manual safety is unnecessary?

[T. O'Heir]

"...presuming the gun doesn't go of randomly without the trigger being pulled)..." Inanimate objects do nothing by themselves.
"...Some of them have in fact experienced unintended discharges..." All of which were found to be operator failure, as I recall.
"...the several officers who have been injured were "retards"?..." Kind of a harsh term, but up here SWAT type coppers have been shot by other coppers who were playing 'quick draw' while waiting for the training day to start.

 

[AK103K]

But that doesn't mean anything at all when it comes to the severity of the damage or injury that results.

It can, depending on whats being done.

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.

Unless youre something special, there is no such thing as perfect all the time. By reasonable, I mean follow to the best of your ability, prudent gun handling.

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.

Well, for my needs, its been working out OK, and Im pretty confidant, that most of the rumors floating around the web, are just that, regurgitated nonsense, spouted by those who have no other experience, other than reading something scary, but arent willing to look into it any further.

Ive actually tried to get those things to happen, in daily use, and so far, they havent. Constantly handling the gun, stuffing it in an out of my pants/pockets, etc, with no holster, even picking the gun up by the trigger itself. Pretty much anything you can think of, and probably some you'd care not to.

I was told I was crazy to carry my 26 in a Smart Carry loaded. So I carried it for a couple of months with the trigger set, empty chamber, and went about my daily life. I dont work behind a desk, my job is quite physical, and I often do things at work, that many would not do on a bet, and guess what, the trigger never dropped in my little test, and that was with trying my best to get it to do so. Ive carried it for over a year now, fully loaded, and without issue.

While my test may not be perfect, it covers everything "I" normally do in my daily life, and then some, so for me, it works. If youre more active, and need something more vigorous, then by all means, ramp it up and prove it otherwise. Thats the whole point. You have to vet it yourself. Just dont take someone elses word on it, either way.

Do you have a basis for asserting that the several officers who have been injured were "retards"?

From personal experience with shooting with a number of police and military personnel over the years, Ive seen enough scary stuff to be wary. Just because they wear/wore a uniform, or claim to be trained, means nothing.

Some man-machine systems are less susceptible to human error than others.

I think they are all susceptible, and sometimes think, the "safer" ones are worse, as too much faith is often placed in whats supposed to make them safer. Responsibility for safety, will always come back around to the user, no mater how many safeties the gun may, or may not have.

 

[Erno86]

I despise Glock pistols...and --- IMHO --- do not believe that our men & women in blue should be carrying them either --- Because of "that little thingy on the trigger" --- Which is the main safety feature on the pistol.

 

[AK103K]

To bad there isnt a database on ND's/AD's of ALL makes and models and the total number in daily use at the time. That would be the only way to really know whats going on.

Considering that Glocks fill a significant, and possibly, the largest number of police holsters, the percentages are the true answer, not just the count of incidences.

Its interesting to note, never has the 1911 (carried condition 1) been a significant holster filler. Even with dual manual safeties. Wonder why?

 

[Sharkbite]

Because of "that little thingy on the trigger" --- Which is the main safety feature on the pistol.

That is a false statement. The Glock series of pistols has 3 independent safeties that prevent the gun from firing without the trigger being pulled.

Those 3 safeties come off incrementally as the trigger is moved to the rear and come back on as the trigger is released.

I have carried a Glock all over the world for the past 10 years as have all the guys on my detail. Never had a gun discharge without someone pulling the trigger. That includes thousands of presentation and subsequent reholstering by each guy.

Trigger finger discipline is the MOST critical skill in the safe handling of a pistol. A manual safety is an additional roadblock between a careless finger and a ND

Thst being said some guns benefit from manual safeties. 1911's carried cocked and LOCKED obviously need a safety to be "locked". The small sear engagement with that cocked hammer make that necessary.

In the case of the Glock, the striker is forward until the rearward movement of the trigger pulls it to the rear. Not sitting there "cocked". Much DIFFERENT system

 

[AK103K]

The Series 80 1911's have a firing pin safety, and are very much like the Glocks in the respect that the trigger needs to be pulled to fire.

When I was still carrying them, I preferred them for that reason, although I know a lot of people used to bitch about them. I never found them to be a problem, or the triggers to be bad because of them.

I did have the pleasure of dropping a cocked and "unlocked" Series 70 once, and while the gun didnt discharge on impact, it wasnt a pleasant experience. Wish I had a video of the little dance I did on that "forever" 3' fall.

 

[849ACSO]

Why would you haphazardly holster your gun though?

As a 20 year police officer, I can say that somewhere, at least once per day, there is a police officer with a gun in his/her hand that decides they don't need it for the scuffle they are in, and it NEEDS to be back in that holster. The fight doesn't take a time out for you to holster up. You get it back in there however you can, even haphazardly. So, it happens more than you think.

