Why do SAO handguns need manual safeties, but striker fired ones dont?

danez71 said:

Ummm..... ok.

That doesn't support his statement or undermine anything I've said.... or create any new perspective. So I'm not sure what your intent is. Are you just trying to stir the pot?

Click to expand...

My point was simply that safety features mentioned on power tools and automobiles don't compare to handguns and are due to OSHA regs. and litigation.
A manual safety on a firearm does not need to be held down as the trigger is pulled but it probably would if it were up to OSHA.

Here's another of incident in which a "perfect" safety-less gun was discharged by an individual in his car without ever fingering the trigger. http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/f...her-holsters-can-cause-accidental-discharges/

drunkenpoacher said:

My point was simply that safety features mentioned on power tools and automobiles don't compare to handguns and are due to OSHA regs. and litigation.
A manual safety on a firearm does not need to be held down as the trigger is pulled but it probably would if it were up to OSHA.

Click to expand...

ahhhh. got it.

I think we could find stories about NDs for any type of firearm ever made. I have seen stories of people shooting their own legs with 1911s, the existence of such stories really doesn't say anything except that humans make mistakes, a fact any sane person already knows.

drunkenpoacher said:

A manual safety on a firearm does not need to be held down as the trigger is pulled but it probably would if it were up to OSHA

Click to expand...

Don't most people say you should do that anyway? At least on the 1911 it seems to be a near-universal recommendation that your thumb should ride the safety, holding it down, while shooting.


Anyway, something that seems to be lost in the desire to say that engineers from S&W, Glock, et al are incompetent:

With sufficient training a manual safety ceases to be a manual safety. Muscle memory takes over and it becomes every bit as automatic as a grip safety or trigger blade safety. And, like those safeties, a manual safety can be disengaged without deliberate intent. I personally have had safeties disengage while a gun was holstered so I know it happens.

If you look at the big picture, accuracy is part of the total safety picture. NDs are not the only way a gun can be unsafe. Trigger pull and safety mechanisms that require physical strength to operate, like the power tool momentary interlock mentioned (or the old HK squeeze cock), can reduce accuracy and therefore compromise overall safety. The goal is to balance everything to minimize ND risk while maximizing accuracy (or, said another way, while also minimizing inaccuracy risk). There are different approaches but that's the common goal.

Ed Ames said:

I think we could find stories about NDs for any type of firearm ever made. I have seen stories of people shooting their own legs with 1911s, the existence of such stories really doesn't say anything except that humans make mistakes, a fact any sane person already knows.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. There is no system that is completely immune to AD/ND's.

Ed Ames said:

With sufficient training a manual safety ceases to be a manual safety. Muscle memory takes over and it becomes every bit as automatic as a grip safety or trigger blade safety. And, like those safeties, a manual safety can be disengaged without deliberate intent. I personally have had safeties disengage while a gun was holstered so I know it happens.

Click to expand...

A manual safety can be disengaged by accident. But if the intent is to render the gun non-firing, then an ND/AD takes two issues, not just one - an inadvertent deactivation of the safety followed by/simultaneous with inadvertent pressure on the trigger.

Ed Ames said:

Anyway, something that seems to be lost in the desire to say that engineers from S&W, Glock, et al are incompetent:

Click to expand...

Of course not. They are designing what customers seem to want (certainly for S&W, who will happily give you a safety if that's your desire). And, of course, the marketing departments are having a significant impact on what people think they want.

Ed Ames said:

The goal is to balance everything to minimize ND risk while maximizing accuracy (or, said another way, while also minimizing inaccuracy risk).

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, there are some safety systems that trade absolutely no accuracy risk for an ND reduction... in fact, they can increase effective accuracy by making a lighter trigger tolerable from an overall safety perspective.

ATLDave said:

A manual safety can be disengaged by accident. But if the intent is to render the gun non-firing, then an ND/AD takes two issues, not just one - an inadvertent deactivation of the safety followed by/simultaneous with inadvertent pressure on the trigger.

Click to expand...

