Thoughts on Safeties...

More parts = more chances for something to go wrong (or right).

Sometimes safeties cost lives, sometimes they save lives. Sometimes they are the right lives, sometimes they are the wrong lives.

In general I like my carry gun to not have an external safety but to be drop safe.

That is odd though, considering all of my long guns have external safeties but are not drop safe.

So I think you just have to be familiar with what you use and a variety of platforms.
 
Not to divert but the Newhall brass in pocket story seems not to be true but there are other examples of picking up brass inappropriately.

Just read a pretty good book on this

Newhall Shooting - A Tactical Analysis: Survival Lessons from One of Law Enforcement's Deadliest Shootings by Michael E. Wood and Massad Ayoob (Dec 25, 2013).

The long DA pull - that's what I said in the beginning - it's all about difference in trigger pull.

One never knows. Ayoob has said that a DA/SA can lead to a mistaken second shot. One fires the first DA and then if a second shot is not needed, you assume a stiffer DA and while putting your finger on the trigger after the DA pull, you put too much tension on the SA now trigger and boom.

So a stiffer pull might offer some safety and less fumble? Perhaps, we really don't have great piles of systematic data. With long arms, different safety types have been shown to throw off first shot accuracy if the safety is activated when taking aim.

Interesting debate.
 
Though many deride it merely because it is "unordinary," I think FNH really hit on a nice compromise between the manual and automatic safety schemes with their Five-seven pistol. The safety is a simple lever placed directly above the trigger on the frame. You know, where you are supposed to put your finger before you are about to shoot, provided you are being a good little shooter? ;)

Simply dragging the finger down into the trigger guard flips off the safety and makes the gun ready. Not a separate motor-skills operation like a thumb safety, and not an automatic operation as part of merely carrying/pointing the gun like a grip safety. And if you do train to make the safety-deactivation part of the trigger draw (which GEM and others allude to), in which the next step beyond pointing the gun is a certain and rapid path to discharge, the motion your body does is very similar to a Glock or other safety-less design, but there is still a trigger-independent device keeping the gun from firing. That last part is important to some because of the possibility of yanking the trigger on the draw or catching the trigger upon holstering.

I must say, this discussion has been fantastic. We need more threads like these; "Why do we do things the way we do?" This is how we come up with better designs and ideas that improve the whole regime of firearms. I, myself, am currently working on a carbine design in which I am trying to borrow the very best elements of the very best guns, and also incorporate uncommon ideas that nonetheless make sense for the platform. I call it the Skorparev (Skorpion-in-Tokarev), and it is a subcompact semi-auto pistol caliber carbine, which fires from a gas operated locked breech (VZ52-style piston, RPD-style bolt lockup). Presently, I am looking to use both a grip safety as well as a manual safety; my thinking is that the handy little gun should be rough-and-tumble friendly for carrying around, but must also be capable of being brought into action very intuitively and simply for defense use (when it's not otherwise being carried or messed with). My idea was an ambidextrous cross-bolt style grip safety, as well as a more common "rifle safety" like that of the M1 Garand or AR15 that requires real thought to actuate.

So far, I've learned that there are really different safety philosophies (not just manual or automatic safety concepts) that run the gambit from automatic to intentionally cumbersome. The same decision is made in every interface requiring human decision ("Are you sure you want to exit?" Some people like warning messages to help keep them from mistakes, I personally can't stand them once I've gotten familiar with a system).

-No safety: French service rifles, where it was a set rule that rifle chambers were to be empty unless fired. Makes sense if Condition 3 is the rule. Most modern guns have triggers too light and neutrally engaged at the sear to be safe when bumped around all day.
-Automatic: Trigger is the safety lever, or they are on top of each other. Glock or set triggers, and heavy/long DA triggers force the shooter to pause or think a teeny bit before breaking, but are just as fast as no safety if needed. I suppose magazine disconnect safeties fall under this heading.
-Shooting Stance: Grip safeties and squeeze cockers make sure the pistol is at least gripped properly in order to shoot, the assumption being that the pistol is only drawn when justified (and about to be shot). I'd also put trigger guards here, since even though they are very passive/automatic, they do require you to basically put your finger directly on the trigger in order to fire the gun.
-Sympathetic motion: double set triggers, Five-seven safety. Takes advantage of hand movements necessary to fire the gun, but is not built into the trigger itself and can therefore block an errant unintentional trigger pull
-Independent motor operation: thumb safety, any safety requiring a movement divorced from the trigger. Supposedly requires two thoughts in order to shoot the gun instead of once, the thought being the additional calculus is beneficial more often than not. The motion requires a separate movement of the trigger or other fingers, but does not interrupt the rapid draw and firing of the pistol much (if at all)
-Highly independent motor operation: requires breaking the shooting grip or a second hand to remove the safety. Think the ring safety on the back of a K31 bolt, or most cross-bolt safeties that can't be actuated without breaking the grip of the shooting hand. The thinking here seems to be one of different operating environments, more like a 2WD/4WD switch than a shift from 1st into 2nd. The gun is either "carry safe" or "ready to fire" and it is assumed a clear delineation will separate the two, and sufficient time given to make the change.

