Are Manual Safeties on Striker Fired Handguns Heresy??

Homerboy said:

The particulars are in the article I posted. They used the Beretta 92 for years and then brought in the M&P. They didn’t change the training course. They had been taught to not touch the trigger on the Beretta, just as they were taught not to touch the trigger on the M&P. 500% increase in ND’s. The investigation recommended more training for the M&P then what was required for the Beretta. Pretty cut and dry. Same training with different gun resulted in more ND’s with the new gun.

Click to expand...

If all you know is a heavy trigger on the first, or maybe all rounds, and then you go to a different gun, and are given no real training and chance to learn and figure the new gun out, what do you expect?

That IS a training issue.

It also reinforces whats been said about police and military not being the best place to learn to shoot or handle firearms. People are expecting Top Gun performance from the lowest possible denominator, with really just basic training.

Kleanbore said:

I think the trigger is a much bigger issue.

We are told that that was not the issue. People using handguns under stress touch the trigger for reassurance--even when trained to never do so.

Click to expand...

He’s just gonna say “well, then they’re training wasn’t as good as their training should have been. They should have trained to be a better trained shooter”

trackskippy said:

If all you know is a heavy trigger on the first, or maybe all rounds, and then you go to a different gun, and are given no real training and chance to learn and figure the new gun out, what do you expect?

That IS a training issue.

It also reinforces whats been said about police and military not being the best place to learn to shoot or handle firearms. People are expecting Top Gun performance from the lowest possible denominator, with really just basic training.

Click to expand...

it wasn’t only with veterans who switched guns. It was also on new recruits. And what is there to figure out? They had been trained to not touch the trigger. Despite that training, they did. On the Beretta, that resulted in 500% less ND’s than on the M&P.

Kleanbore said:

We are not discussing shooting well. The subject is negligent discharges.

Click to expand...

Handling and shooting go together, do they not?

Homerboy said:

He’s just gonna say “well, then they’re training wasn’t as good as their training should have been. They should have trained to be a better trained shooter”


it wasn’t only with veterans who switched guns. It was also on new recruits. And what is there to figure out? They had been trained to not touch the trigger. Despite that training, they did. On the Beretta, that resulted in 500% less ND’s than on the M&P.

Click to expand...

OK, so whos fault is that then? Do you qualify people who have problems, or do you address the training?

And Im must think a lot differently than some, but I do believe it IS your responsibility to train to be the best shooter you can possibly be. For your sake, and others.

BobinNC said:

Or are they? Why not have a manual safety on a Glock, or a Sig (Wait Sig does have them, as does S&W) or whatever polymer wonder pistola you carry. Except Glock of course, cause Gaston won't let you have a choice, right??

If you don't need them, then why does the US Military buy them in the 100's of thousands and insist their Soldiers, Sailors and Marines must have manual safeties on their pistols??

Yes, I know SOCOM buys Glocks and other stuff without them, but how many of us has anywhere near their skill and training?? Damn few.....

Click to expand...

Retired military and former Special Forces Weapons Sergeant here. I have a certain amount of experience -- not nearly as much as some -- but I've been around enough to have an opinion. Here goes. When the mission is to close on and eliminate a threat -- e.g. situations soldiers and cops may find themselves in -- then a high-capacity autoloader with no safety and several magazines is called for (in addition to any shoulder-fired weapon of course). As a civilian out for pizza in the 'burbs with my family, my objective would be to merely break contact and get my charges out of the kill zone -- I'm certainly not going to be closing on anyone. Hence, a five shot snubbie .38 is sufficient. Maybe a .40 cal Shield with manual safety would be better. But I'm certainly not going to be routinely toting a charged striker gun in appendix carry. That's just goofy Rambo fantasy stuff that's gonna get your pecker blown off or rip open your femoral artery on the day when your phone rings just as you're holstering your gun.

Can't win.
If you have a safety you will "forget" to disengage it and can't shoot when you need to.
If you don't have a safety you will shoot somebody who doesn't deserve it or even yourself.

We hear a lot about training but how about re-training or even practice? Coaches are expensive, ammo is expensive, especially now in the panicdemic.
Unless you are a real enthusiast or maybe a very high end AGE who expects to use his pistol offensively, you are probably not getting the work you need to stay sharp.

trackskippy said:

Handling and shooting go together, do they not?

OK, so whos fault is that then? Do you qualify people who have problems, or do you address the training?

