gaston Glock graced the world with his product manage to live to tell about it?
Click to expand...
It's too bad that the internet wasn't around before Glocks became popular. I really wonder if this argument was as heated back in the days before Glocks. Of course, guns without manual safeties are nothing new--Glock certainly didn't invent them. They're also not the only guns on the market now without manual safeties. And yet Glocks always seem to come up.

I suspect that a lot of the heat and light in these discussions is really more about strong feelings about Glocks on both sides of the argument, as opposed to strong feelings about manual safeties or the lack thereof.
Or we can buy into the "booger hook off the bang switch" nonsense.
Click to expand...
I don't really think it's reasonable to call one of the three primary rules of gun safety "nonsense" or to say that people who espouse that rule of gun safety are injuring their credibility.
 
Maybe Glocks come up because of the term "Glock Leg", or the fact that they don't offer a safety option like the S&W M&P, the Ruger LC9-S, etc. They continue to tout the "3 safeties" that they offer, while none of them do anything more than what other striker fired guns do.

And I'm not referring to keeping your finger off the trigger as nonsense. Rather the stupid "booger hook of the bang switch", which is so often repeated on the internet, with the childish connotations of those who screw up need to be spoken to like children.
 
I'm talking about practice too. 5-10 minutes a night. Make sure gun is unloaded and stow ammo away. Put weapon on safe and pick up and disengage safety Do it for 5-10 minutes. It will be so ingrained you won't even know you're doing it.

Or we can buy into the "booger hook off the bang switch" nonsense.
Click to expand...
I agree with both thoughts, but you keep telling us that no one will practice.

With no practice, which is the most intuitive then?
 
And I'm not referring to keeping your finger off the trigger as nonsense. Rather the stupid "booger hook of the bang switch", which is so often repeated on the internet, with the childish connotations of those who screw up need to be spoken to like children.
Click to expand...
The booger hook thing has been coming from you more than anyone else of late. May want to tone it down. :)
 
Really? FITA has said it at least twice in the past page. And if I indeed to read the whole thread I'm sure I'd see it much more.
 
I use my pinkie in a twisting motion, not really in a hook fashion. My index finger has too much girth to have any real mucus extraction qualities, I cannot really get it past just the tip anyways.

I can honestly admit that I've forgotten to disengage safeties more than once, while leisurely shooting, mainly rifles. But, I'm confident that I've practiced enough with my carry pistol to use it properly.
 
As the saying goes: "Never trust a safety"...One of the reasons why --- Is that safeties on a firearm can fail or break.

Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBX7mEBVOao#T=35
Click to expand...

From what I could tell from that video, the safety was not the issue here; It appears that the gun slam fired when he closed the bolt. His finger was nowhere near the trigger OR safety. It was obviously a defective product, and most likely the cause was a stuck firing pin causing the discharge.

The only point proven here is that ANY firearms should be kept pointing in a safe direction at ALL times.

And please stop with the "booger hook off the bang switch". It's such a dumb saying and doesnt give those who say it any credibility.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I cringe every time I see that metaphor.

It's juvenile and crass.

It's too bad that the internet wasn't around before Glocks became popular. I really wonder if this argument was as heated back in the days before Glocks. Of course, guns without manual safeties are nothing new--Glock certainly didn't invent them. They're also not the only guns on the market now without manual safeties. And yet Glocks always seem to come up.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to think of many auto pistols that didn't have safeties. The 1900, 02, 03 and 05 didn't, but every Colt after that did.

Glock's design is based on Karel Krnka's system that was used in the Austro-Hungarian M1907 Roth-Steyr 8mm pistol that was developed primarily for cavalry use. Like the Glock, a charged pistol wasn't able to be fired until a long DA type pull of the trigger occurred. Other than those examples, I really can't think of any other relatively common autoloader that did NOT have a safety.
 
Other than those examples, I really can't think of any other relatively common autoloader that did NOT have a safety.
Click to expand...
I didn't limit my statement to auto pistols. And although I did not I state or even imply that I was referring to common or relatively common firearms, there are two main categories of handguns and virtually all the members of one of those categories are currently and have traditionally been sold without any manual safety.
Glock's design is based on Karel Krnka's system...
Click to expand...
Interesting. They are quite similar in terms of basic functionality, but the mechanical implementation of the trigger and sear are dramatically different. This is the first time I've encountered the claim that the Glock design was actually based on the older system. Where did you find that information?
 
