Evil Monkey
New member
Glock wants to call it "snag resistant", well fine then. The other designs sure as hell don't look "snag resistant".
M&P for example
M&P for example
manual safety is unnecessary?
- Thread starter breakthrough
- Start date
- Status
Evil Monkey
New member
If that was directed towards me, I never said that.
I haven't done testing on designs like that nor do I know the specific details of how the internal passive safety systems on guns like that work.
That said, I agree that a hinged trigger safety does not seem to offer very much snag resistance. Perhaps none at all in a design where the trigger is curved so that any snags will ride towards the point on the trigger where the trigger safety can be disengaged.
In the context of that comment, it is interesting to note that the Ruger SR series initially came out with a hinged trigger safety design but then Ruger recalled them and replaced the hinged triggers with a Glock-style trigger safety.
I should probably mention that in pistols without manual safeties, I personally consider carry in a hard holster that completely covers the trigger to be part of the safety system of the pistol.
"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."
I would argue that in the olden-days when the trigger system was literally a sear and a trigger and a simple disconnector, you needed something else in the mix to a hard drop or jostle would not set the gun off, or at the wrong time. As was/is the case with rifles, it was in the form of a manually-positioned part that blocked either the sear or the trigger.
But now we have out of battery safeties based on slide/barrel position, firing pin safeties that secure it against drops until trigger pull, sear safeties that rely on trigger take up (or a separate lever's movement in the case of striker guns to act as a drop safety), and 'passive' type grip safeties that block trigger parts until depressed prior to firing --all in addition to the early manual safety schemes pioneered by guys like Browning and Borchardt.
In the face of all that redundancy, I would say that a pistol could get along without a manual safety, and reliably fire only when you want it to. It's not like the safe function of the thing is compromised by removing one of four independent safety mechanism. So the only thing left is the human element; whether you want to have to push or poke something on the gun besides the trigger before it goes off. It's ultimately a personal thing, or in the case of an issued weapon, a political thing. And therefore there is no 'answer' other than to list the pro's/con's of each outcome.
TCB
I would argue that in the olden-days when the trigger system was literally a sear and a trigger and a simple disconnector, you needed something else in the mix to a hard drop or jostle would not set the gun off, or at the wrong time. As was/is the case with rifles, it was in the form of a manually-positioned part that blocked either the sear or the trigger.
But now we have out of battery safeties based on slide/barrel position, firing pin safeties that secure it against drops until trigger pull, sear safeties that rely on trigger take up (or a separate lever's movement in the case of striker guns to act as a drop safety), and 'passive' type grip safeties that block trigger parts until depressed prior to firing --all in addition to the early manual safety schemes pioneered by guys like Browning and Borchardt.
In the face of all that redundancy, I would say that a pistol could get along without a manual safety, and reliably fire only when you want it to. It's not like the safe function of the thing is compromised by removing one of four independent safety mechanism. So the only thing left is the human element; whether you want to have to push or poke something on the gun besides the trigger before it goes off. It's ultimately a personal thing, or in the case of an issued weapon, a political thing. And therefore there is no 'answer' other than to list the pro's/con's of each outcome.
TCB
I carry a Glock 26 but do from time to time carry a Kimber Royal carry. I also have a Berretta Cougar that has a drop safety. I can live with any of the three.
But to take a slightly different direction, I have always been surprised that Glock has never offered a manual safety. Not to say it needs one but I know several people that are experienced 1911 shooters that like my Glocks but wont own one because they don’t offer one with a safety.
As a business question, I’m surprised that Glock doesn’t offer their guns with or without safeties like several other gun manufactures do.
I wonder what the sales increase they would see if they started offering their guns with one.
But to take a slightly different direction, I have always been surprised that Glock has never offered a manual safety. Not to say it needs one but I know several people that are experienced 1911 shooters that like my Glocks but wont own one because they don’t offer one with a safety.
As a business question, I’m surprised that Glock doesn’t offer their guns with or without safeties like several other gun manufactures do.
