manual safety is unnecessary?

[GaryWWhite]

Mechanical safeties are fine but the best safety is to always keep your finger off the trigger IMHO!

 

[rickyrick]

Everyone is right about fingers on triggers; no doubt. But, no one seems the mention that there is other things that can fit in a trigger guard besides your finger. Another person's finger.... A stick or twig... a shirt tail... A zipper... Can you be sure about all of that while rolling around in the proverbial dark alley?

 

[AK103K]

Can you be sure about all of that while rolling around in the proverbial dark alley?

Not sure why you'd be trying to reholster while rolling around in a dark alley, but Id say either way, its probably pretty close to the same.

If youre all calm and collected, its probably a non issue.

If youre not, either way, if youre not paying attention, things can go wrong.

 

[44 AMP]

The hostility is directed at people who think safeties are something that's gonna get you killed.

Why the hostility at all? It was only pointed out that it could. No need to take offense, it was just an observation.

While there is never any need to take offense, there is often a perceived reason.

The "I won't have a gun with a safety..." camp bothers me less for the actual facts of the matter than the attitude displayed.

yes, we know safeties can fail. Yes, we know people can, and do screw up their use. But few like to hear that they will, at the worst possible moment, while you won't because you were smart enough to chose a gun with no safety. Implying that we're fools, and you aren't, etc.

Perhaps its just me, but I get a bit irritated with someone claiming the high ground, when we're eye to eye in the swamp muck.

Of course, this is just my observation, a possible cause for someone taking offense, and in no way definitive, only my opinion.

Cause the reality is that in the 50 years you own a gun, the odds of you using it in a real defensive situation are extremely unlikely.

Do the odds change if I own 50 guns for one year?? Or the 50+ guns I've owned over the last 50 years?? I'd say not, or not to any significant difference.

I have pistols with safeties, I have pistols that don't have safeties, other than the user. I have several designs and calibers of SA semi autos, and DA/SA semi autos, from .22LR through .45 Win Mag. There is a lot more in my handgunning world than just defensive pistols.

If your advice is based on the latest polymer framed striker fired pistols, it's wasted on me, I don't have any of them, nor a want or need for such.

 

[Branko]

My take on things is this. Obviously, proper gun handling alone is enough, and if executed perfectly every single time, you won't have an accidental or negligent discharge, and if you do, nobody will get hurt. The problem is that it relies on you doing things correctly 100% of the time. If you handle the gun correctly only 99.99% of the time, that's way too risky for something which you do on a daily basis. How often you do something matters a lot, and for someone who is likely to handle the gun every day but not likely to need to use it in a lifetime, the odds are heavily slated in favour of a bit of extra safety.

Militaries have a habit of carrying handguns without a round chambered, however, for a reason. Sure, if everyone would observe proper gun handling 100% of the time, there would be no point in it. However, being a big organization full of people handling their guns regularly, the law of big numbers comes to play and accidents are going to happen eventually, which they want to minimize as far as possible. On the other hand actual necessity when they have to use a handgun is rare, and if it does happen, it means something went seriously wrong. So, they are willing to trade off a slight bit of speed when the handgun is needed, which is extremely rare, for extra safety during normal carrying and administrative handling, practicing and the like, which is quite common. Which, if you think about it, closely mimics civilian use of the handgun, too.

The only two people that I personally know which used a gun in home defense (in one case, without firing a shot the intruder turned tail and ran, in the other, firing a warning shot the intruders decided they prefer the odds somewhere else really fast) had ample time to unlock the safe, ready the weapon, and operate the safety. Of course it won't describe all situations but frankly I do not know of any gunfight which was decided by one side not being able to operate a safety in time on their handgun.

If you were in the situation you had to use the gun every day (not necessarily shoot, but prepare yourself to shoot), then, of course, you might want to do away with the safety. However, outside of law enforcement in some rough place, which purposefully goes towards danger on a daily basis, I don't see that is any way likely. For those of us who would use a gun only for home defense (a carry permit would be very complicated to get in my country, although I would probably qualify it's not worth the huge hassle) and it's unlikely that we ever will, shaving off 0.25s from a quick draw just isn't much of a factor; while having another layer of protection against mistakes or someone else being stupid, does count.

