I realize that. but my whole point is the partially cocked status of the striker, which is then drawn back to full cock and then released. It is the exact same principle of operation as the Glock. How this is accomplished is immaterial to my point; It could be done with magnets or atomic energy, neither of which would be germane to the way the striker itself operates. This is what Glock or Bubits or whomever designed the action copied.
manual safety is unnecessary?
- Thread starter breakthrough
- Start date
- Status
I realize that. but my whole point is the partially cocked status of the striker, which is then drawn back to full cock and then released. It is the exact same principle of operation as the Glock. How this is accomplished is immaterial to my point; It could be done with magnets or atomic energy, neither of which would be germane to the way the striker itself operates. This is what Glock or Bubits or whomever designed the action copied.
Ok, that makes sense. I thought you were claiming that the Glock design was a copy or derivative Krnka's system. That didn't make sense when clearly they are very different in every way other than in their general principle of operation.
I suppose it is quite possible that the basic operating principle of Krnka's design provided the idea from which Glock's very different design was originated.
I'm still interested to know if there is any way to substantiate that. Probably not unless someone on the Glock design team volunteers that information.
I read it in some publication back in the 90s when Glock were first getting "hot." As I am old now
D), I can't remember where.I bought a 17 in the early 90s, about the time of the L.A. riots and did some digging about it to gain insight/information. I sold it during the AWB (at a profit, of course, since it had hi-cap mags), and I never really missed it.
I did buy another 17 gen 1 about 3 years ago just to have one.
Last edited:
This issue with the manual safety is simple. Which risk are you willing to live with? The risk of failing to disengage a safety on the draw in the extremely unlikely scenario that you have to draw and fire a weapon under stress, or the risk of an ND during routine gun handling or if somebody gets a hold of your weapon that shouldn't? Remember, people have been carrying weapons with safeties for over a hundred years at this point. 18 year old mothers have defended their children with shotguns, which certainly do have safeties.
Possessing a weapon comes with certain risks. I choose to lessen those risks by carrying g a weapon with a manual safety. I accept those risks because I want to be able to defend myself and my family, and because I know as a retired cop, that the police will be there when they can get there, which is always after the crime has occurred.
I asked for a poll on who here has fired their weapon in self defense. Nobody answered, probably because nobody here has. Like it or not, humans ARE fallible, so I choose to have that extra layer of safety that will (and certainly has) prevent accidents. Not ALL accidents, of course. Seat belts and airbags don't prevent ALL deaths, but they sure lessen them. It is my opinion that the adoption of the Glock by Feds and police departments, and their marketing strategies (Glock Perfection) has brainwashed many into thinking that safeties are a bad thing. Remember how popular the S&W 3rd gen pistols were in the 90's? Manual safety AND a mag disconnect. They were in all the movies too. So what has changed?
Possessing a weapon comes with certain risks. I choose to lessen those risks by carrying g a weapon with a manual safety. I accept those risks because I want to be able to defend myself and my family, and because I know as a retired cop, that the police will be there when they can get there, which is always after the crime has occurred.
I asked for a poll on who here has fired their weapon in self defense. Nobody answered, probably because nobody here has. Like it or not, humans ARE fallible, so I choose to have that extra layer of safety that will (and certainly has) prevent accidents. Not ALL accidents, of course. Seat belts and airbags don't prevent ALL deaths, but they sure lessen them. It is my opinion that the adoption of the Glock by Feds and police departments, and their marketing strategies (Glock Perfection) has brainwashed many into thinking that safeties are a bad thing. Remember how popular the S&W 3rd gen pistols were in the 90's? Manual safety AND a mag disconnect. They were in all the movies too. So what has changed?
Last edited:
Which has been my point all along, especially in regards to a handgun used for SD/HD.
There have been many millions of new handguns bought in just the last few years, and I will venture (MY opinion), that most of those who are new to guns ,will not be getting thousands of dollars worth of training at one of the ranches. They might take a small course locally on the basic functionality and then in the nightstand it will go.
There's the problem. You said, and most here would agree with you, that most people who choose to own a deadly weapon only take a basic course (IF that. I had 20 young hunters who profess to being adept at weapons handling not know how to safely unload the shotgun they own), and then put the gun into a nightstand. You believe they are better prepared to use that weapon because they won't have to fumble with a weapon they train with. I believe they are more dangerous to those around them because of their inability to safely and competently use that weapon.