My point was that with sufficient training the manual safety is operated without any conscious thought or extra effort. When you draw the safety just goes off because of how your hands squeeze, just like a grip safety. Which means that the safety isn't going to prevent aimed NDs (where a person drew their gun and pointed it at something, and then fired it without intending to because of a startle reflex or whatever) amongst trained users.

ATLDave said:

Of course not. They are designing what customers seem to want (certainly for S&W, who will happily give you a safety if that's your desire). And, of course, the marketing departments are having a significant impact on what people think they want.

Click to expand...

The point was that S&W et al have been selling guns that fire with only a trigger pull for well over 100 years, so calling Glock engineers "foolish" for producing a DA gun means someone was calling a lot of people, some of whom have been dead for 150 years, foolish.

ATLDave said:

Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, there are some safety systems that trade absolutely no accuracy risk for an ND reduction... in fact, they can increase effective accuracy by making a lighter trigger tolerable from an overall safety perspective.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "absolutely no", but my point was that it is all a balance based on different theories of what provides optimal overall safety. Some people think a really light trigger plus a manual safety is the best balance, others think that a very consistent DA trigger and no safety is a better balance, others think DA/SA is better, and those aren't the only choices. Nobody goes to the bother of designing a new trigger or safety system unless they think they can improve that balance, and there have been a lot of different designs over the years.

I know a guy who put a .45 lengthwise through his thigh holstering his supposedly safed 1911.

Villages are constantly inventing better idiots and we live in a litigation nation. Now days hunting rifles have 8 pound triggers that only a lawyer could love and half the operators manual is printed on the barrel so the operator has no reason not to know which end is the dangerous end. And I don't have to like any of it.

I've tried to get my Gen III Glock 20 to go off with clothing and holster thumb break. Like I said earlier, odd angles are required with or without the holster on your hip. And the Glock has not an insignificant amount of travel and pull weight. We aren't talking about a tuned single-action trigger pull here. The striker on the Glock is only kept at about 60% load. That means the trigger on the Glock will always have to draw the striker the last 40% must like a traditional double action. There is a limit to how light you can make this. Even with a 3.5 lb disconnector, there's a limit. I'm not saying it's not possible because obviously it is. But it is not easy. It kind of requires one of those "better idiots." And we shouldn't appease them. At one point in our history, our schools were about education instead of self-esteem and we as a nation didn't dumb ourselves down for the lowest common denominator. A few generations ago a father was expected to teach his sons how to shoot straight, ride a horse, drive a stick, operate a power tool. All the sudden gun's are too difficult and our cars have to drive for us? It is horse-pucky. I am 34 years old. I've been shooting for 30 of those years. I've had a semi-auto rifle next to my bed since I was 11. I've never had an ND because religious adherence to simple, common sense rules is not difficult for me. So I will drive my own vehicle and I don't care whether my handgun has an external safety if it has a 6 lb trigger pull. It is irrelevant. I can operate a safety when required. But I never rely on them when they are present. I operate proper muzzle discipline and keep my booger picker off the bang switch until the muzzle is pointed down range.

Glocks are simple, reliable, durable, lightweight, and have excellent capacity. They are also modular, have decent ergonomics, are economical, and commonly available in a variety of frame sizes and calibers. And the trigger pull is consistent, workable, and has a short reset. All of this factored into my decision to get my first Glock far more than whether it had a safety. The bigger issue still is that if you are willing discount Glocks and others without external safeties for no other reason, then you're probably not very safe with any of your firearms cause you are obviously relying on your safety too much. What other pleasantries are you allowing the idiots to rob you of? Now because some other r-**** can't accomplish something without putting a hole in himself or his vehicle, it isn't safe for any of us? When did that become America? Ya'll can do what you want. I'm not wearing velcro shoes just because someone else can't tie their shoes. Make mine a Glock.

HexHead said:

Because on a SAO gun, like a 1911, the gun is cocked when the hammer is back. Many striker fired guns, like the Glock are not cocked, at least not enough for the gun to fire, until the trigger is pulled. You don't need an external thumb safety on an uncocked gun.

Some striker fired guns are cocked once the slide goes back. The XD would be one of those, which is why it has the grip safety, and why it's classified by the ATF as a single action firearm. Which is also why you don't see many police departments issuing them.

Click to expand...