It makes clear sense that certain types work better for certain roles; a sniper's rifle won't be used for close, unexpected encounters, so a highly independent safety is a great way to absolutely sure it cannot be fired in any way without a lot of time, forethought, and specific motions. A derringer is the polar opposite in every sense, and they normally use cruelly-terrible triggers to keep from going off unintended (usually) while not restricting the user's speed or trigger access in any way. What I'm most curious about, now, is what people like/dislike about how manufacturers go about these different kinds of safety-concepts, rather than the unanswerable question of "which is better" :cool:

This technical discussion is so even-headed, I'm actually inspired to start a thread on another element of guns; the trigger group. I had been worried it would devolve into sectarian fanboy warfare almost immediately; I now have a bit more faith that some good may come of it :D

TCB
 
I don't use safeties. My finger shouldn't be on the trigger if I don't want it to go off. There have been a couple times (such as a malfunction which locked up a loaded gun) where a safety would have been nice for peace of mind, but not necessary.

My CZ 75 is the decocker model and I keep it on half-cock with a loaded chamber.

My CZ 452 has a safety that can only be engaged on a closed bolt. At the range, I much prefer just pulling the bolt out. Takes two seconds and no second guessing. If I were doing field work (hunting) I'd either carry it with an empty chamber or it might be the one time I do engage the safety on this rifle.

On an AR-15 model rifle, I feel like it would be easier for me to keep it with an empty chamber and bolt locked back since I am a lefty. I prefer to lock a bolt back with no magazine after showing clear at the range, although I've started using the safety because other people who shoot expect it to be on when they pick it up.

On a pump action shotgun, I could see it going either direction as far as safety on or empty chamber
 
dakota.potts said:
On a pump action shotgun, I could see it going either direction as far as safety on or empty chamber
Click to expand...

I could not imagine me hunting with a shotgun, empty chamber. Popping out of a duck blind and having to pump a shotgun before firing would make it a challenge for sure. Jumping a cubbie and having to pump before getting on the flying away bird...tough.

A safety would have to be a must because of potential trigger engagement by briars, limbs, call lanyard, over zealous retriever, etc...

No thanks. I want my safety, preferably on the tang.
 
Sorry, I am not a hunter, so by nature I tend to think of my weapons more along the line of home defense/truck guns/ other guns that you keep around "just in case" but don't see field use often outside of the range.

If I were thinking of it as a hunting shotgun, I would agree with you.
 
My SR40C has a manual safety. I like it because the trigger is very light and crisp n the Ruger. I would like my next firearm to be a DA/SA with a decocker.
 
GEM said:
One never knows. Ayoob has said that a DA/SA can lead to a mistaken second shot. One fires the first DA and then if a second shot is not needed, you assume a stiffer DA and while putting your finger on the trigger after the DA pull, you put too much tension on the SA now trigger and boom.

...

Interesting debate.
Click to expand...


Ive heard various different sides to the Newhall shooting to the point I am not sure what exactly is true, except for something happened. (Isnt the same true for other controversial events?)

As to the DA/SA debate, I was always taught and told that due to the double action that a person untrained would miss with the first shot, but connect with the second and subsequent shots. Who is right? Beats me...

Again, its more to the topic of "what so n so instructor teaches" or "said" in the end. I don't have a PhD and neither do the majority of the instructors which parrot the same ideology on either side. Same can go for which firearm or which type of action is best.

My personal opinion is that the firearm, or type of firearm doesn't matter as much as the training behind it. One can debate which is superior, but if you exclude training, just which firearm type is superior? Tough question indeed.