You mentioned "into the nightstand they go". I agree, and that's the problem. Barely competent with a weapon that never gets used AND isn't even locked up. All that is bad enough, but why throw in a 5.5 pound trigger with no manual safety into the mix? A friend of mine wanted a gun years ago. He asked my opinion on Glocks and I told him. He liked the Springfield XD and that comes with a grip safety so he was happy. I visited him two years into owning that gun. (He lives out of state). He had fired 50 rounds when he got it, didn't clean it, and put it into the nightstand. I asked to see it. No magazine in it. Said he kept the mag in the top shelf of his closet so his young child (4 years old), couldn't fire the weapon. I racked the slide. Out pops a live round. he didn't know it would fire without the magazine in. Never bothered to read the manual. I'll bet it even says "warning: will fire with magazine removed" on the slide. Didn't matter.
So are Glocks and other striker fired weapons "unsafe"? Not in properly trained hands, though they are more likely to be used in an ND. In the hands of a 100 round a year shooter, they are unsafe in my opinion.
You mentioned "into the nightstand they go". I agree, and that's the problem. Barely competent with a weapon that never gets used AND isn't even locked up. All that is bad enough, but why throw in a 5.5 pound trigger with no manual safety into the mix? A friend of mine wanted a gun years ago. He asked my opinion on Glocks and I told him. He liked the Springfield XD and that comes with a grip safety so he was happy. I visited him two years into owning that gun. (He lives out of state). He had fired 50 rounds when he got it, didn't clean it, and put it into the nightstand. I asked to see it. No magazine in it. Said he kept the mag in the top shelf of his closet so his young child (4 years old), couldn't fire the weapon. I racked the slide. Out pops a live round. he didn't know it would fire without the magazine in. Never bothered to read the manual. I'll bet it even says "warning: will fire with magazine removed" on the slide. Didn't matter.
So are Glocks and other striker fired weapons "unsafe"? Not in properly trained hands, though they are more likely to be used in an ND. In the hands of a 100 round a year shooter, they are unsafe in my opinion.
Although I am dyed-in-the-wool 2A proponent, in the back of my mind (and I REALLY hate to say this), there are some people who definitely shouldn't have guns.
Of course, I will get flamed for that, but ask yourself, "How many people have I seen like the one Homerboy described?"
Homerboy, are you a proponent of devices on handguns that only allow the intended user to fire them? Biometric trigger locks or finger print locks are being developed (have been in place for a while) to prevent people from shooting guns they are not authorized to use. I would be interested in hearing your passionate thoughts on that subject, as you are passionate that manual safeties should be in place on most handguns. It seems to me other safety devices would be "better", if a safety is "good".
I have never had to use my handgun in defense, and I know competition is a poor analog, but I have seen seasoned shooters forget to remove the safety on their pistol at the start of a COF. My 11 year old son uses one of those S&W gen 3 guns and loves it. But he forgets to disengage the safety on at least 1 stage each match (he is not the only example though). I have also seen experienced shooters get DQd for ADs during the COF, but the type of safety system on those is irrelevant because safeties are removed during the draw process.
We are all fallible. Run what you like and feel confident with, just know a safety does not provide certainty. On a properly functioning handgun, the trigger must be moved to the rear for the gun to fire.
I have never had to use my handgun in defense, and I know competition is a poor analog, but I have seen seasoned shooters forget to remove the safety on their pistol at the start of a COF. My 11 year old son uses one of those S&W gen 3 guns and loves it. But he forgets to disengage the safety on at least 1 stage each match (he is not the only example though). I have also seen experienced shooters get DQd for ADs during the COF, but the type of safety system on those is irrelevant because safeties are removed during the draw process.
We are all fallible. Run what you like and feel confident with, just know a safety does not provide certainty. On a properly functioning handgun, the trigger must be moved to the rear for the gun to fire.
No, I am not a fan of "smart guns", at least for now and not likely for many years to come. The technology is not there yet to make me believe they are reliable. But I don't put some biometric reader that may not work in the same category as a manual safety that has been proven reliable. I have never, not once, had one fail on any gun I have ever owned, ranging from 70 year old garands to brand new guns.
And I've never forgotten to turn the off either. They come off on the draw. When I go to the range, I draw and shoot from the holster. Motion is just totally intuitive. Would I forget in a REAL shooting? Maybe. But the odds of me getting a real shooting are MUCH less likely than having an ND in routine gun handling, or God forbid, if one of my children got a hold of one of my guns (always locked up, but you never know). Only one gun in the house has ammo available for it. Ruger SR9 with full mag in gun, safety on, NOT chambered. So my kids would have to not only get in the safe, but drop the safety that prevents the slide from being racked, and then rack the slide. As I said, life is full of risks. I choose that method to make that risk as small as possible.