And Im must think a lot differently than some, but I do believe it IS your responsibility to train to be the best shooter you can possibly be. For your sake, and others.

Click to expand...

It is the fault of the shooter, no doubt. But the level of competency you are striving for takes thousands of training hours and big money. Shooting every week at a range doesn’t matter.

people make mistakes. The trick is to minimize those inevitable mistakes. A light trigger with no safety increases the likelihood of those mistakes resulting in a ND at best, and preventing injuries or death

Professional shooters and combat tested veterans have made mistakes. Bill Jordan shot and killed another agent. Guy had been in many shootings. Competition shooter. Killed a guy. He made a mistake. You think he didn’t have enough training? How much do you have? How much actual certified training have you been through that makes you so confident in your abilities? We all accept a certain amount of risk in life. It’s unavoidable. The key is to mitigate that risk as much as possible. For some it’s carrying a weapon with a heavier trigger. For others it’s a manual safety. Some people who own and carry striker fired guns never even take it from the holster. It sits there and gathers dust. So for them, that Glock is no more likely to be used when an ND happens. For others, they holster and unholster
Daily. Sometimes several times. They leave in a sock drawer or on a nightstand, to be grabbed from a dead sleep if the alarm goes off in the middle of the night. For them, it’s not such a good idea.

Everyone makes mistakes. The whole point is to minimize that. That takes work on your part. You dont have to spend a bazillion dollars in money and ammo, but just invest a little time each day at reinforcing good things in good and proper practice, both handling and trigger work.

You get out of this what you put in. If you arent willing to do the work, a couple more manual safeties arent going to make any difference, and in some cases might even be your downfall.

BobinNC said:

How else should have I interpreted your post with things like : "The US Military is not necessarily to best folks to go by for handguns." and "And the folks who set the firearm as contract award criteria are NOT firearms people."

It certainly was not an sterling endorsement of the militaries selection of pistols by you, that's for sure. And sorry, I was not rude, nor did I call you names. And if I didn't interpret your post correctly, then rephrase it, rather than call me lousy reader for codifying what your appeared to intend by alleging the military as a less than competent small arms procurer.

An you also changed your post, after I made my rebuttal. But I didn't quote you, so my bad.

I'm sorry if I offend your delicate sensibilities.

Click to expand...

The military buys handguns for their general population, the vast majority of whom rarely carry or shoot them and aren’t really well trained to use them. If things have changed in the last few years and I’m wrong, I’d be surprised.

That’s why they buy handguns with safeties and don’t allow loaded chamber carry in garrison for anyone but a few (police, etc.)

when I changed my post, I did it to clarify, not delete anything.

Finally, about my “delicate sensibilities”…you’re the poster with the buttache. I responded to your OP and then you infer I don’t know what’s up in the DOD when it’s you who have little understanding of the current weapons procurement program or authorized use procedures. Military bases anymore are basically “gun free” zones. Most service men and women are NOT gun handlers. And that is a primary reason that the external safety requirement was a condition during the service pistol solicitation.

Again, these are today’s reality.

Jim Watson said:

But then Herr Glock's people decided that a uniformly bad trigger would be adequately safe.

Click to expand...

That's great!

And if the standard Glock trigger isn't safe enough, you can add an NY-1 trigger return spring and make it even worse. This is what I chose to do, but with a lighter connector. It's got more weight all the way through the trigger pull, but breaks only slightly heavier than a standard glock trigger.

trackskippy said:

Everyone makes mistakes. The whole point is to minimize that. That takes work on your part. You dont have to spend a bazillion dollars in money and ammo, but just invest a little time each day at reinforcing good things in good and proper practice, both handling and trigger work.

You get out of this what you put in. If you arent willing to do the work, a couple more manual safeties arent going to make any difference, and in some cases might even be your downfall.

Click to expand...

you get out what you put in, true. Problem is the vast majority of people who carry a gun don’t put in that time, and striker fired guns are literally marketed as being “so simple even a caveman can do it”.
As for another couple of safeties (I assume you’re including a longer trigger press in that number) preventing mistakes, they have. Ask the LASD with their 500% increase. And since a shot NOT fired accidentally does not get reported, those numbers are even higher.

Well it seems clear that rifles should not have manual safeties and instead kept in scabbards until ready to be used for hunting & stressful situations.

