What Are Your Thoughts On Safety-less Guns?


PDA






Phriend
October 20, 2009, 02:24 PM
I've been looking for a subcompact pistol, and to my surprise, many of them do not seem to have an external safety on them. (Specifically, I've been looking at the Kahr PM-9).

What are your thoughts on these kinds of firearms? While I am new to the world of firearms, it seems that all the training in the world could not prevent me from accidentally striking the trigger one day. Your thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "What Are Your Thoughts On Safety-less Guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
eight433
October 20, 2009, 02:34 PM
on my kel tec pf9, i can assure you, you will have to do MUCH more than "strike" the trigger. Especially if you have it in a holster with a trigger guard cover. I cannot speak for the Kahr.

kludge
October 20, 2009, 02:40 PM
I would not carry a gun with a safety. Personal preference.

This has been the norm for carry guns designed in the last, oh, twenty years.

it seems that all the training in the world could not prevent me from accidentally striking the trigger one day.

You are correct. You have to keep your finger off the trigger all by yourself.

It is very natural to pick up a gun and put your finger off the trigger. You must form a habit, so that you never pick up a gun with your finger on the trigger.

Always keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until your sights are on the target and you have made the decision to fire.

CWL
October 20, 2009, 02:41 PM
Kahrs have very long DA trigger pulls. If you combine your pistol with a well-designed holster that covers the trigger, you shouldn't have any problems with safely carrying a pistol.

One-Time
October 20, 2009, 02:42 PM
Though I carry a 1911 w/ its plethora of safety features, I carried a .357 for years w/ no safety and never had issue

As long as the 4 rules are followed its a non issue

ReloaderFred
October 20, 2009, 02:44 PM
I don't understand all the obsessing over safeties, when revolvers have never had them. I fully understand "cocked and locked", and carry a 1911 that way, but most of the more modern designs take a considerable trigger pull to fire them, so as long as you keep your finger off the trigger, and use a well made holster, there isn't any more need for an external safety than for a revolver.

My main carry handguns are Springfield XD's, which don't have a manual safety, per se. They do have the USA trigger, and grip safety, which I feel are good things, but I'm perfectly comfortable with carrying them without a manual safety. But then, I've been carrying a handgun for the last 39 years, and 26 of those I carried one for a living, and was rangemaster for our department for almost 3 years, with 600 sworn and 300 reserve officers.

Hope this helps.

Fred

Crow61
October 20, 2009, 02:48 PM
A safety is something else to worry about in a stressful situation. Keep your finger off the trigger till you are on target and ready to fire. :)

highorder
October 20, 2009, 02:58 PM
You have to keep your finger off the trigger all by yourself.

Yep. The most important safety really is between your ears.

One-Time
October 20, 2009, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by: ReloaderFred

I don't understand all the obsessing over safeties...


I think its a result of nannystateism and all that other 'safety' BS thats been pushed since Liberals gained control of things

BlayGlock
October 20, 2009, 03:02 PM
I carried a Kahr CW9 for a while and never has a problem. I carry a j frame a lot, which also has no saftey. If you use a good holster the double action trigger is plenty of "saftey" imo.

Steve C
October 20, 2009, 04:56 PM
Any modern pistol being sold has several safty features. It may not have a manual safety but there are safeties present to prevent accidental discharge.

Unfortunately people think that if they can engage a manual safety they can then "safely" handle a gun negligently and do things like place their finger on the trigger and point the gun at things they don't want to shoot or kill. There's probalby been thousands of people killed when they or someone else thought the safety made the gun "safe".

jocko
October 20, 2009, 05:15 PM
Steve C, says it all. I could not add anything more positive than what he stated...

Shadow 7D
October 20, 2009, 05:52 PM
Steve C hit my main point

I loved watch pistol fires when I was in the army, esp. when they started mixing things up and doing the "advanced" pistol fires (you get do get board when you're stuck at the range all day and the ammo is free) When ever a draw / fire iteration came up half the line didn't go boom, same thing between sets when the pistol was laid at the firing point locked open and on safe.

My point is that if this was happening on the range, how much worse would forgetting to drop the safety be in real life.

wilkersk
October 20, 2009, 06:19 PM
The PM-9 comes in 4 flavors: w/external safties and without, Bi-tone or black.

The PM-91xx series has the external safety. Problem solved!

All PM-9s have a firing pin block, and are DAO, I think that means you've gotta pull the trigger to make it go boom; it won't AD when dropped.

