Deaf Smith
New member
Try Paul Howe to.
Deaf
Deaf
manual safety is unnecessary?
- Thread starter breakthrough
- Start date
- Status
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Evil Monkey:
Cannot disagree.
I absolutely agree, and as I have said before I find it more than a little worrisome that some seem to think that a person who can't be trusted to keep their finger off the trigger can somehow be trusted to invariably activate a thumb safety.
Training and familiarity with the pistol, regardless of its features, is the only way to be safe. While I understand and agree with those who feel that a SAO pistol needs a thumb safety to be safely carried, it is only safe if the person handling the pistol is familiar and thoughtfully aware of the pistol's status and follows all of the familiar rules. IOW, even in that situation, it isn't the thumb safety that makes it safe, it is the reliable and conscious use of the safety by the gunman, and overall attention to safe procedures.
FWIW, I have pistols with no safety, frame safeties, and slide safeties, and in half a century of shooting I have never had an accidental discharge, because I pay attention to what I am doing with all of them.
Please re-read what I actually wrote.
There are countless examples, you've heard them too, of people accidentally pulling a trigger with their finger while handling a gun, or accidentally pushing the gun towards something that draws the trigger back. It happens, and the consequence can be an accidental discharge and all the accompanying possible consequences. A safety is one way to mitigate this risk (can't draw the trigger back at all), keeping the hammer down on a SA/DA gun is another way (really hard to accidentally draw it all the way back). That is why these features exist.
If someone wishes to tempt fate and carry a loaded single-action pistol cocked with no safety, say, because it's all about trigger finger discipline anyways and he thinks he's perfect all the time in all situations, including situations he's never yet been in, well... I don't want to be anywhere near that person, with or without firearms, because that person is reckless and a danger to himself and others. If he's free solo climbing a rock wall, at least he's likely to hurt only himself if he makes a mistake.
That said, as I said, I can go either way regarding manual safeties. My revolvers don't have them, neither does my P226, and I don't think they are particularly dangerous when the hammer is down. Striker-fired pistols like a Glock, I do think are dangerous, and if I owned one it would never be loaded except at a range, but that's me.
Brakes are not safety devices, they are control devices. Seat Belts and airbags are safety devices. You can properly and accurately drive a vehicle without seat belts or airbags, but you cannot without brakes.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by TailGator:
The consequences of human error differ not at all in severity to those of mechanical failure. Training and familiarity and attention to safe procedures are essential and necessary, but they may not always be sufficient--because humans do err--even the most disciplined of them.
If you climb into a modern warplane and observe a few things, you will find that human factors engineers have done all kinds of things to reduce the likelihood of the inadvertent activation of the crew ejection and escape mechanism, the engine cut-off control, landing gear controls, weapons release mechanisms, and so forth. And those crew-persons train all the time.
So, in a handgun, the inclusion of a manual safety, and a long heavy trigger pull, and possibly a magazine disconnect safety, and drop-safe provisions would be a no-brainer--were it not for the risks that those things introduce.
I carried a Ruger SR-9c for a long time. I practiced with it. And then one day, in the very first drill in a training class, my trained and practiced thumb failed to deactivate the safety after I drew and presented the weapon.
No big deal under the circumstances, but in an ambush, that could have been disastrous.
I did not choose a gun with a manual safety to prevent me from pulling the trigger with my finger. I chose it to prevent something else from pulling the trigger while the gun was being holstered, or was being carried in the holster.
That happens for time to time, and while the righteous among us can say that the person made an error and that the discharge would not have happened but for that error, such a statement is as useless as altitude above an airplane or deck space behind a carrier-based plane.
It is possible for something to get into the holster, particularly when one has to holster the gun with one hand while doing something else with the other, particularly in stressful situation when the wind is blowing.
One can pontificate all day long about how the finest among us would prevent that from happening, but the consequences of the unintended discharge are not ameliorated by the sentiment.
But then, failing to deactivate the safety upon the draw could be pretty serious, too.
I have decided to not carry a firearm that requires a separate operation to deactivate the safety, except when I am carrying my 1911-type firearm.
But I do not consider that little thingy in the trigger to be an adequate "safety".
The grip safety in my Croatian carry piece does not require a separate action before firing.
But if I keep my hands off of it, it does keep the gun from firing.
