Anyone else thinks that manual safeties go on the frame?

While there may be some good reasons to put a safety/decocker on the slide, I just don’t like them there and for my needs, they are in the wrong place.

I just recently got rid of my last gun with a slide mounted decocker. 1911s, CZs, and Sigs work just fine for me, and I shoot them better as they provide a more repeatable index at speed.

You can get used to and very good with anything if you train enough, but I just don’t need them in my life.

As long as they deactivate by being pushed down, and are easily accessed by the thumb, it doesn't matter. My Makarov's safety pushes down, even though it is on the slide, so I'm fine with it.

CDW4ME said:

OP is not a fan of the Beretta 92

Click to expand...

The Beretta 92 safety is the reason I sold my 92 and used that cash to get a CZ 75 with a de-cocker.

Poking the Beretta safety off with my thumb was always an iffy thing for me compared to a sweep down motion of a frame safety.

I don't necessarily need a safety lever on my guns, if the gun was designed not to have one. But for guns designed to have a manual safety, a sweep down lever is superior for me. And a sweep down de-cocker like on a CZ (that doesn't slam the hammer down) is a good choice for me as well.

Peter Gun said:

Agree. It’s the only thing that keeps me from buying fourth gen s&w autos

Click to expand...

Exactly. A fine near classic all metal autoloader that I want to buy, but they have that safety lever on the slide that isn't easy for me to hit consistently.

This. Anything else is silly.

Obturation said:

I agree. If there is to be a safety, it belongs in the frame.

Click to expand...

CNobbe said:

H&K USPs, HK45, FN FNX guns all have frame mounted safety/decock combo.

Click to expand...

As do the Taurus PT 92/99 series from the early '90s on ...

I was issued the H&K USP for a while. Although I came up as a dedicated 1911-shooter, I never had the issue of pressing the control lever (that's what we called it) down to de-cock while firing, and I don't remember ever seeing it happen to anyone else during many, many training session involving multiple officers. If a handgun is to have a safety/de-cocker, I prefer this style.

But, after years of shooting 3rd generation S&W pistols and the M-9, I can't say that I despise the slide-mounted safety/de-cocker at all. I've always been fairly aware of which pistol platform I happen to be carrying, and though I'd never claim that a brain-fart would never occur at the worst possible time, I've never obsessed about the difference. Certainly given the choice, I'll go with a frame-mounted safety, but since all the slide-mounted safety pistols I've used can be de-cocked and then the safety left off, leaving one with a condition 1, double-action first shot pistol such as the SIG P-Series, I don't get wrapped around the axle on this topic.

Tomorrow: a rear-engine Corvette? Tragic mistake, or evolution of a classic?

Well, speaking as an engineer, "form follows function".

Exactly how any given safety functions determines in large part the form in which it takes.

I suppose an attorney might say "form follows patent" on the legal side.

Designs are also patent protected, which drives designers and manufacturers to deliberately develop their own designs in order to avoid patent infringements.

And some are likely simply preferential designs based on the designer and/or market demands.

Take the Mossberg 500 and Remington 870. Two shotguns that, for all practical purposes, are identical. The Mossberg safety is thumb operated on top while the Remington safety is trigger operated at the trigger guard.

What do YOU want or like?

Well...how were you raised? How big are your hands? How do you hold/shoot your firearm? What is esthetically appealing to you? What do you already own? What are your historical interests in firearms?

All these, and more, figure in to what any given person likes about any given gun or gun feature.

And the real beauty of it all is there are so many different designs out there to choose from.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS.

i prefer frame mounted safeties because my hands are average sized, but cannot consistently manipulate a slide mounted safety on a full sized service pistol. So I’d rather stay consistent and with what works FOR ME. Or no safety at all.

Is the safety on a Glock (the blade in the trigger) considered a frame safety ?

nofendertom said:

Is the safety on a Glock (the blade in the trigger) considered a frame safety ?

Click to expand...

No. Thats a trigger safety.
AKA .... wait for it ....


Perfection.

There are many different options in firearms and everybody should find and use what they prefer. However, when I read posts like this...

Sovblocgunfan said:

i prefer frame mounted safeties because my hands are average sized, but cannot consistently manipulate a slide mounted safety on a full sized service pistol.

Click to expand...

... it makes me think of somebody that says they won't choose a Glock or other striker fired gun for carry, because they don't want to have to rack the slide to chamber a round after they draw the gun.

All I can say to both is ... you're doing it wrong.

nofendertom said:

Is the safety on a Glock (the blade in the trigger) considered a frame safety ?

Click to expand...

This isn't a "safety" at all, in the sense of a manual safety.

It's actually a "drop safety".

This device does absolutely nothing with respect to placing the firearm in a manual "safe" condition. It does not block the trigger from actuating the striker in any way if you pull it or if anything else gets within the trigger guard to place a force on the trigger in the place of a finger. It does nothing mechanically to physically disconnect or block the firing pin from the striker mechanism.