Old Fuff
October 20, 2009, 06:26 PM
I don't understand all the obsessing over safeties, when revolvers have never had them.

There are two kinds of safeties – manual and mechanical.

A manual safety is one that the gun’s user has to activate (put on) or deactivate (take off) by consciously moving a lever or switch, pushing a button, or depressing a bar on the grip. It is “on” when it’s put that way, and it’s “off” when the user moves it. One weakness of manual safeties is that under stress someone can forget which position it’s in.

A mechanical safety is one that is operated by the firearm’s own mechanism or lockwork, and is always “on” until the trigger is deliberately pulled and held while the hammer or striker falls. The user has no direct involvement in its use.

All Colt double-action revolvers have had (2) mechanical safeties since 1908.

All Smith & Wesson revolvers made after World War Two have (2) positive mechanical safeties.

Since the middle 1980’s all Taurus revolvers have at least (1) mechanical safety.

All Ruger double-action revolvers have a mechanical safety and most of they’re single-action models have had the same kind since 1972.

Many people believe that because current revolvers from the above makers don’t have some kind of lever or button to push the have NO safety. Not so.

Madcap_Magician
October 20, 2009, 06:50 PM
I absolutely loathe manual safeties. I'm a big fan of mechanical safeties that prevent the gun from being fired except by a direct trigger pull, but I find manual safeties to be rather pointless.

KBintheSLC
October 20, 2009, 06:51 PM
None of my defensive pistols have a manual external safety on them. My safety is the long double action trigger, a decent holster, followed by proper gun handling etiquette. It has gotten me by thus far.

it seems that all the training in the world could not prevent me from accidentally striking the trigger one day. Your thoughts?

You know yourself best, and if you really feel this way, I would recommend you do not own or handle any guns. If you lack the self control and discipline required as to not pull the trigger without intention, try some other forms of self defense.



...

Walkalong
October 20, 2009, 06:58 PM
Three kinds of safeties.

Mechanical, manual, and between the ears. The latter being the most important.

The mechanical safeties are good things for the most part. I like manual safeties on autos, but don't obsess over them. I certainly don't want one on a revolver. The safety between my ears should always be on. :cool:

Billy Shears
October 20, 2009, 07:19 PM
I personally like a single-action auto with a frame mounted manual safety. I must strongly disagree with the assertion that some people make that "it's just one more thing to worry about." If you practice as much as you should, it it most emphatically not something you will have to worry about; it's operation will be automatic, and take place without any conscious thought whatever. You practice your draw and presentation enough times to incorporate this in your muscle memory. Then you will carry it out automatically, every time.

And the advantage to having a manual safety, especially for law enforcement, is that if a bad guy get's your gun away from you, he may not be able to dope out where the safety is right away, and that may give you vital extra seconds either to regain control of your weapon, or better still, deploy a back up.

But having said that, I have carried, and currently carry (on duty) guns with no manual safety, and done so with complete confidence.

ByAnyMeans
October 20, 2009, 07:44 PM
I fully agree that it is the safety between your ears that counts but when I first started carrying I was not so sure. I carried my Glock for about a month while waiting for my permit to arrive with the trigger set but no round in the chamber. I did this when doing heavy work around the house and while hiking and playing with the dog. I now feel very secure that if through everything I did the trigger was not pulled then it will not be. You just need trigger discipline when not in a holster and don't play with your gun.

daveit
October 20, 2009, 08:08 PM
Got an XD 9 and a Glock with a round always in the chamber....doesn't matter what safety stuff they have on them. Keep you finger off the trigger and use your brain & you'll be fine.

I'm not a cop & I carry concealed (usually--in a Serpa when OC) so I'm not too worried about a BG grabbing my gun.

possum
October 20, 2009, 10:07 PM
does a revolver have a safety? nope, then why do i need one on my auto loader.

i am not a fan of manula safeties either. i shoot striker fired handguns, xd's and glocks.

gbran
October 20, 2009, 10:54 PM
Been carrying these for years without safeties. I like my pistols to be like my revolvers. Point and click.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/gbran/100_0145.jpg

usp9
October 20, 2009, 11:30 PM
Safety less guns are my prefered carry configuration. I have in the past carried a gun with a safety, but never use it.

okespe04
October 20, 2009, 11:40 PM
I don't like safetys. The trigger is the saftey

weisse52
October 20, 2009, 11:48 PM
You must form a habit, so that you never pick up a gun with your finger on the trigger.