And I do check rather frequently to make sure that there arena shirttails or jacket stings in the holster.
I also verify that the grip safety is not depressed when I don't want it to be.
It really boils down to prudent risk management, and it's not always that simple.
The consequences of human error differ not at all in severity to those of mechanical failure. Training and familiarity and attention to safe procedures are essential and necessary, but they may not always be sufficient--because humans do err--even the most disciplined of them.
If you climb into a modern warplane and observe a few things, you will find that human factors engineers have done all kinds of things to reduce the likelihood of the inadvertent activation of the crew ejection and escape mechanism, the engine cut-off control, landing gear controls, weapons release mechanisms, and so forth. And those crew-persons train all the time.
So, in a handgun, the inclusion of a manual safety, and a long heavy trigger pull, and possibly a magazine disconnect safety, and drop-safe provisions would be a no-brainer--were it not for the risks that those things introduce.
I carried a Ruger SR-9c for a long time. I practiced with it. And then one day, in the very first drill in a training class, my trained and practiced thumb failed to deactivate the safety after I drew and presented the weapon.
No big deal under the circumstances, but in an ambush, that could have been disastrous.
I did not choose a gun with a manual safety to prevent me from pulling the trigger with my finger. I chose it to prevent something else from pulling the trigger while the gun was being holstered, or was being carried in the holster.
That happens for time to time, and while the righteous among us can say that the person made an error and that the discharge would not have happened but for that error, such a statement is as useless as altitude above an airplane or deck space behind a carrier-based plane.
It is possible for something to get into the holster, particularly when one has to holster the gun with one hand while doing something else with the other, particularly in stressful situation when the wind is blowing.
One can pontificate all day long about how the finest among us would prevent that from happening, but the consequences of the unintended discharge are not ameliorated by the sentiment.
But then, failing to deactivate the safety upon the draw could be pretty serious, too.
I have decided to not carry a firearm that requires a separate operation to deactivate the safety, except when I am carrying my 1911-type firearm.
But I do not consider that little thingy in the trigger to be an adequate "safety".
The grip safety in my Croatian carry piece does not require a separate action before firing.
But if I keep my hands off of it, it does keep the gun from firing.
And I do check rather frequently to make sure that there arena shirttails or jacket stings in the holster.
I also verify that the grip safety is not depressed when I don't want it to be.
Please re-read what I actually wrote.
Striker-fired pistols like a Glock, I do think are dangerous, and if I owned one it would never be loaded except at a range, but that's me.
Do you think Glocks are dangerous because of an emotional feeling, or do you have stats that back up your thoughts? If it is an emotional reaction, no problem. I can accept that point of view.
If you have stats, I would be interested in seeing them because I have carried a Glock for years with a round in the chamber. I may be one of those outliers in the distribution and not know it.
This discussion comes up often, and there are valid points on each side.
It seems that what is "best" primarily depends on what function of handgun use you focus on.
The discussion almost always instantly centers on personal defense /duty use handguns, and often devolves into two camps, the "manual safety is necessary" side and the "manual safety will get you killed" side at the extremes.
Both equally correct, and both equally wrong, depending on your personal point of view.
For those who think the concept that "the only real safety is between your ears" is something to ascribe to modern trainers, NRA Hunter Safety courses have been teaching this (although in different words) longer than most of us have been alive.
Finger off the trigger, Muzzle control, never placing 100% faith and trust in a safety, these basic concepts have been taught by the NRA since the start of the NRA safety programs, which, if not over the century mark by now must be very close.
To answer the question Is a manual safety unnecessary? I would say it is a matter of gun design. Clearly the DA revolver has proven for a LONG time that a manual safety is not necessary with that design of gun, used in the intended manner.
As an overall general question, it see it having been answered. Now, if you wish to discuss if a manual safety is necessary on a specific gun design, that's a different question.
It seems that what is "best" primarily depends on what function of handgun use you focus on.
The discussion almost always instantly centers on personal defense /duty use handguns, and often devolves into two camps, the "manual safety is necessary" side and the "manual safety will get you killed" side at the extremes.
Both equally correct, and both equally wrong, depending on your personal point of view.
For those who think the concept that "the only real safety is between your ears" is something to ascribe to modern trainers, NRA Hunter Safety courses have been teaching this (although in different words) longer than most of us have been alive.