And I've never forgotten to turn the off either. They come off on the draw. When I go to the range, I draw and shoot from the holster. Motion is just totally intuitive. Would I forget in a REAL shooting? Maybe. But the odds of me getting a real shooting are MUCH less likely than having an ND in routine gun handling, or God forbid, if one of my children got a hold of one of my guns (always locked up, but you never know). Only one gun in the house has ammo available for it. Ruger SR9 with full mag in gun, safety on, NOT chambered. So my kids would have to not only get in the safe, but drop the safety that prevents the slide from being racked, and then rack the slide. As I said, life is full of risks. I choose that method to make that risk as small as possible.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Good post. People do not understand the interaction of stress and training.
Stress can interfere even with well practice motor routines. As just said, I've seen well seasoned competitors forget their safety in a match. If the situation is variant from the well practiced scenario, the motor sequence can go to pieces. For example, a stage where you have to pick up your gun from a box or a draw from a sitting position (worried about sweeping yourself) - it's not your standard standing draw - and guess what the safety isn't swept off.
There is a similar effect with the current RDS craze on handguns. Can you find the dot? Yes, you practice the class draw and can. But when you get draw positions that are not that - folks have a hard time finding the dot.
Stress can also put your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be. The finger seeks the trigger to the purpose and design of the gun. If you practice to remove the safety - and don't immediately fire, you are in the same stress/trigger situation as with something like a Glock. Keep your finger off the trigger. Some argue that if the safety sweep and fire is ingrained in you, then when you draw you are more prone to fire than someone who trains to draw the gun and not put the finger on the trigger (as in keeping someone covered).
The one time I almost got shot it was by a guy with a 1911, holstering it with finger on the trigger. Guess he forgot the safety.
Stress can interfere even with well practice motor routines. As just said, I've seen well seasoned competitors forget their safety in a match. If the situation is variant from the well practiced scenario, the motor sequence can go to pieces. For example, a stage where you have to pick up your gun from a box or a draw from a sitting position (worried about sweeping yourself) - it's not your standard standing draw - and guess what the safety isn't swept off.
There is a similar effect with the current RDS craze on handguns. Can you find the dot? Yes, you practice the class draw and can. But when you get draw positions that are not that - folks have a hard time finding the dot.
Stress can also put your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be. The finger seeks the trigger to the purpose and design of the gun. If you practice to remove the safety - and don't immediately fire, you are in the same stress/trigger situation as with something like a Glock. Keep your finger off the trigger. Some argue that if the safety sweep and fire is ingrained in you, then when you draw you are more prone to fire than someone who trains to draw the gun and not put the finger on the trigger (as in keeping someone covered).
The one time I almost got shot it was by a guy with a 1911, holstering it with finger on the trigger. Guess he forgot the safety.
(consider this a small flame..
)You shouldn't "hate to say it". You, and the rest of us should say it, and say it often, because it is a simple obvious and unavoidable FACT!!!!
The Founders new that, as well.
The idea that a 2nd Amendment proponent is in favor of EVERYONE having a gun is a modern semantic trap, fostered and constantly repeated by the anti gun zealots and those who mindlessly repeat their propaganda.
The 2nd Amendment is about the Government NOT getting to decide, in advance, who should have the right to keep and bear arms. NOT about individual choices, or competency.
Absolutely there are people who should not have guns. Unstable, and irresponsible people, should not have guns. Nor should they drive a car, or have unsupervised access to knives, axes, matches, toxic chemicals, or a host of other things that through carelessness or deliberate misuse can cause harm.
You are in no way subverting the ideals of the 2nd Amendment to admit this.
I have. Although, to be precise, not on a gun I personally owned, but on a gun a personal friend owned. A Walther, in fact. When the safety was engaged, the gun FIRED!!!
(and without the trigger being pulled! )It can happen.
Like anything else mechanical, a manual safety works reliably, until it doesn't. It may never fail. It is unlikely that it will, but it COULD, the next time you pick up the gun. This is why the Hunter Safety courses teach you not to trust a safety when it comes to safe gun handling. Safe gun handling will keep you, and those around you safe, even if the rare event of a safety failure happens.
I think the term "safety" is misleading. I think it leads people to believe that the gun is rendered completely safe when it's engaged. Some guns are pretty close, some guns you are not completely safe. Some, the safety flicks off when you breathe on it, some take effort.