I use this quote only as example. I have carried a 1911 for years, I have long since "formed the habit" to swipe off that manual saftey. I never even think about it. I even found myself swiping at a non-existence saftey when I shot Glocks.
Glocks have one form of a saftey, 1911's have others. As has been stated they all require you to keep your finger off the trigger. YOU are the ultimate saftey.

gc70
October 21, 2009, 12:29 AM
If you lack the self control and discipline required as to not pull the trigger without intention, try some other forms of self defense.

Sage advice for the multitudes who experience accidental discharges.

AJAX22
October 21, 2009, 12:40 AM
I don't carry chambered.... never have... never will... I just rack as I draw.

If there is no bullet in the pipe, there is no need for mechanical safety.

Im a big fan of guns being as unsafe as possible.... I don't like the idea of people doing stupid things with only a small mechanical device preventing their actions from having negative consequences...

It is the operators responsibility to make sure the inanimate object is used in a 'safe' manner.

Relying on anything else simply lessens the degree to which the operator is expected to think, and the degree of responsibility they have for their own actions.

mljdeckard
October 21, 2009, 01:01 AM
I think that some people WAYYYY overthink this stuff.

Some people say that switching between an auto with a positive, slide-mounted safety to one with a conventional frame-mounted safety (or vise-versa) will confuse you in the heat of battle. You will inevitably lock up and get yourself killed. Some say that autos with safeties have no place at all in modern handguns, that the process of remembering to flick it off safe will take up too much brain power and get you killed, so it's better to have one with no manual safety at all.

I SAY, pick the gun you shoot best, learn to shoot it, and don't worry about it. I can pick up the bulk of the guns in this world, IN THE DARK, and know immediately by feel or with a quick check, what kind of safety it has and whether or not it is engaged. If you aren't as much of a geek as I am, with that kind of free brain space, pick a gun, learn it, and free your mind of 'what-ifs'.

BluesDancer
October 21, 2009, 01:19 AM
I'm not a fan of safeties, myself. I keep my trigger finger off the trigger until I am ready to fire, and that's good enough for me. Exactly what gbran says - point and click.

kludge
October 21, 2009, 11:53 AM
I don't carry chambered.... never have... never will... I just rack as I draw.


What will you do if you don't have the use of your other hand?

nalioth
October 21, 2009, 12:17 PM
Every piece of dangerous machinery in the world has a safety.

http://www.novarata.net/images/human-brain.jpg

It is up to you to use it.

cleetus03
October 21, 2009, 12:24 PM
What will you do if you don't have the use of your other hand?

With one hand you could;

Rack
Rotate the pistol so the rear sight can be hooked on the top of the cartridge belt or any other surface (e.g., the edge of a table, wall,heel of the boot) that provides the resistance needed to rack the slide in a smooth, uninterrupted motion. Do not let the muzzle of the pistol cover the body.See figures 8-9 and 8-10. http://www.pointshooting.com/marine.pdf

DeepSouth
October 21, 2009, 12:43 PM
I've been looking for a subcompact pistol, and to my surprise, many of them do not seem to have an external safety on them. (Specifically, I've been looking at the Kahr PM-9).

What are your thoughts on these kinds of firearms? While I am new to the world of firearms, it seems that all the training in the world could not prevent me from accidentally striking the trigger one day. Your thoughts?

If you really want a KAHR PM9 with an external safety they DO make one. (http://www.kahr.com/PA-1_9mm_pm.html)

Personally I'd advise you to get the one with no external safety and learn to keep your finger off the trigger. The trigger pull weight on most KAHR's is between 7.5 and 9 lbs. Buy a holster that covers the trigger and your odds of the trigger "hanging" on something are nearly nonexistent.

I carry a KAHR PM45 everyday and the fact that it has no manual safety slightly bothered me at first, It was my first auto without a manual safety and I had never carried a revolver, now I'd have it no other way.

On a side note, most people that buy the sub compact guns carry them in their pocket, if you intend to pocket carry do so in a pocket holster, with nothing else in that pocket.

cleetus03
October 21, 2009, 12:43 PM
I think the OP boils down to what platform each of us learns on and is confident with the most.