I wonder what the sales increase they would see if they started offering their guns with one.
Cheapshooter
New member
Why mess with the simplicity of "perfection"?
Just to appease people who probably wouldn't buy it anyway.
Next would be because the frame isn't made of metal!
Evil Monkey
New member
I don't think they were hinged.
Old SR
New SR
I wish I could find a diagram showing the initial design and how it worked--what appeared to be the trigger was really a hinged external piece that acted as the trigger safety. The actual trigger was internal to the visible "trigger".
The linked article below sort of touches on the topic but doesn't give much information.
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/uncategorized/st_sr9update_07162008/
But you are correct, it was not a hinged design in the sense of the M&P trigger.
The linked article below sort of touches on the topic but doesn't give much information.
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/uncategorized/st_sr9update_07162008/
Although the original design has a two-piece trigger, it was comprised of an inner and outer “shoe,” and the inner shoe was not visible. The new design incorporates a visible inner trigger of a blade design.
But you are correct, it was not a hinged design in the sense of the M&P trigger.
what I find ironic to this discussion is the new Sig P320 safety-less striker fired pistol does not come with a trigger safety, although one is available as a option their website says "you wont need a tabbed trigger safety for your gun to be drop safe"
Maybe now the thread question should be "trigger safety is unnecessary?"
Maybe now the thread question should be "trigger safety is unnecessary?"
I suppose it depends on the design and what you want the trigger safety to do for you.
If you want your trigger safety to provide some measure of snag resistance, then a hinged type probably won't work for you. Along the same lines, no trigger safety at all also wouldn't fit your requirements.
If you're not concerned about trigger snags (and to be frank, they're a pretty rare cause of unintentional discharges--maybe 1% or so) then maybe you don't care about a trigger safety at all as long as the designer took some other approach to drop safety.
If you want your trigger safety to provide some measure of snag resistance, then a hinged type probably won't work for you. Along the same lines, no trigger safety at all also wouldn't fit your requirements.
If you're not concerned about trigger snags (and to be frank, they're a pretty rare cause of unintentional discharges--maybe 1% or so) then maybe you don't care about a trigger safety at all as long as the designer took some other approach to drop safety.
Evil Monkey
New member
This whole argument is based on the idea that a manual safety-less designed pistol requires a much heavier trigger pull, which supposedly hinders accuracy. So some people want a sub-4 pound pull to retain accuracy but need a manual safety to carry it safely.
In my opinion, this whole trigger pull weight thing is 100% stinking BS.
Today at the range I was tearing up 10x10in plates at 15-20 yards, consistently hitting them over and over again. I was snap shooting, jerking the trigger, and hitting them repeatedly in a row. I was even shooting one handed and pinging the plates one after another.
All with a stock M&P40 with the "gritty" 5lb pull. When I had my Taurus OSS, I used to do the same with the DA pull that about 9lbs.
No stock trigger pull is going to impede my shooting ability against a man sized target upwards of 20yards away. You know why? Because I get out there and practice.
GET GOOD SON.
In my opinion, this whole trigger pull weight thing is 100% stinking BS.
Today at the range I was tearing up 10x10in plates at 15-20 yards, consistently hitting them over and over again. I was snap shooting, jerking the trigger, and hitting them repeatedly in a row. I was even shooting one handed and pinging the plates one after another.
All with a stock M&P40 with the "gritty" 5lb pull. When I had my Taurus OSS, I used to do the same with the DA pull that about 9lbs.
No stock trigger pull is going to impede my shooting ability against a man sized target upwards of 20yards away. You know why? Because I get out there and practice.
GET GOOD SON.
Funny how expectations have changed over time. Back in the 50s, 60, and still, for some of us, a 3 or 3.5lb trigger pull was considered DANGEROUSLY light for a duty handgun, or a field gun (long gun).
Essentially, pulls under 4lbs were felt to be for target guns were felt to be quite safe for range guns, which are generally see much less rough handling than a field gun or a duty weapon.