I like the option of decocking and having DA on the first shot. Leaving the safety off after Decocking.
Many you can holster, then take the safety off. You can get something like a shirttail into the trigger guard.
I like the option of decocking and having DA on the first shot. Leaving the safety off after Decocking.
Many you can holster, then take the safety off. You can get something like a shirttail into the trigger guard.
I've had experience with three guns that had safety failures.
One was a sporterized O3A3 Springfield rifle.
A side by side, 16 gauge Ithaca double barreled shotgun.
And a Sig Hammerli, 22 Trailside pistol...which made it practically worthless --- since I never found a replaceable part for it.
One was a sporterized O3A3 Springfield rifle.
A side by side, 16 gauge Ithaca double barreled shotgun.
And a Sig Hammerli, 22 Trailside pistol...which made it practically worthless --- since I never found a replaceable part for it.
FairWarning
New member
If someone is too much of an idiot to remember to take the safety off/put it on, then perhaps they are too much of an idiot to own a gun for self defense. Likewise, such a person might be too much of an idiot to keep his finger off the trigger when it doesn't belong there, or to avoid firing in a dangerous direction with no regard for anything beyond the target, even during a practice session.
You can't fully idiot proof guns, even if you think of one as designed FOR idiots. There is some responsibility for the shooter to have training and a functioning brain.
Can't handle that? Carry pepper spray.And remember, don't spray yourself in the face with it.
You can't fully idiot proof guns, even if you think of one as designed FOR idiots. There is some responsibility for the shooter to have training and a functioning brain.
Can't handle that? Carry pepper spray.And remember, don't spray yourself in the face with it.
Maybe. But there's a more pertinent question.
Why is it that a person who can't keep his finger off the trigger will be safer if another control is added to a gun that is already apparently too complicated for him to operate properly?
One control means danger because a person might not follow the simple rule on how to use that control. Two controls means safety because proper use of the additional control will insure it. But why would the user who can't operate one control now suddenly be reliable enough to operate two?
Because we're concerned that people won't/can't follow the three basic safety rules, we fix the problem by adding more rules--rules on how to operate a safety. Now the guy who couldn't follow three rules will be safe because of more rules? Why would he follow the new rules when he couldn't follow the original ones?
It's like making laws against firearms in hopes that the people who have such blatant disregard for laws that they commit violent crime, will suddenly become compliant at the thought of violating a gun control law. We all know how well that works...
There are a lot of excellent posts in this thread!
I too have been reduced to a fumbling idiot in extremely stressful situations.
As a result I have weighed my choices carefully and made my decision. My carry pieces are DAO without safeties. It is the danger of leaving the safety on versus the danger of a negligent discharge because of the finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be.
IMHO it's a tough choice with no correct answer.
I too have been reduced to a fumbling idiot in extremely stressful situations.
As a result I have weighed my choices carefully and made my decision. My carry pieces are DAO without safeties. It is the danger of leaving the safety on versus the danger of a negligent discharge because of the finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be.
IMHO it's a tough choice with no correct answer.
FairWarning: are you saying a person who forgets to switch off the safety is an idiot (lacks knowledge), or are you using that expletive to denigrate their ability?
I'm not sure how much you shoot, or in what conditions, but I have seen shooters who compete regularly either miss the safety or forgot to hit it during a CoF. I have also seen shooters slip and squeeze the trigger during transitions from one hand to the next or target to target. These guys are shooting several thousands of rounds a year in practice. The good news is the firearms are always pointed in a safe direction.
I would not call them idiots, but those who denigrate others; I have other expletives for them.
I'm not sure how much you shoot, or in what conditions, but I have seen shooters who compete regularly either miss the safety or forgot to hit it during a CoF. I have also seen shooters slip and squeeze the trigger during transitions from one hand to the next or target to target. These guys are shooting several thousands of rounds a year in practice. The good news is the firearms are always pointed in a safe direction.
I would not call them idiots, but those who denigrate others; I have other expletives for them.
Last edited:
What are these rules we are adding? Semi auto pistols have come with pistols for over 100 years. It wasn't until Glock came around 30 years ago and everybody else started copying them that people felt the aversion to them that some do.
And please don't compare a striker fired gun to a revolver or a DAO auto. 5.5 pounds with no hammer vs. 10+ pounds with a hammer? Not even close.
Of course the gun safety rules are most important. But I have seen time and time again that people don't follow them. Do I think those idiots should have a gun? No, I don't. Their right to a gun doesn't trump my or my kids right to NOT catch a bullet cause they're too stupid to take the time to become proficient with their weapon.