For me it's a pistol with a manual lever safety that can be thumb flicked with acquired muscle memory reflex as I draw the weapon to use. If you can learn to do this great, if you can't or are unwilling that's great to..............TO EACH HIS OWN

DeepSouth
October 21, 2009, 12:53 PM
Im a big fan of guns being as unsafe as possible.... I don't like the idea of people doing stupid things with only a small mechanical device preventing their actions from having negative consequences...


You should rephrase so the rest of us can agree with what your saying.

aquapong
October 21, 2009, 01:21 PM
http://forums.officer.com/forums/customavatars/avatar28788_5.gif

mljdeckard
October 21, 2009, 04:54 PM
One-handed slide-racking is an emergency technique. Everyone should know how to do it with both hands, but it isn't something you WANT to do if you don't HAVE to. Try doing it when your other arm is being held behind your back.

Carrying with an empty chamber, and saying you can rack it one-handed when you need to is assuming a LOT of conditions that may not exist when you are fighting for your life. It's like saying you will have time to push a button to arm your airbag before a collision.

ReloaderFred
October 21, 2009, 05:19 PM
There are two kinds of safeties – manual and mechanical.

Old Fuff,

I think anyone vaguely familiar with revolvers is fully aware of the passive safeties built into them. The OP's question concerned external safeties, and that is what I was refering to.

Hope this helps.

Fred

jocko
October 21, 2009, 07:08 PM
deepsouth, says it all . if ur gonna pocket carry, then indeed holster pocket carry. I carry my kahr PM9 24/7 in jeans front pocket in a desantis and never even give it a thought about being unsafe...

gc70
October 21, 2009, 07:48 PM
Carrying with an empty chamber, and saying you can rack it one-handed when you need to is assuming a LOT of conditions that may not exist when you are fighting for your life.

One hand being unavailable is one of the classic rationales for carrying with a round in the chamber. But it also begs the question of your gun hand being disabled or both hands being occupied.

mljdeckard
October 21, 2009, 08:08 PM
If you are carrying to protect yourself, you can't compromise your hands. You can't carry anything you aren't willing to drop if you need to draw. If you survive, you can get more Jamba Juice.

You must learn to draw, fire, reload, and clear a stoppage with EITHER hand. This is not something that's nice to know, it's critical.

I don't know how you can refer to the possibility of one hand being unavailable as a 'rationale'. The REALITY is, if you are in a situation where you are fighting for your life, it means everything else has already gone wrong. Your wise lifestyle has failed to keep you out of trouble. You cannot assume that you will not be using your other hand to drive, carry a child, stop bleeding, hold back an attacker, or stop yourself from being pushed. If you agree that you carry to protect your life, but you don't believe that multiple things can go wrong at once, you haven't really thought this through.

DougDubya
October 21, 2009, 08:18 PM
Oh good - the thread goes from folks too fumblebrained to know how to flick a lever to the whole Condition 3 Israeli method garbage.

I'm also quite certain that Colonel Jeff Cooper was enforcing the nanny state when he taught his students how to carry a 1911 with its safety on. I mean, he was such a hand-wringing liberal, wasn't he?

zignal_zero
October 21, 2009, 09:06 PM
While I am new to the world of firearms, it seems that all the training in the world could not prevent me from accidentally striking the trigger one day.

no offense, but this is very dangerous logic. this statement says - you realize an ND is inevitable w/o a mechanical device that removes the buden of proper handling from you.

i'm really not tryin to be a dik, but you've got to take the repsonibility of preventing an ND, yourself, and not expect a safety device to do it for you.

that said - manual safeties are a preference, some people like 'em some don't. personally, i'm either way. i'll go from DAO to 1911 and back.

one good point to a manual safety is that it might be you the fraction of a second you need should someone disarm you and have difficulty shooting you with your own gun.

gc70
October 21, 2009, 09:09 PM
I don't know how you can refer to the possibility of one hand being unavailable as a 'rationale'.

It is pretty easy - I know what the word 'rationale' means, as in:

"One hand being unavailable is one of the classic fundamental reasons (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationale) for carrying with a round in the chamber."

"One hand being unavailable is one of the classic underlying reasons (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationale) for carrying with a round in the chamber."

Old Fuff
October 21, 2009, 09:25 PM
ReloaderFred:

I think anyone vaguely familiar with revolvers is fully aware of the passive safeties built into them.

You might be surprised at the number of people that carry post-1945 double-action/hand ejector revolvers with the hammer down on an empty chamber, "because revolvers don't have a safety..."

