Manual safety: A big deal?

This subject has been beat to death. You'll get plenty of strong opinions both ways. I would recommend paying for a good 2-3 day defensive handgun class. This will help you come at this question from a more educated position, which is quite useful when discussing these subjects with folks of unknown credentials on a forum.

The only reason not to have a manual safety is if you fear you will forget to flip it off in a dangerous situation. I think that's why law enforcement favors DA pistols with no safety. It's more up to you to decide than someone else.

After 100 responses, it will still end up being a matter of personal preference, rather than a right or wrong answer.

Tallball said:

After 100 responses, it will still end up being a matter of personal preference, rather than a right or wrong answer.

Click to expand...

That's because there isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer . . . .

cackalak said:

Thanks, fellas. I guess I should have searched more. I’ll keep digging and read up. Try a defensive class as well.

Click to expand...

This is the last on the subject (of many threads over the years) that I remember seeing. You probably already found it.

Not exactly a manual safety point, but Ernest Langdon mentions "it is the distance the finger moves for that first shot, that keeps us safe".


With your revolver, you don't have a manual safety, but you have a long double action trigger pull, that keeps you safe. If you have a short, light trigger pull, perhaps a manual safety can provide a layer of safety that type of trigger doesn't offer that your revolver does.

I would not carry a 1911 in Condition 0 with the hammer cocked and the safety off.

I'm fine with folks with striker fired guns that prefer no manual safety on their guns, just like I'm fine with folks that prefer a manual safety on their guns. It is a personal choice. There are no perfect guns. Everything is a compromise. You get to choose what you value most.

It is my guess a bunch of Glock owners are absolutely uninterested in talking about negligent discharges and Glocks!

Enough have happened, and will happen that the aftermarket is responding:










Every so often a report pops up in the press on another Glock/striker fired pistol putting a hole in the side of its owner. I am sure what happened in this negligent discharge

Oregon gun fanatic shoots self in groin while showing off gun in supermarket checkout line

was a shirt tail hooking itself around the trigger as the pistol was being holstered.


I remember back in the 1980's handling a Glock and I was impressed with the advancement of manufacturing technology. But the trigger, that trigger, well this is the safety:






That safety is easily moved, and then the mechanism is easily fired. That is when I decided, I did not want a Glock. Since then, I heard and read a number of reports of striker fired pistols are going off . These pistols are only "safe" inside a stiff holster than blocks access to the trigger, and yet there are posts out there showing negligent discharges when holsters bend. A guy showed the hole in his car seat, his leather holster bent, pressed on the trigger, and bang! It does not take much work to find discharges when striker fired pistols hit the ground. The SIGP320 has videos on this. I was collecting Cop lawsuits on the SIG P320, many Cops have been shot with their service SIG P320's.

I do not want one of these striker fired pistols, because I believe the risk of having a negligent discharge is too high.I want pistols that are safe by themselves, these striker fired pistols require ancillary equipment (holsters, aftermarket trigger blocks, gun cases) to be "safe". If the holster fails, then the gun is unsafe. I do not believe I am immortal, indestructible, invincible, nor perfect. Handling procedures can mitigate the risk of an accidental discharge, but the basic design has not changed. I never liked the idea of procedures being developed to compensate for dangerous designs. Eventually the dangerous design reveals itself. I am sure that is why the squeeze cocker pistol quickly disappeared.


In theory, the shooter squeezes the front grip and then pulls the trigger. If need be. Simple right? Squeeze grip first. Trigger later. Well I found that if you pulled the trigger first and then squeezed the front strap, the pistol would fire. It is my theory that someone under stress got the sequence wrong and shot someone who did not need to be dead. Plus the fact a squeeze cocker was a very expensive to build. It disappeared very quickly and lucky buds were able to buy like new Cop guns. A hasty decommissioning ought to be a clue that something went wrong.

And so it begins. It has been beat to death with differing opinions. The safety is in your head and a good holster...

I like draw, point, shoot, simplicity which sounds like a revolver; but, I like capacity too so now it sounds like Glock.
If I carried a 1911 then I'd have a manual safety; I don't see the need on a Glock.
I've been carrying Glocks since 1992 so 30 years factors on my opinion / preference.

LOL. If you listen to the internet, you'd think Glocks were the only guns ever to have unintended discharges. I guess all those that happened prior to Glocks showing up, were erased from the history books and that took the heat off, and all the blame gets put on Glocks and other similar guns.

Ive seen plenty of people using/carrying guns like 1911's, SIG, Beretta DA guns, etc, with all sorts of supposed safties and actions screw up and do stupid things. This isnt about the gun, its about the careless user, pure and simple. You cant make up for stupidity or lack of attention, education, training, etc., thats all on the shooter.

And this is just another reason why its good to continually learn, and especially with guns youre not familiar with. Pretty much all the silly arguments over this and that would go away, and hopefully, people would be a good bit safer. I know its a stretch to get people on board with stuff like that, but I really see no other way.