Near as I can tell from the stories out there, the choice of what sidearm a police department issues is usually not made by an experienced gunner, nor for purely utilitarian reasons.

MT- Lighten up Francis......... You're a Glockboy - we get it.

With sufficient training a manual safety ceases to be a manual safety. Muscle memory takes over and it becomes every bit as automatic as a grip safety or trigger blade safety. And, like those safeties, a manual safety can be disengaged without deliberate intent. I personally have had safeties disengage while a gun was holstered so I know it happens.

Click to expand...

The muscle memory should be to flip off the safety after you have cleared yourself and as you gain site picture and flip it on before you go to holster.

ATLDave said: ↑
A manual safety can be disengaged by accident. But if the intent is to render the gun non-firing, then an ND/AD takes two issues, not just one - an inadvertent deactivation of the safety followed by/simultaneous with inadvertent pressure on the trigger.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Those are scenarios in which a trigger blade safety, being passive and automatic, don't lend any additional safe guards.

My point was that with sufficient training the manual safety is operated without any conscious thought or extra effort. When you draw the safety just goes off because of how your hands squeeze, just like a grip safety. Which means that the safety isn't going to prevent aimed NDs (where a person drew their gun and pointed it at something, and then fired it without intending to because of a startle reflex or whatever) amongst trained users.

Click to expand...

That is NOT sufficient training, that is WRONG training.

The manual safety should not be flipped off simply by, as you said, "because of how your hands squeeze".


Again, The muscle memory should be to flip off the safety after you have cleared yourself and as you gain site picture (or maybe better said 'have gained site picture' ??) and flip it on before you go to holster.

Aside from that misstatement of 'sufficient training', Is there any type of safety that will prevent a ND in that scenario?

Absent an example of one, Not sure how that point is relevant.

danez71 said:

Again, The muscle memory should be to flip off the safety after you have cleared yourself and as you gain site picture (or maybe better said 'have gained site picture' ??) and flip it on before you go to holster.

Aside from that misstatement of 'sufficient training', Is there any type of safety that will prevent a ND in that scenario

Click to expand...

Not sure why you are making stuff up to argue about. I never said muscle memory or training would be to disengage the safety before you had a sight picture. I said it would be automatic to the point where you didn't need to think about it at all. You chose to assume that it was at some random point but that's your problem. Now you are in a situation where you must be wrong about something: either you are wrong in how you mischaracterized what I said, or we are both wrong about what constitutes proper training. How are you going to handle that?

Ed Ames said:

Not sure why you are making stuff up to argue about. I never said muscle memory or training would be to disengage the safety before you had a sight picture. I said it would be automatic to the point where you didn't need to think about it at all. You chose to assume that it was at some random point but that's your problem. Now you are in a situation where you must be wrong about something: either you are wrong in how you mischaracterized what I said, or we are both wrong about what constitutes proper training. How are you going to handle that?

Click to expand...

I'm not making stuff up or mischaracterizing anything.

I also did not claim that you made that statement..... there is no sense in alluding that I did unless you're "making stuff up or mischaracterizing"

You said:

When you draw the safety just goes off because of how your hands squeeze, just like a grip safety.

Click to expand...

I was addressing that statement.

If youre safety goes off "because of how your hands squeeze, just like a grip safety" then that is not sufficient training.

When exactly it goes off is debatable.

But it shouldn't go off "because of how your hands squeeze, just like a grip safety", as you said above.


The other part was my commentary of when it should go off.... which is why I double spaced it down.... like I did with this statement .... which is topically related but not specifically addressing the part I was quoting of you.

It is a complete mischaracterization to imply that that "the safety goes off because of how your hands squeeze, just like a grip safety" says that the safety is being turned off before you have a sight picture, or that it is somehow poor training.

The grip safety is something you must learn to activate. I've seen many shooters that couldn't fire a 1911 because their grip was wrong. Once you learn, it is completely automatic and not something you think about. Same with a manual safety. If you train properly it takes no effort to disengage a safety. Your thumb is already in position, everything is set up, and the disengage simply happens when it should because that's how your hands squeeze. It takes no more conscious thought than a grip safety. Nor should it. You don't always have time to waste with thoughts about, "should I disengage the safety yet???"