Add to that the number of folks that believe that any pistol that doesn't have a manual safety doesn't have one at all.

Hopefully I enlightened somebody... ;) :banghead:

oneounceload
October 21, 2009, 09:52 PM
As mentioned - the safety is between your ears....I don't want them on my handguns, my shotguns, or my rifles - no need

johnnylaw53
October 22, 2009, 07:45 AM
All pistols have a safty, it the grey matter between your ears, some just have others attached to the weapon but none work as well as the first.

be safe

evan price
October 22, 2009, 11:16 AM
An external safety is a crutch. Guns with short trigger pulls (like SA 1911) need it. A gun like Glock or a Sig "P"-series does not.

Point and shoot. No safety required. Don't put booger flicker on bang switch unless you want a shot fired.

mountainpharm
October 22, 2009, 12:39 PM
I'm a lefty so my preference is either no safety at all (Walther P99) or a safety that is engaged by gripping the butt or pulling the trigger (Glock 36, Springfield XD).

Jbabbler
October 22, 2009, 01:04 PM
Of all of the handguns I have owned, only two have safeties that I would engage. I like the grip safety found on 1911's/XD's and I am a huge fan of the trigger-guard safety found on the Steyr M/S line of pistols. My daily carry is a Steyr S40 and I always carry with the manual safety engaged.

medmo
October 22, 2009, 06:11 PM
The more recent generation of Steyr pistols do not have a manual safety. Striker fired pistols without a manual safety require two special precautions. Extra care needs to be taken when holstering with a loaded pistol. An obstruction will relatively easily depress the trigger and discharge pistol. If for some reason a loaded firearm is dropped let it fall and don't grab it. There have been a few incidents where when one was dropped a person snatched it which depressed the trigger which unintentionally discharged the pistol.

DougDubya
October 22, 2009, 07:47 PM
For all the pistols without safety levers that I like (SIGs, Glocks, Walthers), there are also the Beretta 92 and the Smith 4506.

They don't NEED a safety, but I've never had trouble swiping that lever, even if it's in just decocked mode. However, for weapon retention purposes ONLY, the thumb lever is a bit of extra insurance (at least a few seconds' worth) - as proven by Mas Ayoob's many articles.

Autolycus
October 22, 2009, 07:56 PM
I prefer guns with no safety. I like DA/SA Sigs and Glocks myself.

Arkansas Paul
October 22, 2009, 08:47 PM
I have a .40 caliber Smith and Wesson Sigma that's great for cc. It's trigger pull is pretty firm, but I think that's a good thing since it has no safety. It's not going off unless I want it to.

Girodin
October 22, 2009, 09:01 PM
They are perfectly safe with proper gun handling. Relying on a manual safety as opposed to proper gun handling is what is dangerous; no gun is safe when not following the 4 rules or being attentive.

DougDubya
October 23, 2009, 12:21 AM
They are perfectly safe with proper gun handling. Relying on a manual safety as opposed to proper gun handling is what is dangerous; no gun is safe when not following the 4 rules or being attentive.
The manual safety is a proprietary user tool to delay unauthorized use for at least a few seconds until you can get things back under control. It's why I prefer the term "off switch."

Anything I turn off, I can turn back on. Others might not be so instantly quick.

That said, any P226 or P229 or an M&P is as fine with me as a Beretta 92 or a Smith 4506.

I just can't understand the folks who don't think a locked and cocked gun is "fast enough" or "certain enough" for their purposes.

Jbabbler
October 23, 2009, 12:32 AM
The more recent generation of Steyr pistols do not have a manual safety.

Not all of the new generation Steyrs are sans-safety...
My M40-A1 has one.
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc81/jbabbler/pistols/IMAG0158.jpg

Big Boy
October 23, 2009, 01:33 AM
I don't mind not having a safety at all. In fact, if I had a gun that had one, I would leave it off. (Oh! my shotgun by my desk...yeah the safety is off.)

I like my XD because it does have the back strap safety, which is nice for carry, but still, most holsters cover the trigger and you should be fine.

The only thing that concerns me are the people who run with the clipdraws on something like a glock or revolver. Trigger exposed.

Just draw how you are supposed to, finger outside the trigger guard. The milliseconds it take to put your finger on the trigger will give you enough time to think if you should be shooting or not.

walker944
October 23, 2009, 01:38 AM
No safety doesn't bother me at all. I have a few handguns without a safety. In fact I carry one on a regular basis. It has a rather firm double action only trigger pull. That IS the safety in my mind.