Finger off the trigger, Muzzle control, never placing 100% faith and trust in a safety, these basic concepts have been taught by the NRA since the start of the NRA safety programs, which, if not over the century mark by now must be very close.
To answer the question Is a manual safety unnecessary? I would say it is a matter of gun design. Clearly the DA revolver has proven for a LONG time that a manual safety is not necessary with that design of gun, used in the intended manner.
As an overall general question, it see it having been answered. Now, if you wish to discuss if a manual safety is necessary on a specific gun design, that's a different question.
Evil Monkey
New member
That's a drop safety, to prevent the trigger from pulling itself when dropped on its back/grip.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by str8tshot:
Unintentional discharges of Glock and similar pistols are rare.
But they do happen.
The folks on the web always immediately attribute them to a finger on the trigger. But they have resulted from jacket strings in the holster, holster failure, and other things.
Doesn't matter how it happens.
The likelihood is remote--but the severity of the consequences can range from high to extremely high.
It is a risk that I choose to mitigate.
I have several friends who carry Glocks all the time. I like the way they shoot and handle. But I will not carry one. Or an M&P without a safety.
People who take anticoagulants, and in particular those that cannot be made ineffective very quickly, should take into account their much higher risk in this and in other decisions.
I'm not Jeff, but I'll offer this.
Unintentional discharges of Glock and similar pistols are rare.
But they do happen.
The folks on the web always immediately attribute them to a finger on the trigger. But they have resulted from jacket strings in the holster, holster failure, and other things.
Doesn't matter how it happens.
The likelihood is remote--but the severity of the consequences can range from high to extremely high.
It is a risk that I choose to mitigate.
I have several friends who carry Glocks all the time. I like the way they shoot and handle. But I will not carry one. Or an M&P without a safety.
People who take anticoagulants, and in particular those that cannot be made ineffective very quickly, should take into account their much higher risk in this and in other decisions.
The "Glocks are dangerous" thing is really starting to get old. First off, I would hope they ALL were dangerous, if not, why are you using/carrying it?
I think a lot of the problem here, is the internet, and the constant and on going regurgitation of things that really dont happen in real life very often, if at all. Sure, if you look around, you'll find problems with ANY OF THEM, and in most cases, it wasnt the weapons fault. Short of a defect or malfunction, we, the user, will always be the weakest, and most probable link.
I would suggest that you take everything you hear on the web with a grain of salt, and do your own vetting. I kept hearing, over and over, all the same old crap about the Glocks, that I took to carrying a second, unloaded 17 around the house and yard as a "test", for about a year and a half (still actually doing it even today, as its my dry fire/ practice gun), doing pretty much everything and anything we are constantly told not to do, and Ive done it constantly, and have yet to have the trigger drop unintentionally.
If youre the least bit reasonable in your gun handling, its a non issue. If youre a retard, well, you'll probably get to be the next poster child for the "dont do it because...." crowd. If your are one of the latter, its not going to matter what the gun is either, I can pretty much guarantee that.
I think a lot of the problem here, is the internet, and the constant and on going regurgitation of things that really dont happen in real life very often, if at all. Sure, if you look around, you'll find problems with ANY OF THEM, and in most cases, it wasnt the weapons fault. Short of a defect or malfunction, we, the user, will always be the weakest, and most probable link.
I would suggest that you take everything you hear on the web with a grain of salt, and do your own vetting. I kept hearing, over and over, all the same old crap about the Glocks, that I took to carrying a second, unloaded 17 around the house and yard as a "test", for about a year and a half (still actually doing it even today, as its my dry fire/ practice gun), doing pretty much everything and anything we are constantly told not to do, and Ive done it constantly, and have yet to have the trigger drop unintentionally.
If youre the least bit reasonable in your gun handling, its a non issue. If youre a retard, well, you'll probably get to be the next poster child for the "dont do it because...." crowd. If your are one of the latter, its not going to matter what the gun is either, I can pretty much guarantee that.
OldMarksman
Staff
I've seen that written, but I am skeptical. Glocks are drop safe, but would not attribute that to the little trigger lock disconnect.
The discharge of dropped firearms generally results from inertial movement of the firing pin, and not the pulling of the trigger. The Glock system keeps the firing pin from moving unless the trigger is pulled.
