manual safety is unnecessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had one that did the same with my HK P7. Actually, it wasnt the holster doing it, but the seat belt (holster didnt protect it). Used to find the mag on the front seat in my truck all the time, or worse, it would fall out on the ground as I started to walk away.

The thumb break strap on my first 1911 holster, used to knock the safety off pretty much every time I holstered the gun. I had to notch the strap to get it to slow down, but it never really ever stopped. I figured out pretty quick early on, I didnt want straps on my holsters.
 
For me, personally, if the gun has a SA trigger or one with a relatively short, light trigger (this would include Glocks and similar guns), I generally want a manual safety. If the gun has a true DA trigger like a revolver or most hammer-fired DA autos, then a safety isn't necessary though I don't view it as a great hindrance unless it is particularly awkward or difficult to manipulate. The only exception that I can think of is my Beretta 950B Jetfire which is SA and has no manual safety, but that's because the gun was designed to be carried with a round chambered and the hammer down (it has an inertial firing pin so Condition 2 is safe) making the hammer itself into a safety of sorts.

Now, I've heard all the "safety between your ears" and "booger hook off the bang switch" cliches already and I agree that a safety is no substitute for proper gun handling and that, in a perfect world, proper gun handling would always be sufficient. However, we don't live in a perfect world and people don't always display perfect gun handling. For me, a longer, heavier trigger which takes a conscious effort to pull or an active manual safety which takes a conscious effort to disengage gives me extra peace of mind that, in the heat of a stressful moment should my gun handling be less than perfect, I'm at least a little less likely to shoot something I don't intend to.

Now, I repeat that I'm not making excuses for poor gun handling. There have been plenty of accidental/negligent/unintentional/whatever you like to call them discharges with guns that have long, heavy triggers and/or active manual safeties to prove that a safety or heavy trigger, in and of itself, isn't enough to prevent an accident. However, it's pretty evident to me that a gun with a short, light trigger and no active manual safety is the least forgiving of poor gun handling. I never rely on a safety and make every effort to always handle firearms as safely as I can.

I am not, however, some sort of tactical guru and, as such, I'm honest enough with myself to consider the possibility that, under the stress of waking to the sound of breaking glass or a door being beaten down in the dead of night, there is a possibility that my gun handling may be less than perfect. Because of this, I am simply more comfortable with a gun than has a traditional DA trigger, an active manual safety, or both. I don't look down my nose a people who choose a Glock, M&P, XD, or similar guns. So long as they can ensure that they will never fail to practice perfect trigger finger discipline, then they should pick whatever gun they like. I only ask that those same people not look down their noses at me because my choice is different from theirs.
 
Posted by str8tshot:
The discussion about an external safety feature vs a safe action really boils down to personal preference.
Click to expand...
Right.

I have not seen any data that supports a conclusion that more NDs/ADs happen with striker fired pistols than any other pistol, when the human failure is removed.
Click to expand...
Why in the world would anyone ever remove the human failure aspect? That's the real issue.

If a person is has clothing or equipment that gets tangled in the trigger during holstering or drawing the weapon, I can see their need to change what they carry.
Click to expand...
All people have clothing that can get into the holster during or before holtering.

I cannot agree with a general statement that external safety features are "better" than safe action designs; the data just doesn't support that kind of statement.
Click to expand...
"Better" is a judgment call. There are pros and cons for each of the design approaches.

A true failure mode and effect analysis is based upon what can happen, and not upon what "the data" might support. It is performed before and during the design phase, when there are no "data".
 
why do you think manual safety is unnecessary in semi-automatic pistols like striker fired one and DA/SA?
Click to expand...

This is the OP, and multiple pages of what is right and wrong with GLocks (et al) and which way to carry what and are 1911s safe unlocked, etc., does nothing to answer the question.

In broadest terms a manual safety (or any safety feature) is not strictly necessary. One does not need one to operate the firearm.