Interesting. They are quite similar in terms of basic functionality, but the mechanical implementation of the trigger and sear are dramatically different. This is the first time I've encountered the claim that the Glock design was actually based on the older system. Where did you find that information?
Click to expand...

I don't remember where I first encountered it, but it's been common knowledge for quite a while now, and I have been aware of it for 20 years or so.

I presume that you own or have handled a Roth-Steyr, and that you can see the similarity in striker function. The striker at rest is brought to a "half cock" position when the pistol is charged with a round, same as in the Glock. To fire the pistol the trigger is pulled in a semi DA mode that retracts the firing pin even further until a trip releases it, same as in a Glock.

I don't know if Bubits, who worked for Glock, had anything to do with it, or exactly how much he had to do with the Glock.


Obviously, stamped parts in the Glcok have been substituted for the machined parts in the R-S, but the principle and mode of operation is exactly the same

I didn't limit my statement to auto pistols. And although I did not I state or even imply that I was referring to common or relatively common firearms, there are two main categories of handguns and virtually all the members of one of those categories are currently and have traditionally been sold without any manual safety.
Click to expand...

Manual safeties were not prevalent in North America, but many European manufacturers, in particular the Belgian, German, French and Spanish makers of small pocket revolvers put manual safeties on their guns.

This has been discussed previously: When France ordered .38sp. police revolvers from Smith & Wesson, it was specified that manual safeties be included. Ditto for Webley and Scott who supplied many revolvers to police departments that included manual safeties.

Modern DA revolvers sold in North America, do not, by their mechanical nature require a manual safety as it is assumed that, if you have cocked a revolver, you are preparing to use it. (Along those lines, however, I can think of a number of accidents and a major lawsuit that might have been prevented had a safety been included in the design of the Colt SAA.)

This is not the case with single action autoloaders; Only a very irresponsible person (IMO) would carry a SA auto with a cocked hammer and no safety applied.

My carry weapon always has the manual safety applied; It is automatic for me to disengage it when the gun is to be shot, and has been for the last 45 years.

As always, YMMV.
 
...you can see the similarity in striker function. The striker at rest is brought to a "half cock" position when the pistol is charged with a round, same as in the Glock. To fire the pistol the trigger is pulled in a semi DA mode that retracts the firing pin even further until a trip releases it, same as in a Glock.
Click to expand...
Yes, the basic functionality is very similar. However, the mechanical implementation is dramatically different.
Obviously, stamped parts in the Glcok have been substituted for the machined parts in the R-S...
Click to expand...
There's MUCH more difference than just replacing machined parts with stamped parts. The R-S system involves an independent pivoting trigger that transfers trigger motion to a pivoting sear. It's about as different as is possible from the solid trigger bar/sear unit that's part of the trigger assembly in the Glock. That's why I was interested about the claim that the Glock system was based on the R-S system.

Here's a video on the R-S. At 12:43 the videographer demonstrates the internal working of the R-S trigger linkage system.

They clearly provide similar functionality from an external perspective, but internally they are as different as they can be.
 
Training, training, training.

Did I say training? Its all about how you train to shoot your guns,
Click to expand...
And repeated in several posts time, and again.
But I have to ask all you "well trained" guys. Do you train with a stranger coming out of the shadows at you from a few yards away with a sharp knife? Do you train with that stranger suddenly pointing a loaded gun at you?
Training is all well, and good. But like I said, fear can be a lot like Buck Fever only multiple times worse. That one extra little step can be missed, resulting in an outcome you really don't want.
But it is a personal choice. Carry a gun that is designed to be safely carried without a manual safety. Or carry a gun that is designed with a safety, and use it.
 
There's no true way to come up with the result of a future event that may never happen.
Most likely if you have no time to remove the safety and engage the target, then using a gun with no safety device may be impossible is well. In such a dire situation, you probably won't even get the gun out of the holster.
Many trained individuals have gone down without being able to use their weapon.
If you think a handgun is gonna get you out of any given situation, and that a manual safety is going to be the only point of failure... My suggestion is: Stay out of dark alleys. not directed at Cheapshooter
 
Most likely if you have no time to remove the safety and engage the target, then using a gun with no safety device may be impossible is well.
Click to expand...
True, but my comment is in reference to the extra step that might be missed under the extreme stress of an attack when there is time to draw and fire a gun. All the training in the world can't completely prepare someone for a time when their heart is pumping out of their chest, and their hands are shaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top