I would agree with Ed on this point. The safety comes off quite early in the draw as the grip gets built... at least for those shooters who are working at speed to go with accuracy.

But that's not really when the safety provides utility. It's not intended to let someone get on the trigger whenever they feel like it. It's for the times when you're handling or carrying the gun but definitely do not want it to fire, such as during holstering. It's like turning off your cell phone when you know you don't want to make or receive a call and don't want to risk a "butt dial" or have your phone ring during court or a funeral or the like.

Except that cell phones take a while to turn back on after being turned off. Safeties can be pushed off faster than you can get from 2 to 3 on a 4-court drawstroke.

Ed Ames said:

It is a complete mischaracterization to imply that that "the safety goes off because of how your hands squeeze, just like a grip safety" says that the safety is being turned off before you have a sight picture, or that it is somehow poor training.

Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say that and I explained this already. You can choose to interpret it that way of you want.

But from what you wrote, are you implying to change your grip on a grip safety gun from the time you grab your gun while its in the holster to sometime after its been pulled from your holster?

Meaning, On a grip safety gun: One grip while youre grabbing the gun in the holster to allow the safety to remain engaged and then change the grip to deactivate the safety while engaging the site picture?


On a manual safety gun you don't have to make significant change in hand grip to move the lever.... just a little thumb movement.

Ed Ames said:

The grip safety is something you must learn to activate. I've seen many shooters that couldn't fire a 1911 because their grip was wrong. Once you learn, it is completely automatic and not something you think about. Same with a manual safety. If you train properly it takes no effort to disengage a safety. Your thumb is already in position, everything is set up, and the disengage simply happens when it should because that's how your hands squeeze. It takes no more conscious thought than a grip safety. Nor should it. You don't always have time to waste with thoughts about, "should I disengage the safety yet???"

Click to expand...

With sufficient training a manual safety ceases to be a manual safety. Muscle memory takes over and it becomes every bit as automatic as a grip safety or trigger blade safety.

Click to expand...

A grip safety is designed to be a passive safety.
A manual safety is not.

It seems that your argument is that muscle memory from sufficient training negates the effectual difference between a manual safety and a passive safety....?

If that's what youre saying then ....I would say that's not sufficient training. We can agree to disagree

danez71 said:

But from what you wrote, are you implying to change your grip on a grip safety gun from the time you grab your gun while its in the holster to sometime after its been pulled from your holster?

Click to expand...

Nope.

danez71 said:

On a manual safety gun you don't have to make significant change in hand grip to move the lever.... just a little thumb movement.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

danez71 said:

A grip safety is designed to be a passive safety.
A manual safety is not.

It seems that your argument is that muscle memory from sufficient training negates the effectual difference between a manual safety and a passive safety....?

Click to expand...

It largely does, yes. The disengage becomes part of presenting the weapon. This is not something I invented, but an extremely commonly taught "best practice". By the time have sights on target you should be at most two actions away from firing (finger on trigger, press). Not my idea, but every credible source I've ever encountered on using single action pistols in a defensive-oriented (whether actual defense or competition based on defensive use) way seems to agree.

If that's what youre saying then ....I would say that's not sufficient training. We can agree to disagree

Click to expand...

If you said it was excessive training I might go along with you. However, it isn't a lack (insufficiency) of training and it isn't wrong training per se. It may be training you disagree with.

Travel distance, IMO. My single action only guns may be similar in weight, but that trigger dont go nearly as far. Makes it easier to have an AD.

That and neglecting to engage to safety would mean I likely neglect to practice to disengage the safety on presentation. Could be a big problem should that safety accidentally become engaged. That said, I'd feel fine with a 1911 or BHP, holsteted, with the safety off in the terms of safety. Leading to...

For everyone, non LEO, worrying about NDs while holstering I have simple advice... LEAVE THE GUN IN THE DANGED HOLSTER. A CCW individual should only need to holster once a day. Take appropriate care at that time to holster safely, the leave the gun alone until it is time to put up. Or, better yet, get a kydex holster with clips and only unholster when shooting. Done. Very little risk.

Drail said:

MT- Lighten up Francis......... You're a Glockboy - we get it.