I think they are useful, practical, and VERY desirable on guns with certain combinations of features. I also think they are not useful, practical, or desirable on guns with other combinations of features.
 
Those of you that are comparing cocked and unlocked 1911's to Glocks are forgetting (or dont know) that the Glock is not cocked untill the trigger draws back the striker. Thats why the Goock has so much "slack" in the trigger pull.

A 1911 has the hammer cocked, sitting on a sear with a couple thousands of an inch engagement. The only thing preventing that sear from moving is the manual safety. If that sear gets jared out of engagement, the hammer will fall. Yes, there SHOULD be a halfcock notch to prevent the hammer from hitting the firing pin.

A Glock sits in the holster with the striker basically at rest and forward. Not cocked.

That is a HUGE difference.
 
T
hose of you that are comparing cocked and unlocked 1911's to Glocks are forgetting (or dont know) that the Glock is not cocked untill the trigger draws back the striker. Thats why the Goock has so much "slack" in the trigger pull.
Click to expand...
That's clear to me, and if anyone has made such a comparison I must have read right past it.

With the 1911, I think the thumb safety, a drop safety, and the grip safety are all good ideas.

I really do like a high-end 1911, but it is not my choice for carry.
 
Sharkbite said:
Those of you that are comparing cocked and unlocked 1911's to Glocks are forgetting (or dont know) that the Glock is not cocked untill the trigger draws back the striker. Thats why the Goock has so much "slack" in the trigger pull.

A 1911 has the hammer cocked, sitting on a sear with a couple thousands of an inch engagement. The only thing preventing that sear from moving is the manual safety. If that sear gets jared out of engagement, the hammer will fall. Yes, there SHOULD be a halfcock notch to prevent the hammer from hitting the firing pin.

A Glock sits in the holster with the striker basically at rest and forward. Not cocked.

That is a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...

not really...

I wasn’t comparing a 1911 to a Glock, I was comparing a 1911 to safetyless pistols in general. Its also not true that Glocks are not cocked, they are partially cocked in fact mostly cocked. The trigger pull on a Glock is not a double action pull, its comparable to a single action pull. Also, there are some striker fired safetyless pistols that are fully cocked, like the Springfields which for that reason include (wait for it....) a grip safety which like on a 1911 is one more thing preventing the sear from moving when the thumb safety is off.


44 AMP said:
This is the OP, and multiple pages of what is right and wrong with GLocks (et al) and which way to carry what and are 1911s safe unlocked, etc., does nothing to answer the question.

In broadest terms a manual safety (or any safety feature) is not strictly necessary. One does not need one to operate the firearm.

I think they are useful, practical, and VERY desirable on guns with certain combinations of features. I also think they are not useful, practical, or desirable on guns with other combinations of features.
Click to expand...
I agree with 44 AMP. In my opinion it depends on what I want to use the gun for. For example a Glock is a good choice for a dedicated carry gun, but I would want a manual safety on something like a nightstand gun.
 
...the Glock is not cocked untill the trigger draws back the striker. Thats why the Goock has so much "slack" in the trigger pull.
Click to expand...

The same is true for SA/DA with the hammer down. The difference is, it takes a very long heavy pull to fire most handguns DA, so long and heavy that it's difficult (but not impossible) to imagine a scenario where you fire it when you don't intend to. It takes a much shorter, lighter pull to fire a Glock, and the internet is full of stories of ADs with Glocks - it's rare, but when you hear one it often involves a Glock or similar pistol.

That's the danger, it's not as dangerous as a cocked and unlocked 1911 (or my P210), but it's a risk involving a potentially really dire outcome. Many folks think the risk is not acceptable, others don't mind or don't think ahead to possible scenarios where they may one day have an AD. LEOs with a full belt holster and different kinds of risks to weigh, it may make perfect sense.
 
A Glock sits in the holster with the striker basically at rest and forward. Not cocked.
Click to expand...
With either in the holster, I really dont see the big deal. Out of the holster, both, for the most part, would be the same, would they not?