Today, it seems too many people seem to believe that they NEED a 3.5lb (or less) pull or they cannot shoot accurately.
If you read the "old masters" gunwriters from those days they all felt the same, that the actual pull weight was the least important part of a good trigger pull.
That being said, I prefer handguns with either a visible hammer, or a manual safety, and have no complaints about those designs with both.
I happen to like a gun with a manual safety, (aka safety lock), for the options it gives me. I think a semi auto should have a safety that YOU put on, and that stays on until YOU take it off. Passive types, like grip safeties, or the trigger tab type don't give you that option.
If you don't like that option, simply don't use it.
DA/SA guns with decocker only (like the SIG) seem a good system to me, and one simpler than a decocker & safety combination.
HOWEVER, there are more than a few recorded instances of people (mostly cops) having their guns taken and being saved from being shot by an engaged safety, that the criminal didn't understand how to use.
So there is that argument in favor of a manual safety. Not a prime consideration for most of us, I grant you...
Essentially, pulls under 4lbs were felt to be for target guns were felt to be quite safe for range guns, which are generally see much less rough handling than a field gun or a duty weapon.
Today, it seems too many people seem to believe that they NEED a 3.5lb (or less) pull or they cannot shoot accurately.
If you read the "old masters" gunwriters from those days they all felt the same, that the actual pull weight was the least important part of a good trigger pull.
That being said, I prefer handguns with either a visible hammer, or a manual safety, and have no complaints about those designs with both.
I happen to like a gun with a manual safety, (aka safety lock), for the options it gives me. I think a semi auto should have a safety that YOU put on, and that stays on until YOU take it off. Passive types, like grip safeties, or the trigger tab type don't give you that option.
If you don't like that option, simply don't use it.
DA/SA guns with decocker only (like the SIG) seem a good system to me, and one simpler than a decocker & safety combination.
HOWEVER, there are more than a few recorded instances of people (mostly cops) having their guns taken and being saved from being shot by an engaged safety, that the criminal didn't understand how to use.
So there is that argument in favor of a manual safety. Not a prime consideration for most of us, I grant you...
Limnophile
New member
It has been shown (Heim et al.) that training reduces the incidence of stray finger syndrome, but it doesn't eliminate it.
You accurately point out that training to deactivate the safety after drawinv does not guarantee you will always deactivate the safety when you meed to -- just as training to keep your finger outside the triggerguard until the proper time is no guarentee your finger will always stay outside the triggerguard until the proper time.
Deaf Smith
New member
So people can't remember to KYFFOTFT but somehow they can remember to take a safety on and off?
20+ years of IDPA and IPSC with a Glock 17 plus 15 years of CCW with Glocks 19, 27, 31, and 26 says otherwise. Never had a AD/ND in all that time and I've even got some state trophies on the expert class and regional ones in the 'A' class.
Even pack a Kahr K9 sometimes and it has a REAL smooth and light trigger without a trigger safety.
Just train often and KYFFOTFT.
And if you can't do that, carry chamber empty... Or get a revolver.
Deaf
Last edited:
Some people like safeties, some dont. I dont trust them but I would rather get a gun with one just so I could choose to use it or not, especially striker fired. I dont see the need for one on a revolver but as others have mentioned they might prevent AD on some of the striker fired guns.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Deaf Smith:
That's not it at all.
They do remember to not do it. It is an involuntary motion, apparently done for subconscious reassurance that the trigger is still there.
What they cannot remember is that they did touch the trigger.
Might I suggest that you look at next year's schedule for MAG-20, and see if it will fit your plans.
I have my doubts that such touches would activate the trigger on a service Glock, but some 1911 race guns might present a problem.
No.
That's not it at all.
They do remember to not do it. It is an involuntary motion, apparently done for subconscious reassurance that the trigger is still there.
What they cannot remember is that they did touch the trigger.
Might I suggest that you look at next year's schedule for MAG-20, and see if it will fit your plans.
I have my doubts that such touches would activate the trigger on a service Glock, but some 1911 race guns might present a problem.
- Status