Brakes are not safety devices, they are control devices

Cars prior to 1901 didn't have brakes. They were added as a safety feature to keep folks from running over/into things. They don't control anything, they are applied to slow down/stop to keep people from getting hurt/killed or property from being damaged (in other words, they were added for SAFETY.)

 

[Evil Monkey]

I want to add that when a pistol is dropped on its butt, the trigger is not only trying to pull itself, but the trigger bar is also trying to pull downward by its own inertia.

 

[AK103K]

The trigger has to be "pulled".

The firing pin has a safety that wont allow it to move forward, unless the trigger is pulled to the rear, and the safety pushed up, releasing the firing pin.

 

[breakthrough]

let me rephrase the question - will a beginner shooter be served by a manual safety on a striker fired semi-automatic pistol and a DA/SA semi automatic pistol?
in case of DA/SA , will a decocker be better than a safety?

 

[JeffK]

Do you think Glocks are dangerous because of an emotional feeling...

I think OldMarksman has it about right. The are inherently more dangerous than a DAO gun, or a SA/DA gun with the hammer down, and inherently more dangerous than a gun (striker fired or not) with a manual safety, just because it's relatively easy to accidentally draw the trigger back (with your finger, clothing, jacket strings, a lipstick case, etc.) and have an AD.

I reckon statistically I'm much more likely to blow my foot off with an AD than I am to ever need a fraction of a second extra time to unsafe my gun and save my life, so it's a risk I choose to mitigate even if though there's a tiny extra balancing risk I'm taking (betting I'll never need that fraction of a second).

Carrying a loaded Glock is not as sketchy as carrying a loaded SA gun with no manual safety, but neither are things I personally would do. Around the house, it wouldn't be as sketchy but again, not someting I choose to do - my guns are either in a state where I am comfortable that I will never get an AD by handling them, or unloaded. I'm extra particular about the gun in my dresser drawer because that one gets handled far more often, and because I'm not comfortable having a ready-to-fire gun in a place where I can reach it after being startled awake by some bump in the night.

Other folks, may have different logic and perception of risk.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by T. O'Heir:

Inanimate objects do nothing by themselves.
"...Some of them have in fact experienced unintended discharges..." All of which were found to be operator failure, as I recall.

One more time, none of that has anything to do with the issue.

The question is how the probability of operator failure can be reduced. One way is training; but fatigue and the degradation of fine motor skills through adrenalin and other things can render that render that less effective as a sole mitigation approach.

In double action revolvers, a hammer block safety was made standard many decades ago. In some service revolvers, single action capability was eliminated. In the Glocks used by some departments, heavier than normal trigger pulls are specified. For all carry guns, there are recommended minimum trigger pulls that one might not want for target shooting.

All of those approaches are employed solely to make it less likely that the firearm will be discharged inadvertently through human error.

 

[849ACSO]

All of those approaches are employed solely to make it less likely that the firearm will be discharged inadvertently through human error.

If it were boiled down to a cup of gravy, it would taste like ^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Best sentence in the whole thread.

 

[str8tshot]

Posted by str8tshot:

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.

How do you mitigate the risk? A dFMEA (design Failure Modes Effects Analysis), has three categories: Severity, Occurrence, and Detection. Which category do you mitigate to reduce your risk? Severity cannot change unless you don't use/carry a firearm. Detection of a manual safety being left off is still an admin control (people are 2 sigma so not the best). failed components are common between reliable platforms so all would rank the same.

All firearms have engineering controls built in to prevent AD but cannot prevent the individual from inadvertently pressing the trigger. The beaver tail safety on a series 70 is an example of an engineering controls on 1911s. Firing pin blocks are used in other designs to prevent the gun from discharging when dropped, or when the trigger is not depressed.

I guess for me the question boils down to what engineering control(s), coupled with admin controls (I view an external safety as an admin control no different than gun safety rules because it relies on human factors to implement), I have confidence in. Any failure along the way has serious potential harms (high severity).

 

[Erno86]

If the police still carry the Glocks...they should all be modified with the NY-1 or NY-2 trigger modules.

I was brought up to have my trigger finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard, until the intent to fire. It might be different for the military or police, but --- IMHO --- having a safety on the face of the trigger is a bad idea for a cop with a Glock, in a stressful situation, that has his trigger finger inside the trigger guard; with an intent not to fire.

I've just seen too many...what seems to be possible ND's on public citizens being shot by police on TV News with Glocks, to justify a policeman carrying a Glock.

 

[BigJimP]

There is no one size fits all...and not all beginning shooters are the same either..../ some will like decockers, some will like stryker fired, some will like 1911's....

new shooters need to be exposed to a number of guns ...and figure out what suits them - what fits their hands best, etc.