If anything, guns like the 1911, since so many seem to need/want a ~3lb trigger, could be a tad scarier.

Its getting them in and out of the holster that seems to an issue for some, and requires practice with both.

DA guns are a little more forgiving, in DA, but once cocked, put them in the same category as the 1911's for the most part.

DAO gives you the best of all worlds for the most part, especially ones with an exposed hammer.
 
Regardless of self proclaimed experts insisting that Glock only has "drop" safeties, HERE IS WHAT THE ENGINEERS THAT DESIGNED IT SAY!!!
Safe-Action Trigger System

The topic of endless debate, ridicule, and confusion, the Glock Safe-Action system is neither single-action (SA) nor double-action (DA).

The Glock, unlike most centerfire handguns, does not have a hammer which is dropped to push a firing pin when the trigger is pulled. Instead, the Glock has a striker which is completely enclosed within the slide. Whenever a round is in the chamber, the striker is partially retracted under tension. There isn't enough tension to fire the gun if for some reason the striker were forced forward from this position.

When the shooter pulls the trigger, the striker is retracted the rest of the way to full tension, wherefrom it can fire the gun. Because the trigger action needs only retract the striker part way, the trigger stroke is shorter and lighter than traditional DA designs.

The biggest advantage of the Safe Action system is that the trigger pull is consistent from shot to shot. Unlike DA/SA guns which fire their first shot with a long, heavy DA stroke and subsequent shots with lighter, shorter strokes, the Glock pull never changes. Glocks come standard with 5½ pound triggers, but a certified armorer can increase it to 8 or 11 pounds. There is also a 3½ pound trigger option available on certain competition models and from aftermarket retailers such as Glockmeister. SA and DAO (double-action only) guns share this feature, but SA guns require the shooter to disengage a safety switch before firing, and DAO guns have significantly heavier trigger pulls (9 pounds or more).

The end result of the Glock Safe Action is a light, short, consistent trigger stroke which nevertheless needs to overcome the small resistance of compressing the firing pin spring fully. That's why I refer to Safe Action as "single-action on the street and DAO in the courtroom."

Where the Action Is

Single Action (SA): pulling the trigger performs a single function, releasing the hammer or striker

Double Action (DA): pulling the trigger performs two actions, cocking the hammer or striker and then releasing it

Safe Action: pulling the trigger completes the striker cocking and then releases it

Three Safeties

Glocks have three safeties: the trigger safety, the firing pin safety, and the drop safety. The safeties are redundant, keeping the Glock from discharging at any time unless the shooter pulls the trigger.

The trigger safety is a small button on the face of the trigger which keeps the trigger from moving backwards (and thus firing the weapon) unless pressed straight back during a normal pull. This helps keep the trigger from moving backwards when dropped or if something gets in the trigger guard.

The firing pin safety is a small device in the slide of the gun which blocks the striker from moving forward. This device is moved out of the way automatically when the trigger is pulled. So unless the trigger is pulled, there is no way the firing pin can strike the primer on a chambered round.

The drop safety is part of the trigger housing inside the receiver. It is a small "shelf" which a part of the trigger mechanism called the cruciform must overcome in order for the striker to release. Therefore, even if the trigger safety and firing pin safety malfunction and the gun is dropped, it cannot go off.
Click to expand...

THREE SAFETIES Trigger, firing pin, AND drop safety. Plus as mentioned, the striker is only partially cocked.
 
Cheapshooter, you're not getting it are you?

All three safeties keep the weapon from firing when dropped. They say it right in the wall of text you posted.

Here:
The safeties are redundant, keeping the Glock from discharging at any time unless the shooter pulls the trigger.
Click to expand...

Key word here is "redundant".

Just because they call one a "trigger" safety and another a "drop" safety doesn't mean anything. They're just doing that to differentiate between the three.

All three safeties in a glock, are drop safeties. They may serve dual purposes, but primarily they are drop safeties.
 