Click to expand...

But you don't. Sure I like Glocks and that is where my heart lies right now, but I've had SIGs and the obligatory 1911 before. The point is not that I currently drink Glock Kool Aid. The point is that it doesn't matter whether it is a Glock, a 1911, a revolver, or something else. Four Rules apply. Other than that, practice with what you got and more power to you. To discount an entire class of firearm for something a simple as a safety or brand name I think is silly. And to assume that people today are somehow less able to comprehend and apply four simple rules I think is ridiculous. Simple tools with simple rules. If you can do that, it doesn't matter if it is Glock or whatever or whether or not it has a safety. Likewise, if you don't do that, it doesn't matter whether it is a Glock or whatever and whether or not it has a safety. Get it?

Ed Ames said:

It largely does, yes. The disengage becomes part of presenting the weapon. This is not something I invented, but an extremely commonly taught "best practice". By the time have sights on target you should be at most two actions away from firing (finger on trigger, press). Not my idea, but every credible source I've ever encountered on using single action pistols in a defensive-oriented (whether actual defense or competition based on defensive use) way seems to agree.

Click to expand...

Well, sure... but that should occur after you've made the conscious decision that that's the appropriate action.

In, the op talked about for example " chambering a round, hammer back, no safety on, holstering it, and going about their day".

There are numerous examples of when you could be drawing the gun from the holster and have no intention of shooting or maybe no intention of immediately shooting. Those are tings you should be consciously thinking about, when you draw.

Its seems you may be fixated on scenarios of drawing your weapon with the intention of shooting where-as that not what the OP was talking about.

Ed Ames said:

If you said it was excessive training I might go along with you. However, it isn't a lack (insufficiency) of training and it isn't wrong training per se. It may be training you disagree with.

Click to expand...

I never said 'insufficiency' or 'lack of training' either. I don't know why you keep insinuating things that I didn't say.

I would agree with that if excessive training is overshadowing making good conscious decisions, that's bad.


I don't know if it will make a difference or not..... all of my guns have a manual safety. That's what Ive had all my life.

Trigger weight is part of the equation but trigger stroke or travel is important as well.
So is the temptation to maximize the trigger quality potential if the most popular SA Pistols. That's not to say that there isn't an active trade working on bettering striker triggers but by their nature they will continue to be crude by SA standards when it comes to tuning.

X-Rap said:

Trigger weight is part of the equation but trigger stroke or travel is important as well.
So is the temptation to maximize the trigger quality potential if the most popular SA Pistols. That's not to say that there isn't an active trade working on bettering striker triggers but by their nature they will continue to be crude by SA standards when it comes to tuning.

Click to expand...

I think X-Rap lays it out nicely.
I think that weight and travel are how the striker folks figure it, too.

SA triggers tend to be light and short. Need something to make sure it doesn't go bang: Manual Safety.

The other extreme is the DA revolver trigger. Long, heavy: no safeties necessary.

I think that the Striker folks, split the difference. Not nearly as short a trigger pull as an SA, but not as heavy as a DA.

Works for some, but I get my 'warm and fuzzies' from a DA/SA, DA revolver, then a SA with manual safety, then Strikers, and lastly a DA Semi.

To each their own.

danez71 said:

Well, sure... but that should occur after you've made the conscious decision that that's the appropriate action.

Click to expand...

I think the prevailing theory is that if the situation warrants drawing a pistol and pointing it at a perceived threat, the conscious decision should be "point gun at threat and be ready to fire", not, "when should I fiddle with the safety, and where is it on this gun again?"

In, the op talked about for example " chambering a round, hammer back, no safety on, holstering it, and going about their day".

Click to expand...

And I gave a fairly long explanation of why that isn't done with most single action pistols (specifically, that the adjustment to trigger pull needed to balance out the safety equation is seen as increasing risk without removing a significant offsetting negative).

I was specifically replying to something someone said in the thread, not the OP. We were talking about hypothetical momentary safeties (that must be held in place continually, as seen on most power saws), and I was pointing out that - just like the manual safety on a 1911 - the response would be to adjust training to prevent that from slowing response time.