Its my opinion, that most double stack guns don't fit shooters with smaller hands.../ where some single stack guns - like 1911's might be a better option.

It also comes down to what the shooter likes...to me, cocked and locked 1911 is no big deal ( but I train with it all the time), a decocker might feel better to some, some like stryker fired.../ I have big hands - can shoot most anything, or carry most anything - and I choose a full sized 1911 over anything double stacked. Thumb safety is no issue - if you train with it .../ for some of the younger less experienced shooters in my family ...something like a Sig 239 is a good option ...or a 1911 in 9mm - like Kimber Tactical Pro II model in 9mm ( 4", alloy frame )...both are good for smaller hands, easy to manipulate...

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by AK103K:

But that [the fact that human error is the cause of unintended discharges] doesn't mean anything at all when it comes to the severity of the damage or injury that results.

It can, depending on whats being done.

You're going to have to explain that one.

Unless youre something special, there is no such thing as perfect all the time. By reasonable, I mean follow to the best of your ability, prudent gun handling.

That's a good idea--necessary, but perhaps not sufficient. I prefer a more effective means of risk mitigation--a sign more forgiving of those failures to maintain perfection..

Well, for my needs, it [carrying the gun around for a year]'s been working out OK, ...

How do you know that it always will?

....and Im pretty confidant, that most of the rumors floating around the web, are just that, regurgitated nonsense, spouted by those who have no other experience, other than reading something scary, but arent willing to look into it any further.

Forget the rumors, and consider the actual incidents.

Ive actually tried to get those things to happen, in daily use, and so far, they havent. Constantly handling the gun, stuffing it in an out of my pants/pockets, etc, with no holster, even picking the gun up by the trigger itself. Pretty much anything you can think of, and probably some you'd care not to.

Some of those things really do not sound prudent. But I'm sure you had a reason.

Ive carried it for over a year now, fully loaded, and without issue.

Good. But there's always a first time.

I have carried my XDS for a lot longer than that, but that doesn't prove a thing.

While my test may not be perfect, it covers everything "I" normally do in my daily life, and then some, so for me, it works.

The problem is, you test covers an extremely small sample and an incredibly short test period. No manufacturer would ever put anything on the market based on such limited experience.

Of course, the Glock has been tested far, far more extensively by others.

It's just that there have been injuries that could probably have been made less likely with a different design.

The fact that they were not the fault of the gun does not mean that the gun could have been designed to reduce the incidence of such problems.

But that wasn't part of the original Austrian Army requirement. They wanted reliability, longevity, ease of maintenance, and a two meter drop test on steel plate.

They also set a maximum parts count, and Glock beat the number.

For a pistol that is to be carried with the chamber loaded (the manual for the army Glock does not recommend that), I will gladly accept a slightly higher parts count and a design that makes unintended activation of the trigger more difficult.

From personal experience with shooting with a number of police and military personnel over the years, Ive seen enough scary stuff to be wary. Just because they wear/wore a uniform, or claim to be trained, means nothing.

The question related to the specific police officers and sheriffs who have been injured by unintended discharges of Glocks and M&P service pistols.

I think they are all susceptible, [to human error] and sometimes think, the "safer" ones are worse, as too much faith is often placed in whats supposed to make them safer.

Noted.

Responsibility for safety, will always come back around to the user, no mater how many safeties the gun may, or may not have.

Yep.

 

[Evil Monkey]

I've just seen too many...what seems to be possible ND's on public citizens being shot by police on TV News with Glocks, to justify a policeman carrying a Glock

I guarantee you, that if they had pistols with manual safeties on them and they had to draw them, they would put the switch on "fire" and STILL PUT THEIR DAMN FINGERS ON THE TRIGGER LIKE THE IDIOTS THEY ARE.

What's the point of a manual safety if a person disengages and still proceeds to rest their finger on the trigger?

 

[AK103K]

I was brought up to have my trigger finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard, until the intent to fire. It might be different for the military or police, but --- IMHO --- having a safety on the face of the trigger is a bad idea for a cop that has his trigger finger inside the trigger guard; with an intent not to fire.

I've just seen too many...what seems to be possible ND's on public citizens being shot by police on TV News with Glocks, to justify a policeman carrying a Glock.

Whats the difference with any of them? At that point, the safety would be off, and any of them would fire, if and when the trigger is depressed, would it not?

 

[gyvel]

There are firing pin blocks in 99% of pistols.

Huh?? 99%?? I can think of lots of pistols that don't have firing pin blocks.

It seems that this thread is directed at the "new generation" of plastic pistols. The fact that many people do not carry this type of weapon seems to have escaped most.

I still maintain that a manual safety is an essential item on a pistol. As I pointed out, my carry weapon of 45 years has a manual safety and it has never been a detriment.