I haven't done the calculations, but I seriously doubt that the mass of the trigger and the velocity of a drop from a height of a meter and a half would pull the trigger all the way. Have you?
I own mostly single action revolvers and 1911s.
When using a 1911,the safety is a matter of "unconscious competence" in the same way using the clutch is,for someone who drives with a manual transmission.
I have my eye on a S+W M+P 9C..
I think that if I were to choose to leave the trigger stock,factory pull,I might consider "no safety"
But I have an idea I would like to try the Apex parts to get a shorter,forward pull about 5 lbs + or -.
The M+P is available with an ambi thumb safety pretty much just like the 1911.
I think my thumb would be right at home.
Admittedly,I have no experience with the striker guns.But that is the way I am leaning.
When using a 1911,the safety is a matter of "unconscious competence" in the same way using the clutch is,for someone who drives with a manual transmission.
I have my eye on a S+W M+P 9C..
I think that if I were to choose to leave the trigger stock,factory pull,I might consider "no safety"
But I have an idea I would like to try the Apex parts to get a shorter,forward pull about 5 lbs + or -.
The M+P is available with an ambi thumb safety pretty much just like the 1911.
I think my thumb would be right at home.
Admittedly,I have no experience with the striker guns.But that is the way I am leaning.
When the Glocks first came out, I saw a video put of by them where they were throwing fully loaded Glock 17's down a ski jump (in Austria, where else 
), and then picking them up at the bottom, and shooting them. They didnt go off on impact, and the height they fell, was a tad over a meter.
They were throwing other makers guns down too, and they didnt go off other. For some reason though, a number of those were blowing the mags out on impact.
I usually catch hell for bringing this up, but you can load a Glock with a round in the chamber, and the trigger "not" set. All you need do to "cock" it, is move the slide rearward, about 0.25" to set the trigger. This can be done one handed too. The only downside to doing this though, is it bypasses the Glocks firing pin safety, and the gun is then, truly NOT drop safe.
), and then picking them up at the bottom, and shooting them. They didnt go off on impact, and the height they fell, was a tad over a meter.They were throwing other makers guns down too, and they didnt go off other. For some reason though, a number of those were blowing the mags out on impact.
I usually catch hell for bringing this up, but you can load a Glock with a round in the chamber, and the trigger "not" set. All you need do to "cock" it, is move the slide rearward, about 0.25" to set the trigger. This can be done one handed too. The only downside to doing this though, is it bypasses the Glocks firing pin safety, and the gun is then, truly NOT drop safe.
Evil Monkey
New member
There are firing pin blocks in 99% of pistols. The firing pin block prevents the firing pin from hitting the primer when dropped muzzle end first. If the trigger can pull itself when dropped on its back, that means it can deactivate the firing pin block and release the striker. So there must be some sort of clever engineering required to prevent the trigger from pull itself. That's what is done to the Glock, M&P, XD, FNS, VP9/40, Steyr M9/40, walther ppq etc.
I haven't done any calculations either, but the concept makes sense, logically.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by AK103K:
But that doesn't mean anything at all when it comes to the severity of the damage or injury that results.
Of course, the Austrian Army and other users have done so.
Some of them have in fact experienced unintended discharges.
Some man-machine systems are less susceptible to human error than others.
True.
Yep. Human error will be the cause, every time.
But that doesn't mean anything at all when it comes to the severity of the damage or injury that results.
Sorry, but in the scheme of things that is not a very rigorous test at all. One would have to test several guns for a much longer period, under varying conditions.
Of course, the Austrian Army and other users have done so.
Some of them have in fact experienced unintended discharges.
Unless you consider the severity of the potential consequences to be insignificant, "the least bit reasonable" won't cut it. You have to be perfect, all the time.
Do you have a basis for asserting that the several officers who have been injured were "retards"?
Of course it can matter. Think about it.
Some man-machine systems are less susceptible to human error than others.
OldMarksman
Staff
Sure, but my question was whether it can.
Evil Monkey
New member
That depends on different factors. A Glock? Maybe not, considering it's a half-cocked DAO.
If it's a simple drop sear in a true single action, there is a high likelihood that it can fire if dropped. Therefore, it either needs a heavy trigger spring, or the glock-style trigger/drop safety.
- Status