And that's where what I said dovetailed into the OP's question: with sufficient training, the cost of disengaging a manual safety is very hard to measure..you don't need to wiggle your thumb around or look at a safety lever, it just happens because you want it to happen and muscle memory takes over. It is no more difficult or time consuming than engaging an implicit safety such as a trigger blade safety or grip safety.

If a practice doesn't gain you anything, but does cost something (either greater risk, or the need to increase trigger pull) that's a bad trade.

You decided that I must mean take the safety off before the gun leaves the holster, then be sure to sweep a leg or something, and maybe wave it around with a finger on the trigger or something and went on the attack, but you were completely off base.

danez71 said:

I never said 'insufficiency' or 'lack of training' either

Click to expand...

"...then that is not sufficient training.", ...I would say that's not sufficient training."

"Not sufficient" = insufficient = lack of enough (sufficient). So yes, you did say it several times. And yes, I get that you were trying to say that it was "wrong rather than sufficient", but when you repeatedly say something is not sufficient you are asserting a lack even if you also think what there was was incorrect. If it was simply a matter of the kind of training you would say "sufficient training for the wrong action", and if the criticism was quality of training you might say, "maybe a sufficient amount, but not a sufficient quality."

"Not sufficient" = insufficient = lack of enough (sufficient). So yes, you did say it several times. And yes, I get that you were trying to say that it was "wrong rather than sufficient", but when you repeatedly say something is not sufficient you are asserting a lack even if you also think what there was was incorrect. If it was simply a matter of the kind of training you would say "sufficient training for the wrong action", and if the criticism was quality of training you might say, "maybe a sufficient amount, but not a sufficient quality."

Click to expand...

Sufficient = adequate. Adequate = satisfactory or acceptable.
Not sufficient = not satisfactory or not acceptable.

Insufficient = not having or providing enough of what is needed


Not sufficient is not exactly the same as insufficient. Don't insert your own definitions too.


I also said in post 60

That is NOT sufficient training, that is WRONG training.

Click to expand...

So even though you get that I was trying to say it was wrong (noted in bold above), which is really no great feat as i clearly spelled that out for you (quoted above) you chose to argue using a definition of a word that I didn't use.

Nice job.

You decided that I must mean take the safety off before the gun leaves the holster, then be sure to sweep a leg or something, and maybe wave it around with a finger on the trigger or something and went on the attack, but you were completely off base.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. That is a gross exaggeration of epic proportions.


I type one thing and you misread it, grossly exaggerat it, to fit your bias, for what, to accuse me of mischaracterizing what you said?!? Pot, meet kettle.

danez71 said:

Sufficient = adequate. Adequate = satisfactory or acceptable.
Not sufficient = not satisfactory or not acceptable.

Click to expand...

So we're playing thesaurus roulette now? Sigh....

suf·fi·cient
səˈfiSHənt/
adjective & determiner
adjective: sufficient; determiner: sufficient

1. enough;

It is a quantity. "Sufficient funds" means you have enough money.. "Sufficient evidence" means you have enough evidence. While "acceptable" is part of it, the implication is quantity. You offered enough to accept, so it is acceptable.

The prefix "in" means "not" so "not sufficient" and "insufficient" are simply lowbrow and highbrow versions of the same word.

Not sufficient is not exactly the same as insufficient.

Click to expand...

Get thee to a dictionary.

Hint: the definition of "insufficient": "not sufficient; lacking in what is necessary or required."


I guess this answers my question.

drunkenpoacher said:

"I have no idea how we solve this problem short of designing the cell phone so it is inoperative when in a running moving vehicle"
Can and will be done, but young people in mass will give up driving before they give up their phone.
(Slightly of topic)

Click to expand...

Oh, there's an easy way. In the locomotives, we have what we call "the purple box" in the nose around the electronics suite. It's there to detect any cell phone signal within the cab of the locomotive. Get caught using a cell phone (engineer or conductor, doesn't matter) and the FRA can and will slap you with a $100,000.00 fine!!! Yeah, that's a deterrent that stops me from even thinking about using a cell phone when I'm not supposed to!!! Now just apply this to drivers, actually enforce it and see how fast cell phones while driving goes away!!!