Its also not true that Glocks are not cocked, they are partially cocked in fact mostly cocked.
Click to expand...
With a round chambered, the Glock striker spring is compressed to about 50% of the full amount it would be compressed immediately before firing.

The trigger pull performs the other 50% compression by length.

Because of the way springs work, that 50% compression which is performed by the slide action prior to the trigger pull generates about 25% of the energy that will be stored in the striker spring immediately before firing.

The trigger pull performs the other 75% of the work storing energy in the striker spring.
All three safeties keep the weapon from firing when dropped. They say it right in the wall of text you posted.
Click to expand...
That's one of their functions, but not the only function--and not the only function listed in the information provided.

The trigger safety makes the trigger more snag resistant than it would be otherwise.

The firing pin safety prevents the gun from firing as a result of modifications, damage or wear to the other components of the pistol.

They do work together but they're not redundant in the conventional sense because each one provides some functionality that the others don't.
 
The trigger safety makes the trigger more snag resistant than it would be otherwise.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement. What gets in the face of the trigger is going to depress the "tab" as well. I don't think it reduces the chance of an AD.

Videos should be made testing this.
 
I thought the Glock trigger safety was to help prevent inertia discharge if the pistol was dropped?
Click to expand...

Well, according to the engineers that designed the system that is an auxillary function, but the drop safety has the main function of preventing the gun from firing if dropped. In conjunction with the firing pin safety as a backup if all else fail. All that being if somehow the striker spring in it's partially cocked condition has enough force to set off the primer.
All three features of the Safe Action system, and their function are very clearly described on Glock's website.
 
What gets in the face of the trigger is going to depress the "tab" as well. I don't think it reduces the chance of an AD.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean, but with the "tab," whatever is inside the trigger guard has to be moving pretty much straight back to pull the trigger, so it reduces the chance of an AD somewhat, by whatever percentage of ADs are caused by things entering the trigger guard at an angle, or at a point too high to engage the trigger safety. Not a huge number, admittedly, but not zero either. I think the point some are trying to make is that although it is a good drop safety it is more than just a drop safety.
 
I disagree with this statement. What gets in the face of the trigger is going to depress the "tab" as well. I don't think it reduces the chance of an AD.
Click to expand...
The armorer's manual clearly states that the trigger safety is designed to prevent the trigger from being operated by "inertial or lateral pressure". Clearly that is two things it is designed to prevent, not just one.

Lateral pressure means that if the trigger is engaged from the side (as opposed to from the center) it can't be moved since it takes engaging the trigger directly from the front lower center portion of the trigger to operate it.

It can't prevent all snags, but it does make the trigger significantly more snag resistant.

If the gun is firmly pushed against an unyielding snag, or vice versa, the snag will fire the gun if the snag engages the trigger safety.

However, the trigger safety occupies only the lower half of the center of the trigger. If the snag only catches the side of the trigger, or engages the upper part of the trigger the trigger will not move.

Furthermore, if the snag has some yield to it, even if it engages the trigger safety, experimentation will demonstrate that it will tend to ride up the curve of the trigger to the upper portion of the trigger where there is no trigger safety.

Finally, the trigger guard of the Glock is proportionally wider compared to the trigger width than the trigger guard of many of the other guns I've measured.

The combination of all those things makes the Glock trigger quite snag-resistant.

I did some testing with an unloaded Glock using a properly weighted magazine. I threw it into the air over a padded surface and caught it with a dowel through the trigger guard. I was unable to get the trigger to operate using that technique in spite of repeating the test until I was tired of throwing the pistol in the air. The dowel sometimes caught the trigger, but it always rode up the trigger to the portion where there was no trigger safety to engage.

What the trigger safety won't do is prevent the trigger from moving if it is pushed firmly into something that won't yield and that engages the trigger safety--for example trying to holster the gun with the finger still in the trigger guard.

I wouldn't make a general statement that a manual safety is unnecessary. Some designs do call for a manual safety, IMO. But I don't think that all handgun designs require manual safeties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top