Girodin
October 23, 2009, 02:25 AM
I just can't understand the folks who don't think a locked and cocked gun is "fast enough" or "certain enough" for their purposes.

I think that is bunk as well. I am not a great example of skill but I do not think I am any slower with a 1911 than with a glock, sig, etc on account of the safety. I have guns that have external safeties and guns that don't. I believe that gun handling and practice are what really matters with both.

I think there is some merit to the idea that certain types of external safeties could change the outcome of a BG getting his hands on your gun. There are confirmed cases of this occurring. However,it is not a dispositive factor in my selection of a defensive firearm

(Oh! my shotgun by my desk...yeah the safety is off.)

Many shotguns are not drop safe the same way a pistol is and thus leaving it chambered safety off can present a whole different set of concerns.

if I had a gun that had one, I would leave it off.
I would not carry my 1911 with the safety off. Nor would I certain other guns that come to mind with the safety off. Just like I wouldn't carry my sig cocked.

Big Boy
October 23, 2009, 03:28 AM
I think that is bunk as well. I am not a great example of skill but I do not think I am any slower with a 1911 than with a glock, sig, etc on account of the safety. I have guns that have external safeties and guns that don't. I believe that gun handling and practice are what really matters with both.

I think there is some merit to the idea that certain types of external safeties could change the outcome of a BG getting his hands on your gun. There are confirmed cases of this occurring. However,it is not a dispositive factor in my selection of a defensive firearm



Many shotguns are not drop safe the same way a pistol is and thus leaving it chambered safety off can present a whole different set of concerns.


I would not carry my 1911 with the safety off. Nor would I certain other guns that come to mind with the safety off. Just like I wouldn't carry my sig cocked.
Shotgun isn't chambered, just needs to be racked. As far as the safety on other guns, it would depend on the gun for me. For example, a Beretta 92 I would definitely use the safety, but my XD, I have no problem carrying chambered with no safety at all. Some of that to me does have to do with exposed hammers and drop features rather than anything else.

All depends, but for the most part, guns that are designed without safety's, function just fine that way.

earlthegoat2
October 23, 2009, 03:38 AM
I understand how manual safeties work and I understand how mechanical or passive safeties work and I understand how the most important safety is the meathead behind the gun and I understand how a good holster that covers the trigger will keep a gun safe even if said meathead gets a little frisky with the trigger finger on the draw.....

However I am one of those meatheads, and I tend to appreciate and like the manual safety guns as well as those without. Pistols like SAO autos need them more than say the DAO autos. DA/SA guns may or may not have them but you better believe they have some way of decocking them or in the case of the CZ they have a manual safety.

I myself fall into the category of hiding behind a manual safety so I can carry a gun in an unsafe manner. The explanation to this is nothing more than when I am taking out the trash or letting the dog out I stuff a Beretta 92 (manual safety and plethora of passive safeties) into my waistband without a holster with the safety on. I would not do this with a gun that did not have a manual safety (thank you Plaxico).

I dont really think this makes me unsafe in any way. I think it does show that I use that particular pistol within its own limitations just like when I have a revolver I always use a holster. Once again, within the revolvers limitations. The Beretta is perfectly safe without the manual safety engaged as long as it is decocked and in a holster and you practice safe gun handling. The Beretta is also perfectly safe with the safety on and put (temporarily) into my waistband.

I am not trying to advocate carrying a gun without a holster because I do not engage in this practice but for a few short minutes each day and I am not trying to rationalize anything. I am saying use the gun you have within the limitations it was designed for and live life a little simpler from now on.

ZO6Vettever
October 23, 2009, 11:10 AM
I carry a S&W Sigma with about a 7# trigger pull. It's been shortened a bit but still long and hard enough to be very safe without a safety. A light trigger with a quick break and no safety is an accident waiting to happen if you carry it, just my two cents.

Clarence
October 23, 2009, 09:12 PM
Safety lies between the ears, not between the hands. - Col Jeff Cooper

Pizzagunner
October 24, 2009, 02:28 AM
If I see one more know-nothing compare a Glock to a DA revolver I am going to :barf:

Unless that Glock is sporting the usually reviled "NY Trigger," it is not remotely like carrying a DA revolver.

Manual safeties I can take or leave. They ain't rocket science one way or the other.