 

[zukiphile]

"...Yes, NDs can happen to the best of us. A safety lock that renders the firearm inoperable unless one has switched it off can protect against negligence in touching the trigger without an intent to fire. That isn't merely an extta safety, but a different kind of safety that protects a user against a different kind of negligence..."

This is the thinking that results in Negligent Discharges...the part about "negligence in touching the trigger without intent to fire"...

If one is depending on a "safety" to protect them from firing a round when touching the trigger, then they will soon hear the loudest shot they will ever hear.

Emphasis added. That isn't true; engagement of a safety lock means that one can touch the trigger and the gun won't fire.

The bolded portion is a strawman because no one argued that one should depend on a safety. That a safety lock is a kind of safety that differs from a drop safety or a blade on the trigger face is indisputable.

If a firearm has three different safeties that are all disabled when one touches the light trigger, it is operationally similar to a firearm with no safety and a light trigger that fires a shot when the trigger is pressed. Some people dislike that because the risk of an ND that is reduced with a safety lock is re-introduced.

 

[cc-hangfire]

Wow!! 14 pages of posts. Manual safeties are more of a hot button issue than caliber wars!!

Pass the popcorn! I'm watching the show.

 

[str8tshot]

And if these highly trained competitors in shooting games, people who shoot a lot, can't train themselves to sweep off on the draw and on when they holster, than I question their level of ability.

Based on this statement, it seems to me your experience is limited to square, static range shooting activities. There is a significant difference between static shooting and dynamic shooting. The competitors you are questioning have trained themselves to remove the safety. Many of them remove the safety during presentation to the target, not when the gun is pulled from the holster. The problem with disengaging the safety arises when you add stress, sweaty hands, and speed. The safety isn't missed because of lack of training or ability, it is missed because the thumb slips past it, or the trigger is pulled before the safety is fully disengaged. The possibility for failure is magnified by the number of presentations. A person who goes out once a month and shoots from the holster a few times has a lower likelihood of missing the safety than a person who shoots in matches that require many times that amount of presentations, and from various positions.
The reference, at least for my part, to competitive shooters was in response to your statement that you "never" miss your safety. I submit that you have not pushed yourself to failure, and worked to correct that failure so you can get better, or faster. I have never missed my safety when I stand still and draw either. I have missed it when I try to draw and shoot while moving, and under time.

For my part, I don't care if a handgun has a safety or not. I learn the system to become proficient with it. What bothers me, is the dogmatic position, that seems to be guided by emotion more than real risk evaluation, that handguns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism.

 

[AK103K]

That isn't true; engagement of a safety lock means that one can touch the trigger and the gun won't fire.

That is simply an assumption, and at the very least, a very bad habit to get into.

The bolded portion is a strawman because no one argued that one should depend on a safety.

But isnt that in fact what youre doing?

If a firearm has three different safeties that are all disabled when one touches the light trigger, it is operationally similar to a firearm with no safety and a light trigger that fires a shot when the trigger is pressed.

Im guessing youre referring to a Glock here.

The difference here between the Glocks, and say a 1911 is, you have to actually "cock", for lack of a better term, the Glocks trigger, by drawing it back (taking up the slack) about a half inch, before it ever starts to give you a 5# "let off". Simply touching it, wont cause it to do so. You have to disable a safety, and deliberately pull the trigger to cause the gun to fire, just like a 1911. The difference between the two is, the 1911's tend to be much more sensitive and likely to fire at the slightest pressure on the trigger, once the safety is disabled.

Now, if youre in the (very bad) habit, of putting your finger on the trigger, which is more likely to have a ND?