I have owned probably a dozen S&W 3rd gen guns. They offered everything I wanted in a semi auto. Hammer, safety, mag disconnect. When S&W stopped supporting them I went to the closest thing I can find, the Ruger SR9 and the LC9-S. No hammer, but manual safety and mag disconnect. Still, I am a bit more leery of holstering them on the firing line. Still want to put my thumb over the imaginary hammer as an extra precaution. And I've been shooting for over 25 years. I wish most people excercise the same level of gun safety as I do. I know friends who leave a gun in their nightstand. Say there kids "know not to touch it". I knew to not do a lot of things as a kid. Didn't stop me from doing them.
And by the way, I've owned 2 Glocks, a 19 and a 26. I will never own another. Pulling the trigger to field strip it is an awful design flaw, one that other striker fired weapons have managed to avoid. A cop in Florida was killed last year after qualifying. They were cleaning their guns after shooting and the cop next to him pulled the trigger to field strip. Cop was wearing a vest but bullet went right under armpit. Yeah, the cop violated one of the rules. Yeah, he's sorry. But the other cop is still dead. Sorry doesn't bring somebody back.
And please don't compare a striker fired gun to a revolver or a DAO auto. 5.5 pounds with no hammer vs. 10+ pounds with a hammer? Not even close.
Of course the gun safety rules are most important. But I have seen time and time again that people don't follow them. Do I think those idiots should have a gun? No, I don't. Their right to a gun doesn't trump my or my kids right to NOT catch a bullet cause they're too stupid to take the time to become proficient with their weapon.
I have owned probably a dozen S&W 3rd gen guns. They offered everything I wanted in a semi auto. Hammer, safety, mag disconnect. When S&W stopped supporting them I went to the closest thing I can find, the Ruger SR9 and the LC9-S. No hammer, but manual safety and mag disconnect. Still, I am a bit more leery of holstering them on the firing line. Still want to put my thumb over the imaginary hammer as an extra precaution. And I've been shooting for over 25 years. I wish most people excercise the same level of gun safety as I do. I know friends who leave a gun in their nightstand. Say there kids "know not to touch it". I knew to not do a lot of things as a kid. Didn't stop me from doing them.
And by the way, I've owned 2 Glocks, a 19 and a 26. I will never own another. Pulling the trigger to field strip it is an awful design flaw, one that other striker fired weapons have managed to avoid. A cop in Florida was killed last year after qualifying. They were cleaning their guns after shooting and the cop next to him pulled the trigger to field strip. Cop was wearing a vest but bullet went right under armpit. Yeah, the cop violated one of the rules. Yeah, he's sorry. But the other cop is still dead. Sorry doesn't bring somebody back.
Last edited:
In order to gain any benefit from the presence of a manual safety, one must follow the rules on how to use a manual safety properly. Simply putting it on the gun does nothing if the owner doesn't use it or doesn't use it properly.
I concur. But I don't think a manual safety will help the problem because I have no confidence at all that these same people who don't follow the basic rules of gun safety WILL follow the rules of how to use a manual safety.
This is why I think that there might actually be a real benefit to magazine safeties even though I don't care for them. They actually prevent discharges in one type of situation where the shooter is not following the proper rules.
A manual safety, may provide an extra layer of security for a person who is conscientious about gun safety. They are also important in certain situations. For example, I won't carry a gun without a manual safety unless it's in a hard holster that completely covers the trigger guard AND it has a passive firing pin safety.
But for a person who isn't concerned with gun safety, they do nothing at all and may even instill a sense of false security. The person will ignore them or use them improperly just as they ignore the gun safety rules and use firearms improperly.
I don't think manual safeties are always unnecessary. In some situations I consider them to be very important.
I don't believe that they are always necessary. In some situations they offer no benefit and can actually be a detriment.
What does it matter?
Sure, to a point. If you listen to the way some carry on, you'd never be able to shoot too, so you need to be realistic.
I never saw the big deal here. If you have cleared the gun, and point it in a safe direction when you pull the trigger, its a non issue. If youre sloppy in youre gun handling, and dont pay attention, once again, how is that the guns fault?
Historically, at least in my experience, cops are some of the worst gun handlers Ive seen and dealt with.
In the above case, more than one rule was violated, and multiple times, and of course, it is again, somehow the guns fault that it happened. Nothing that happened, was a malfunction or failure, on the guns part.
- Status