If you can train yourself keep your boogerhook off of the bangswitch, you can certainly train yourself to ride a thumb safety off during a draw.

Just because certain people perceive themselves to be so panic stricken that they'd forget to take the safety off doesn't mean the whole world is just as handicapped.

My IRL example comes from drilling shipboard with the Ma Deuce. You don't sprint to it and thumb the trigger. You charge it with ammo first. I never forgot to do it the right way every time I had to do it, for drill or for possible keeps.

You fight like you train. Haven't ever failed to swipe off a manual safety pistol doing IDPA and other stress fires. if you find yourself doing that the root cause is laziness or incompetence, it's not the weapon design.

Just like certain people can't handle their liquor and others can't drive cars with manual transmissions, or work the clutch and gear selector of a motorcycle, there are certain people who either cannot handle pistols or who should at best stick to the one type they can actually manage not to screw up with too badly.

A safety-less design probably works better for someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Airburst
October 24, 2009, 03:04 AM
If you keep your finger off the trigger, every gun is on safe.

Fiv3r
October 24, 2009, 11:05 AM
I don't mind manual safeties on striker fired pistols. I know that's pretty unpopular, but I like being able to handle the gun in such a way that when I holster it it simply cannot (or at least should not barring any fluke) go off.

I know it is not likely, but a bladed trigger catching on the edge of my holster is a (rational or irrational) concern of mine. You can't really hear or see it happening. All of my revolvers are completely too stiff in the trigger to go off as such. Plus, I like having a strap lock the hammer down. I prefer a revolver over a semi most cases anyway.

When carrying my semi, I keep it either safety off and chamber empty (storage at night) or cocked and safety on (while carried). Brushing off a safety as I draw is not hard to do. I brush off safeties that don't exist on other guns that I fire.

SharpsDressedMan
October 24, 2009, 04:13 PM
You mean, like, revolvers?...................

AirForceShooter
October 24, 2009, 04:15 PM
I've carried a 1911 for 40 years.
It's always been at condition Zero.
I safe it when I take it off.

AFS

2nd 41
October 24, 2009, 05:54 PM
I have 2 Sigs. A 230 & 232. Always felt comfortable knowing they are ready to go. I concealed a Smith Mod 37 at work.
No manual safety = no confusion

zignal_zero
October 24, 2009, 07:36 PM
Manual safeties I can take or leave. They ain't rocket science one way or the other.

If you can train yourself keep your boogerhook off of the bangswitch, you can certainly train yourself to ride a thumb safety off during a draw.

Just because certain people perceive themselves to be so panic stricken that they'd forget to take the safety off doesn't mean the whole world is just as handicapped

i just felt this warranted repeating, in case anyone missed it. GOOD POINTS, bro!

also - to the poster who referred to their manual safety as an "off switch" that makes alot of sense.

sarduy
October 28, 2009, 12:55 AM
http://www.xdtalk.com/gallery/data/509/Hoot.JPG

This is my safety Sir!

makarovnik
October 28, 2009, 06:38 AM
Love 'em.

MisterMike
October 28, 2009, 12:08 PM
It took me a while to wrap my head around the idea of a semi-automatic without an external manual safety, but I now own two Glocks (a G23 and a G26) and it now makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure I'd say it's the only way to go, but it seems to me to be a concept that is well-suited for a self-defense weapon.

First, for anyone having half a brain it does (should) instill a sense of discipline in your gun handling. As has been noted on THR innumerable times, a pistol like a Glock simply won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. So, you simply ensure that you are using a good holster and that you do not place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire. Basic concepts of gun handling for as long as I can remember.

I'd echo some of the comments above about manual safeties. I've seen many instances at the range where a pistol was declared "jammed," only to find that the shooter had not disengaged the safety. If it happens often there, it's quite likely going to happen on a fairly frequent basis under the stress of an actual self-defense situation.

I've also experienced safeties on semi-automatics that are so easy to manipulate that they inadvertantly become disengaged. Combine that with the unfortunate presumptions that some make about "safed" guns, and you have yet another recipe for an accidental discharge.

The one thing I do like about manual safeties has been mentioned above--in the event of a gun grab, there's some possibility that the grabber may not know/think to disengage the safety, giving you a bit of a chance to avoid being shot with your own gun. However, on balance, I think that the advantages of the "safety-less" pistols outweigh the disadvantages.

If you enjoyed reading about "What Are Your Thoughts On Safety-less Guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!