Another issue here, with the trigger touching thing, is what happens when you sweep the thumb safety off with your finger on the trigger? Or, say in the case of a P7, squeeze the grip, to cock the gun, and make it ready? I think the answer there is pretty obvious, or at least to anyone who has tried it. The gun WILL fire.


Safeties are great and all, and if the gun you use has one, its important to understand what it is, what it does, and what to expect from it. Like any of the others, that requires some work on your part. If you dont put that effort forth, that safety is the least of your worries.

One thing Ive never understood too is, once the gun is in hand, any safeties that require removing would already be off, and your finger would (or should) be out of the trigger until the gun comes to bear on the target. So even if the gun had absolutely no safeties, it should still be a level playing field. Your brain and its control on the trigger finger, are still the ultimate, and last true safety, no matter what the gun is. Beyond that, everything else is administrative and is dealt with accordingly.

 

[zukiphile]

Why the hostility at all?

Indeed.

What bothers me, is the dogmatic position, that seems to be guided by emotion more than real risk evaluation, that handguns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism.

They are different. Whether that difference makes them better will be a separate determination.

That isn't true; engagement of a safety lock means that one can touch the trigger and the gun won't fire.

That is simply an assumption, and at the very least, a very bad habit to get into.

No, it is not simply an assumption to describe the operation of a safety lock. It also isn't a description of a habit.

The bolded portion is a strawman because no one argued that one should depend on a safety.

But isnt that in fact what youre doing?

No. Describing the function of a safety lock or how it may reduce risk of negligence turning into injury is not dependence on a safety.

If a firearm has three different safeties that are all disabled when one touches the light trigger, it is operationally similar to a firearm with no safety and a light trigger that fires a shot when the trigger is pressed.

Im guessing youre referring to a Glock here.

Not exclusively. Though I used a Glock for years, the observation applies to a number of other arms as well. Some arms will require a very long trigger pull; a Kahr comes to mind. Others like the S&W and Steyr share a shorter pull.

The difference here between the Glocks, and say a 1911 is, you have to actually "cock", for lack of a better term, the Glocks trigger, by drawing it back (taking up the slack) about a half inch, before it ever starts to give you a 5# "let off". Simply touching it, wont cause it to do so. You have to disable a safety, and deliberately pull the trigger to cause the gun to fire, just like a 1911.

I just described for you how it isn't just like a 1911 in operation. Where the safety is disabled with the same trigger press that fires a shot, an arm doesn't have a safety lock and is operationally similar to an arm without a safety.

If a car door had a lock that was disabled when you pull the handle, you wouldn't call it a lock because it doesn't function like one.

The difference between the two is, the 1911's tend to be much more sensitive and likely to fire at the slightest pressure on the trigger, once the safety is disabled.

Indeed.

Now, if youre in the (very bad) habit, of putting your finger on the trigger, which is more likely to have a ND?

I think we all put our fingers on the trigger each time we go shooting. If one unintentionally presses the trigger of a pistol with a mechanical safety engaged, a possibility with anyone, the arm is less likely to discharge at all, so the risk of ND would be reduced.

Another issue here, with the trigger touching thing, is what happens when you sweep the thumb safety off with your finger on the trigger?

The same thing that happens when the trigger is pressed on an arm with no safety lock at all. That isn't an argument against safety locks.

One thing Ive never understood too is, once the gun is in hand, any safeties that require removing would already be off, ...

I wouldn't make that assumption. If your confusion rests in a recognition that safeties may be redundant, it is an easy point to address.

A level of redundancy is part of the point of separate safeties with separate operations. The co-incidence of two errors is generally less frequent than the occurrence of one. A redundant safety makes a single error less likely to be harmful.

Your brain and its control on the trigger finger, are still the ultimate, and last true safety, no matter what the gun is. Beyond that, everything else is administrative and is dealt with accordingly.

That should not suggest that separate safeties that require separate actions can't reduce risk.

 

[44 AMP]

What bothers me, is the dogmatic position, that seems to be guided by emotion more than real risk evaluation, that handguns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism.