I for one would argue, if a safe action (aka Glock) is the best, why aren't their more firearms like it across the board? Never seen a rifle or shotgun with that same style trigger, and except for Mossberg, I haven't seen a shotgun or rifle with a double action trigger. I would say the majority of all firearm designs are a single action with a safety (rifle, shotgun, and handgun total).

Agreed, interesting debate.
 
I agree that 'instructor said' isn't good science. There is a small number but growing of well done ergonomic studies on firearms manipulation.

Funding to do it is a problem as are venues with the equipment to test. It is also the case that research on such is probably not popular in most university settings. I have an article somewhere by an engineer that discusses such problems.

The NRA might set up a research grant foundation but if they sponsored such as it did find that a gun was crappy - that company would have a fit. Also, a politically active organization would taint the view of the results. The government would only fund research that proves that guns are bad for you.

I know a guy who published an article that butter was good for your health. Controversial and it was funded by the national butter association - or something like that - didn't go well.

The book I mentioned is pretty clear that the Newhall pocket description wasn't found. However, it quotes Cirillo who did see such. The book clearly indicates how police training was seriously lacking and it was poor tactics from the get go that did the officers in.
 
I think a lot of it comes down to whether it is a gun that is holstered and the trigger protected until drawn and fired, as in a SD firearm or a gun continuously carried in your hands, loaded in a ready position with the trigger open to accidental discharge such as a hunting firearm. Whether to use them or not is up to you. Whether someone else uses them or not should be up to them. But you won't hunt beside me for long if I catch you walking around all day with the safety off.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
I agree that 'instructor said' isn't good science. There is a small number but growing of well done ergonomic studies on firearms manipulation.

Funding to do it is a problem as are venues with the equipment to test.
Click to expand...

I would think that the more fundamental problem would be that any study of this issue has two variables, the firearm and the shooter. The shooter will come with a constellation of habits and preferences.

I can remember a time when I thought that a 1911 grip was perfect and swiping the frame mounted safety off seemed an integral part of raising the pistol toward the target. The first time I handled a loaded Glock, the absence of that frame mounted safety was wildly disconcerting.

By way of analogy, I have had some very uncomfortable moments driving cars with automatic transmissions: when I slowed to a stop and my left foot finds no clutch, I panic and start stomping around until I find the other half of the brake pedal, and end up skidding to a stop.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the Glock or an automatic transmission, except if they are being used by someone who is habituated to a different design. So, in any study of firearm safety ergonomics, I would have a difficult time separating the merit of the design from the degree to which it is familiar to the user.
 
By way of analogy, I have had some very uncomfortable moments driving cars with automatic transmissions: when I slowed to a stop and my left foot finds no clutch, I panic and start stomping around until I find the other half of the brake pedal, and end up skidding to a stop.
Click to expand...

been there, done that, 3/4 ton pickup with power brake....:eek:

The training we get, and more importantly, the training we give ourselves through repetition is going to be the overriding factor in many situations.

3 tries punching the safety off and pulling the trigger, without a shot fired as a fat rooster sails away...would have got him, if the gun in my hands that day had been the Winchester I was used to, and not the Browning I was actually holding...

Harmless situation, but a teaching moment, nonetheless.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
I agree that 'instructor said' isn't good science. There is a small number but growing of well done ergonomic studies on firearms manipulation.

Funding to do it is a problem as are venues with the equipment to test.
Click to expand...

I do agree that the funding is an issue, not just with the science of conducting various studies, but also funding upgrades/replacement of said equipment such as firearms already in use if they are deemed not to meet a newer ergonomic standard set forth by a study in the future.

The issue though with 'instructor said' is that it applies more then in what they are saying, but also in that many have influence over firearm purchases/approvals, which may be biased based on their own personal preference instead of what works best overall, or picking say, 2 options. Kind of like asking for an option for something different from say a S&W M&P, and get told, well the only other option is a Glock. Not that they are bad firearms, but there isn't much difference in the basic function.

I have often thought that a handgun with a downward type thumb safety (1911, BHP, PT92, etc) combined with a Mossberg shotgun with the tang safety which slides forward to fire, and an AR-15 type rifle would be the simplest to train for across the board due to thumb /finger movements. But have seen 3rd gen S&W or Berretta 96, AR-15 and 870 combinations in the past, and now the trend is Glock or M&P with AR-15 and 870, with complaints about people need to learn the various safeties, instead of trying to make it simple, or as simple as possible for all.