In short, it really does nothing more than the trigger on my Colt 1991A1 does for safety. If I put my finger on it and pull, both guns will fire. If I get something in the trigger guard and exert a force on the trigger, both guns will fire.

People use the term "safety" with the Glock trigger the same way people use the term "safety" with the Colt 1911 "grip safety". The Colt "grip safety" is a drop-safe design feature, added to the firearm at the request of the Army who wished to ensure the gun would not go off if a cavalry rider dropped it. (The design itself was from JMB to meet the Army's functional request.) The "grip safety" of the Colt is not a manual safety which can be engaged to positively prevent firing the weapon regardless of pressure on the trigger in any way. If you otherwise hold the Colt in your hand in a proper grip and squeeze the trigger, the gun will fire.

I like frame-mounted safeties, like the Taurus, better than the slide-mounted kind like the Beretta has.

Old Dog said:

As do the Taurus PT 92/99 series from the early '90s on ...

I was issued the H&K USP for a while. Although I came up as a dedicated 1911-shooter, I never had the issue of pressing the control lever (that's what we called it) down to de-cock while firing, and I don't remember ever seeing it happen to anyone else during many, many training session involving multiple officers.

Click to expand...

I never have either. I cannot decock my HK45 or FNX 45 unless I change my grip on them to get my thumb into position while also using enough force to actually push the levers down.

whm1974 said:

Now I have a big beef with with quite a few modern auto loaders pistols, such as the safety on the slide instead the frame where it actually belongs. Safety should also be UP for Safe and DOWN for Fire.

How come this not standard on all pistols that have manual safeties?

Another issue I have ID with a few handguns, such the Star 9mm my stepfather used to have, is that the decocker only slide a thin piece of metal between the hammer and firing pin, you then pull the trigger to actually decock it. At the time(and still do) I thought this is really a dangerous way to do this.

Now I am not saying that the JMB 1911 design is the very best of all time...

Click to expand...

This gets over-done. I also like the safety on the frame, but I have:

Beretta 92 (a pair)
S&W (a 39-2, a pair of 5906's, a 915)
Star 30M
FEG AP7 (Walther PP clone)
Makarov
Radom P64

these all have the safety on the slide.

CDW4ME said:

No. Thats a trigger safety.
AKA .... wait for it ....


Perfection.

Click to expand...

Post 40..and....

I had no issue with my Walther PP and the slide safety/decocker; in fact it worked wonderfully; personally, I find it slower to have to move my thumb up and over a safety and then bring it down to make the gun ready to fire as opposed to sweeping it uo while drawing.........but that's just ME, YMMV

The proliferation of really good and different designs makes this a nonissue for me. It’s strictly preference at this point.

Humans are very adaptable.
I learned on Colts and consider the frame mounted safety catch convenient to the right thumb as normal.
M. Ayoob teaches to leave the dingus down on a Beretta (Walther type) slide safety and to learn the move to disengage it.

Smith and Wesson made a lot of pistols with Walther safety/decockers and even a couple with levers on the slide where they were already set up to manufacture but without a decocking function. The Model 745 is single action and the slide safety lever is extended for disengagement on the draw once you have learned the thumb stab. The only use I know for the slide lever on my Model 52 is as a firing pin block for dry fire practice.

I read Ray Ordorica to describe the possibility of inadvertently decocking a HK USP by riding the Variant 1 control lever and mentioned it to the HK representative at the NRA show. He sloughed me off, of course, but I later read that they had stiffened the detent between Fire and Decock. I later bought one and sure enough, my normal hand pressure on the lever did not decock it by grip or recoil.

HK has made a lot of peculiar safeties. Apparently they put them where it is convenient to control the machinery with little consideration of the shooter operating them.

I’ve been shooting Beretta’s and S&W 3rd gens for over 25 years. Easily owned 15 of them. I’m left with 3. And in all that time, there has not been ONE time that the frame mounted safety got in the way or was accidentally engaged or disengaged when it shouldn’t have.

I don’t carry them anymore, although my house gun is a S&W 5903. Lighter guns are better for carry. Either a Ruger LC9S or a S&W M&P Shield or Compact. All with manual safety on the frame. Took a little bit of getting used to after years with frame mounted, but transitioned easily enough.

There’s no “wrong” spot for a safety. I can easily manipulate either safety on the draw. It’s just getting used to what you have.

sparkyv said:

This. Anything else is silly.

Click to expand...

No.
I carry sa/da , such as a Beretta PX4 Storm , with a slide mounted decocker/safety. I carry with round chambered , hammer down , safety off. Draw , pull trigger , bang. No safety to release after the draw. I can easily live with the first shot being da.

Not silly , preference.
Berettas suck. That's why I have 5 of them. Had a few 3rd gen Smiths too. I was dropped on my head as a toddler , resulting in my inability to resist buying guns that suck.

Why all the fuss regarding slide mounted safeties? If you don't like 'em , don't buy 'em.

Safety smafty, I just put bullets into the round thing and pull the dang trigger.