What is it that really bothers you? The fact that it is dogmatic? That it appears based on emotion? Or is it the fact that guns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism???

What I'm getting from the discussion is that most of the pro-safety folks are saying the gun with a safety can be safer, and the no-safety folks are saying their guns are better...

This is NOT the same thing. Sounds a lot like it, but isn't.

Remember to look at ALL possible conditions, and not just "when you need it in a hurry" or when its in your hands. Include scenarios when the operator is NOT physically in control of the pistol, as well.

 

[str8tshot]

If one unintentionally presses the trigger of a pistol with a mechanical safety engaged, a possibility with anyone, the arm is less likely to discharge at all, so the risk of ND would be reduced.

No. Describing the function of a safety lock or how it may reduce risk of negligence turning into injury is not dependence on a safety.

You are saying, in somewhat circular terms, that one should not depend on a safety, while at the same time somehow depend on a safety to reduce NDs.

They are different. Whether that difference makes them better will be a separate determination.

I agree the systems are different. Both systems rely on a person to properly use them.
Some of the posts on this thread have intimated one is better than the other; that ordinal ranking is based on reducing risk of a fired round when that was not the intent. Proponents of external safeties posit they reduce risk because the firearm will not fire while the safety is engaged. Those who prefer other safety systems posit that the risk is equally mitigated by other factors, and in aggregate, the overall risk is the same. I submit they are relatively equal, but not the same.
Some risk of ND is mitigated by having an external safety, if the safety is engaged and the trigger is pressed to the rear with enough force to otherwise activate the firing mechanism. The counter argument to that is one should not press the trigger without intending to fire, and to keep your finger out of the trigger guard until firing (the bugger hook off bang switch expression). The tangential points of gun handling while not shooting are red herrings. If gun handling at home or elsewhere is causing NDs, there is no evidence that an external safety would protect against them. A person is equally likely to mishandle a firearm with safety disengaged as they are with a safety engaged. Mishandling firearms is not mitigated by a feature that requires manual application.
A side argument arose around the idea of missing or failing to disengage external safeties, which could pose risks that are not present in some types of safety systems (think GLOCK or M&P). The result of missing or failing to disengage a safety will be added time for first shot; whether that first shot is a match or violent confrontation.
The one area I think all can agree, is that pressing the trigger will cause firearms to discharge. Additional safety features are valuable to some users, and not to others. An external safety device may be "better" for some users, and not "better" for others; that is why the manufacturers have different designs and different models.

 

[str8tshot]

What is it that really bothers you? The fact that it is dogmatic? That it appears based on emotion?

I see the dogma being supported by emotion, leading to credulity.

Or is it the fact that guns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism???

Better has not been defined or demonstrated in any posts.

What I'm getting from the discussion is that most of the pro-safety folks are saying the gun with a safety can be safer, and the no-safety folks are saying their guns are better...

You make a good point that safer and better have been conflated in many posts. I don't agree that one is safer and the other better. We have not defined better, nor has safer been demonstrated. Each user has his or her own requirements for what is safe, and what is good (better). A firearm that never fires when it shouldn't is safe (individual requirements for when that is vary). A firearm that meets a users needs more than another firearm is better (again individual requirements vary).

 

[zukiphile]

If one unintentionally presses the trigger of a pistol with a mechanical safety engaged, a possibility with anyone, the arm is less likely to discharge at all, so the risk of ND would be reduced.

No. Describing the function of a safety lock or how it may reduce risk of negligence turning into injury is not dependence on a safety.

You are saying, in somewhat circular terms, that one should not depend on a safety, while at the same time somehow depend on a safety to reduce NDs.

Emphasis added.

No. Describing a reduced risk is easily distinguishable from depending on a a safety to do something.

One is a description of likelihood, the other is an issue of personal behavior. I understand that seatbelts and airbags may reduce a risk of deadly injury in a crash, but that doesn't suggest that I court crashes while depending on belts and bags to pull me through.

I agree the systems are different. Both systems rely on a person to properly use them.