I was actually impressed by the lengths that Tacoma PD went to years back. Unfortunately though most places lack the funding, and there again is the bias of someone up top wanting a certain design.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/swat/articles/2002/08/the-scientific-method.aspx
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. Interesting approach.

The more we discuss, the more I'm not liking manual safeties that block trigger pulls on fighting guns that are needed for a surprise situation. Of course, then we need intensive training on keeping the finger off the trigger until needed.

People have the tendency to put it on the trigger due to the affordance of the natural grip favoring a finger on the trigger.

Given someone put a 45 ACP a foot from my foot and two inches from another SO's foot when inserting a 1911 in his holster - I know the issue.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
The more we discuss, the more I'm not liking manual safeties that block trigger pulls on fighting guns that are needed for a surprise situation. Of course, then we need intensive training on keeping the finger off the trigger until needed.
Click to expand...

The most dangerous thing I use in my line of work is a letter opener, so if my question is stupid, no one's feelings will be hurt if the stupidity of the question is pointed out.

Is it a good balance to trade the general utility of a firearm with a good trigger and an easily usable manual safety in exchange for a more specific utility of a design that forgoes the manual safety but incorporates a heavier trigger, all for use in a "surprise situation"?

Is the "surprise situation" sufficiently frequent that you want to build your firearm for it?
 
I certainly wouldn't want the surprise to be how my gun operates, which a lot of responses seem to suggest?
If using your gun is second nature, you won't have to worry about it in a surprise confrontation.
If you have to think, consciously, "Uh, let's see . . . grab the gun, then, uh, pull the gun out of the holster, then pull the trigger . . . no, aim, then pull the trigger . . .", you are going to be in big trouble, surprised, or no.
 
Is it a good balance to trade the general utility of a firearm with a good trigger and an easily usable manual safety in exchange for a more specific utility of a design that forgoes the manual safety but incorporates a heavier trigger, all for use in a "surprise situation"?
Click to expand...
On balance, I would say, no. but that's just my opinion.

Several real world experiences in my life have shown me that its better to have a gun that you are familiar with, comfortable with, and shoot well, than having a gun with a specific combination of features.

As far as I can tell, the only real arguments against a safety on a gun for a "surprise situation", are that one might forget to take it "off" under stress, or fumble taking it off. There is also the small fraction that are concerned with the safety being accidently put "on" without their knowledge.

While either (or even both) are possible, only you can decide what degree of weight to give the arguments.

In my own life, I've never missed or forgotten a safety (under the admittedly limited stress I've experienced), ON A GUN WITH WHICH I WAS FAMILIAR.

I have missed, fumbled or forgotten the safety on guns which I wound up carrying that I was NOT completely familiar with.

Some guns have safeties that just seem to be in the right place and work "naturally", others not so much, and some, hardly at all.

Right now, I'm thinking of (active/manual) safeties as being in two groups, those intended to provide safe carry & handling, and those intended for that and also for the most rapid, convenient operation practical, as well.

Mostly, long guns have safeties in the first group, handguns in the second, although there are guns opposite to this trend. Designers have learned more than a few things in the last century, and while there is debate, some of them seem to be the right things.
 
Does anyone dislike the safety on the HK P7? It's the one in which the front of the grip must be squeezed. This seems intuitive, positive and useful.

I have handled a P7, but never fired one. I understand that the gas-powered recoil reduction has some drawbacks, and the proportions of the pistol make holster choice more difficult, but the cocking/safety function seems like a fine idea.

http://hkp7.com/motion/p7motion.htm
 
Last edited:
I've handled a couple of them, and other than seeming heavy for their compact size, the design is very user-friendly, certainly much more so than some grip safeties.
The gas retard system heats up fast, so the P7 might not be the ticket for a 30-round USPSA course of fire that's shot in fifteen seconds; parts of the frame will be hot enough to burn you.
Still, a passive safety like the P7's squeezecocker mechanism isn't much different from the Glock trigger safety. The gun is still point-and-squirt. Passive safeties that are automatically disengaged when you grab the gun and pull the trigger don't really seem like safeties, at all? How is the gun going to fire when you are not holding it and not pulling the trigger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top