Evil Monkey
New member
How does a manual safety make sure a person does NOT keep their finger on the trigger when they're not supposed to?
manual safety is unnecessary?
- Thread starter breakthrough
- Start date
- Status
How does a manual safety make sure a person does NOT keep their finger on the trigger when they're not supposed to?
This. I've never had an issue caused by a lack of a safety. Follow the four firearms rules and you'll be fine. I'd rather not have to worry about the manual safety when drawing a firearm. For that reason, none of my handguns (except 1911's) have safeties.
If you feel the need to have a safety on a gun, get one with a safety. I feel no need, and don't carry handguns with safeties. Carrying a gun with a safety is better than not carrying a gun because it doesn't have a safety.
As far as the kid situation goes, kids are smart enough to figure out how safeties work. If I need to keep a child away from a gun, a safe works just fine. I will always have a handgun within arms reach though.
Having seen firsthand what happens in even low speed crashes (and higher ones, too!) to folks who thought they did not need a seat belt, and seen what happens to folks in crappy salvage titled vehichles where the airbags did not work when they were supposed to, I would never buy, or ride in, a car that did not have both seat belts and airbags......
... I'm not a big fan of .gov regulation in general, but not wearing a seat belt is just plain willful stupidity.
Brakes, seatbelts, airbags......... They are all safety features, just like a manual safety on a pistol. I replied to the comment of "why bother".......... Well, because it was designed that way.
I've said in the past, the only TRUE safety is to keep your booger picker off the bang switch until it's time to shoot, just like the only way to avoid a car crash is to not drive the car, but since you drive the car, use the safety devices as designed by the manufacturer.
The 1911 was preceded originally by the 1907, which most certainly did have a manual thumb safety. The later model 1909 had a thumb safety as well. It was moved and enlarged at the request of Army Ordnance in what became the 1911. So, John Browning designed it that way.
I've said in the past, the only TRUE safety is to keep your booger picker off the bang switch until it's time to shoot, just like the only way to avoid a car crash is to not drive the car, but since you drive the car, use the safety devices as designed by the manufacturer.
The 1911 was preceded originally by the 1907, which most certainly did have a manual thumb safety. The later model 1909 had a thumb safety as well. It was moved and enlarged at the request of Army Ordnance in what became the 1911. So, John Browning designed it that way.
Deaf Smith
New member
Cause all you have to do is KYFFOTFT till you are ready to fire. Simple no?
Been packing Glocks for 20 years, used them in IDPA and IPSC for almost the same number of years and never had ONE AD/ND. Got several state trophies in the process.
Deaf
Evil Monkey
New member
KYFFOTFT, brilliant.
It doesn't, but that's not the rule. The rule is, do not inadvertently fire the gun, meaning you do not pull the trigger back far enough to fire it when you don't intend to fire it. This might happen by putting your finger on the trigger when you're not supposed to, or it might happen in other ways. The safety, assuming it works as intended, keeps the gun from firing until you release the safety and then pull the trigger back far enough to fire it.
Evil Monkey
New member
A manual safety should NEVER be a substitute for proper trigger finger discipline.
...But you are saying that it should be.
I certainly won't argue with you on that point, but the fact remains that they were all government mandated.
Regarding safeties, I (being a dinosaur) have always preferred manual safeties on firearms. Yes, the most important safety device is in your cranium, but manual safeties are useful in unforeseen circumstances, too.
The new Remington R51 abortion had an internal hammer with no manual safety other than the grip safety. For that reason alone, I would never consider that pistol even if it had been a rousing success.
It has been pointed out that there are scenarios that require instantaneous draw and shoot; I guess I have been fortunate in my life, even though I have lived in some bad places, that I have never been faced with that. The three times in 45 years that I have had to draw, the mere appearance of a pistol deescalated the situation instantly.
My carry (for nearly 45 years now) has a manual safety; It blocks the grip safety which, in turn, physically blocks the sear. I am so used to it that it is not (IMHO) an impediment for me at all.
It's all what you are used to.
As always, YMMV.
And he was 100% wrong. Think about it. He was in a chow line in a dining facility. His rifle is hanging on a sling, without his hands on it, shifting about as he moves, his gear has plenty of little projections and protrusions on it, and he may well bump into other people (or they bump into him), or his rifle can snag on something.....and any of those things might cause that rifle to go off
Deaf Smith
New member
.
And he was in a WAR ZONE!!
So to me he was right.
Deaf
Evil Monkey
New member
The M&P is practically an SA pistol. The sear has an angle to it, causing it to have a stiff trigger pull in the 5 pound range. Some say that's not enough to carry without a manual safety locking up the trigger.
People have this fear of something snagging the trigger upon holstering. Why would you haphazardly holster your gun though?
buckhorn_cortez
New member
So, let me see if I understand this. You're using a character, in a Hollywood movie, with an actor merely reciting words from a screenplay written by Ken Nolan as absolute proof of some kind about guns and trigger control?
Honest-to-God? You want me to think this is some sort of prescient insight that actually PROVES something?
Nope...sorry...Ken Nolan doesn't know more about guns than I do...I'm betting he barely has a passing knowledge of guns in general.
FrankenMauser
New member
This thread went nowhere fast...
Deaf Smith
New member
Nope, saying John Farnam says so. So does Ken Hackthorn. So does Tom Givens. What is more, Paul Howe, who really was there in the real Blackhawk Down... also says the same thing. The safety, the real safety, is in between the ears. And in a WAR ZONE only bureaucrats are obsessed with the weapons state of readiness, or unreadiness.
Deaf
Last edited:
- Status