That's true, though to different degrees. A safety lock can't work if it isn't engaged. However, if it is engaged, a moment of disregard in pressing the trigger will not cause the arm to fire.

A trigger "dingus" that is disengaged with a press of the same trigger lacks the redundant quality that can protect against some singular lapses becoming NDs.

Some risk of ND is mitigated by having an external safety, if the safety is engaged and the trigger is pressed to the rear with enough force to otherwise activate the firing mechanism. The counter argument to that is one should not press the trigger without intending to fire, and to keep your finger out of the trigger guard until firing (the bugger hook off bang switch expression).

Emphasis added.

Is that a counter argument? The bolded seemed indisputable. The positions don't seem contradictory.

The tangential points of gun handling while not shooting are red herrings. If gun handling at home or elsewhere is causing NDs, there is no evidence that an external safety would protect against them. A person is equally likely to mishandle a firearm with safety disengaged as they are with a safety engaged. Mishandling firearms is not mitigated by a feature that requires manual application.

That's not quite right.

Gun handling while not shooting can't be a red herring in a discussion of the relative merit of a safety lock that would be engaged while not shooting. If the risks and benefits are present while not shooting, they shouldn't be disregarded.

An individual may be equally likely to mishandle a firearm with a safety lock engaged or disengaged, but if his arm has a safety lock, some of that mishandling can't result in a ND. Even though a safety lock must be manually applied, it can still protect against the consequence of later mishandling.

A side argument arose around the idea of missing or failing to disengage external safeties, which could pose risks that are not present in some types of safety systems (think GLOCK or M&P). The result of missing or failing to disengage a safety will be added time for first shot; whether that first shot is a match or violent confrontation.

I agree. An individual should weigh the risks he faces and prepare reasonably. If one's risk of succumbing to ambush because he has fumbled with a safety surpasses the risk of momentary error during normal handling, then it would be unreasonable to carry a sidearm with a safety lock.

 

[silverbullet6oh]

Some arms will require a very long trigger pull; a Kahr comes to mind. Others like the S&W and Steyr share a shorter pull.

My S&W has a nice 8lb pull that is decently long. I bought it for this reason, because I do not like external safeties. They are not necessary for me or my kids when shooting. Also, I am use to the trigger through practice.

My external safety is keeping my finger off the trigger and keeping my pistol holstered when not in use, and teaching my kids the same with lots of practice.

 

[cw308]

40 years ago I carried a Colt Combat Commander safety off one in the tube hammer down, moved to S&W 13 3" 357 never liked safety's for carry.

 

[jmohme]

I am big on safety devices, and firmly believe that someone new to firearms should not own a gun without one.

Now, with that said, I really do not care one way or the other if a handgun that I own has a safety or not. I actually have two that I purchased primarily for carry.
Both are striker fired 9mm's. One has no manual safety, the other does, but it goes unused.
My opinion is that in a situation where my handgun is needed to defend myself or my family, the threat is not going to have his or her safety engaged, so why would I want to start out at that with that disadvantage..

You can say that you practice enough that flipping the safety on the draw becomes second nature, but the problem is that when you get into a life threatening situation, there are primitive responses that kick in and dominate ones behavior. So maybe your training and practice will work, but then again, you may just draw and end up tugging on an unresponsive trigger.

 

[JohnKSa]

One has no manual safety, the other does, but it goes unused.

If you have a self-defense gun with a manual safety, part of your practice with it needs to be ALWAYS disengaging the manual safety as part of your draw/presentation. Even if you don't use it.

Manual safeties have a way of ending up on when you expect them to be off and off when you expect them to be on. If you own a self-defense gun with a manual safety, you can't simply ignore it, IMO.

 

[jmohme]

You make a good point JohnKSa

 

[Cheapshooter]

One has no manual safety, the other does, but it goes unused.

The question posed in the OP was if manual safeties are unnecessary. In a gun that is designed to have one, they are absolutely necessary. Just curious as to what you carry with a manual safety that you think is OK to carry without using it?