Homerboy said:

you get out what you put in, true. Problem is the vast majority of people who carry a gun don’t put in that time, and striker fired guns are literally marketed as being “so simple even a caveman can do it”.
As for another couple of safeties (I assume you’re including a longer trigger press in that number) preventing mistakes, they have. Ask the LASD with their 500% increase. And since a shot NOT fired accidentally does not get reported, those numbers are even higher.

Click to expand...

I agree, the vast number of people don't put in enough time to even be proficient with what they carry, even those in an industry that requires them to be carried. But that isn't any fault of the gun.

If you are the problem, how can you blame the gun or say its unsafe? Either address the problem, or don't carry the gun you're uncomfortable with. If you're forced to use one you are, take the time and make the effort to learn to use it. That to me seems like the logical step, and would be a win win for everyone.

Or, is that too much work?

danez71 said:

Well it seems clear that rifles should not have manual safeties and instead kept in scabbards until ready to be used for hunting & stressful situations.

Click to expand...

Or, maybe all handguns need safeties and clips or slings and we throw out all our holsters.

Edit: save me a bunch of money. Or would have

Wow. 4 pages of discussion in under 24 hours. I guess people had their posts all ready because, IIRC, there have been at least two lengthy threads on this subject in the past six weeks or less.

In this thread, the OP still does not grasp the difference between a striker-fired pistol and one with a Glock-style trigger mechanism. These are two different things. On the other hand, he has introduced the concept of heresy, which serves to emphasize how much of this discussion is based on personal opinions and just plain faith. That kind of clears things up.

After glancing through this thread, I don't have anything new to say. I will read it more closely and try to learn something. That's what a thread like this is for, I guess - to educate and persuade.

I grew up shooting long guns, so flipping the safety off (or cocking the hammer) as I shouldered the gun became second nature. It didn’t matter what kind of mechanism it was, the reflex of doing some mechanical function when preparing to fire was there. My pet peeve with a thumb safety on handguns is when it’s smaller than a tic tac. If that’s the case, I would opt for a heavy trigger pull instead.

An interesting combination is having a grip safety and no thumb safety. This allows the trigger to be deactivated when holstering, so it’s a good middle ground.

trackskippy said:

I agree, the vast number of people don't put in enough time to even be proficient with what they carry, even those in an industry that requires them to be carried. But that isn't any fault of the gun.

If you are the problem, how can you blame the gun or say its unsafe? Either address the problem, or don't carry the gun you're uncomfortable with. If you're forced to use one you are, take the time and make the effort to learn to use it. That to me seems like the logical step, and would be a win win for everyone.

Or, is that too much work?

Click to expand...

If you agree that the vast majority of people don’t put in the work, then you should agree that a striker fired weapon with no safety is a bad fit for those people. Only problem is striker fired weapons are the norm now, and not the exception, and they are directly marketed to those who want to put forward as little effort as possible.

All that being g said, the OP asked why is it considered heresy to have a safety on a striker fired weapon, and as usual, most of those against them have no other argument other than “get some training”. The real question is why is it so frowned upon? And for me, the answer is obvious. Because for the last 30 years, the company who makes that one particular product (other companies offer their products in both options) have been telling the gullible public they don’t need them, and the gullible public bought it hook, line and sinker. The truth is having a safety adds zero time to getting the gun ready to fire, can and has prevented ND’s, and people who claim to be so well trained that their finger would never accidentally touch the trigger, or nothing would ever get caught in the trigger guard, can’t seem to be as supremely competent in flicking off a switch.

Have the antis pushed for millions of perfectly good pistols to be retrofitted with a thumb safety yet? At the owners expense of course. Anything to burden legal gun owners.

Personally when I decided to start carrying I owned a DA/SA pistol with a slide mounted manual safety/decocker. I discovered I didn't like the slide mounted safety (it just felt wrong & awkward). I wound up going to a XD with a grip safety. Then a True Double Action without a safety and so on. Now 99% of the time I carry a M&P 2.0 without a safety. In my mind it is just one less thing to be concerned about. I have never had an issue with the up for safe/down for fire safety of the 1911. As others have stated as long as I carry my pistol in a quality holster that covers the trigger guard I am fine. If I am out shooting & practicing from the holster I do make it a point to look the pistol into the holster when reholstering. I don't have an issue with anyone who wants a manual safety on their pistol whatever type it is. We all make the choice we believe to be best for ourselves.
The use of the word heresy makes me wonder if safeties on pistols is a religious issue for the OP.

In one on-line video, it was said of the Glock
style pistols "there's good news and bad news.
The good news is they are easy to shoot. The
bad news is they are easy to shoot."