As always, its not the guns fault, no matter what it is, if you cant shoot it well, and be safe with it. Thats all on you.

My opinion is to do what makes you comfortable, and practice with it.

JohnKSa said:

Why bother with a gun that doesn't fit you?

Unless, I suppose, it's only for fun at the range and you really like it. And if it's only for fun at the range, advice about manual safeties intended for carry/self-defense guns doesn't really apply.

Click to expand...

Not saying this sepcifically about the OP, or Glocks, but in many (perhaps most) cases, untrained shooters don't know what gun does and does not fit them. It's not something that can necessarily be determined by someone who doesn't really know how to use that type of weapon.

bearcreek said:

Not saying this sepcifically about the OP, or Glocks, but in many (perhaps most) cases, untrained shooters don't know what gun does and does not fit them. It's not something that can necessarily be determined by someone who doesn't really know how to use that type of weapon.

Click to expand...

This is very true even with single action hammer fired pistols with two safeties. The US Army made everyone carry the M1911 with an empty chamber because a few GI's that didn't use their heads had accidental/negligent discharges.

Tallball said:

After 100 responses, it will still end up being a matter of personal preference, rather than a right or wrong answer.

Click to expand...

JDeere said:

And so it begins. It has been beat to death with differing opinions. The safety is in your head and a good holster...

Click to expand...

I totally agree with what both have said. And yes this horse has been beaten to death multiple times. The simple answer is to practice safe gun handling, use your head, and go with what you are most comfortable with. Again no right or wrong answer here.

My first pistol was issued to me by Uncle Sam which was the 1911A1. I also have plenty of other single action hammer fired pistols too. I trained to sweep the safety off as I draw them and I even do that with my striker fired pistols with no safety at all. It doesn't take any longer to draw and sweep the safety and it has become second nature for me with all of my training over the years. And I carry my single action pistols cocked and locked without any issues. just like I have no issues carrying my Glock and other striker fired pistols without safeties.

CDW4ME said:

I like draw, point, shoot, simplicity which sounds like a revolver; but, I like capacity too so now it sounds like Glock.
If I carried a 1911 then I'd have a manual safety; I don't see the need on a Glock.
I've been carrying Glocks since 1992 so 30 years factors on my opinion / preference.

Click to expand...

I'm currently reading that book. And according to Norm Hooten this actually happened (kind of).

Apparently Delta's rule on post was to carry their weapons with the hammer down on an empty chamber. The safety on an M16 will not engage with the hammer down.

Hooten tried to explain that to Captain Steele, who wasn't having any.

According to Hooten, he finally got tired of the whole thing and told Steele "You worry about your gun I'll worry about mine." and he walked away.

Hooten retired shortly after returning from Somalia.

Steele apparently got in trouble in Iraq for telling soldiers in his battalion to kill every Iraqi male that they saw of military age. An accusation he vehemently denies

bearcreek said:

Not saying this sepcifically about the OP, or Glocks, but in many (perhaps most) cases, untrained shooters don't know what gun does and does not fit them. It's not something that can necessarily be determined by someone who doesn't really know how to use that type of weapon.

Click to expand...

And even if you do, sometimes learning even an awkward gun can change your mind.

I sure changed my opinion once I just learned Glocks, same with DA/SA triggers. Learning both made me a better shooter

As others have said, I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer. If you do decide to carry a gun with a safety make sure to practice disengaging it until doing so becomes automatic, for lack of a better term. There's about a dozen of us who volunteer as armed security for our church and we train a couple of times per month. I saw one of our members who normally shoots a gun with no safety try a 1911 during a drill. He forgot to disengage the safety and it took a couple of seconds for him to realize why the gun didn't fire, obviously not something you want to happen if you're in a SD scenario.

JTQ said:

I would not carry a 1911 in Condition 0 with the hammer cocked and the safety off.

Click to expand...

When I was carrying my Colt Government .380, the thumb safety detent was pretty weak... there was more than one day when I got home and found the safety knocked off. The .380 does not have a grip safety like it's bigger brothers... so the thumb safety was it, and that was even considering it was a Series 80. I set out to replace it... and not only because of the weak safety.

I now carry a Kahr... a pistol with NO safety whatsoever... go figure.

cackalak said:

Well, last year, I decided to pick up a Glock. My friends all swear by them, so I went to a gun show and purchased one.

After having it for a bit, I’m not too enthralled with it. It shoots fine. But the grip angle is awkward. And there is no manual safety.

Click to expand...

I'll be the first to say the Glock is a fine firearm, a marvel of engineering, with an insanely strong aftermarket. Having said that... I don't own one, and likely never will. I don't like the trigger, I don't like the grip angle. For that matter, I don't like pistols with trigger dongles, period... so that eliminates a whole bunch of pistols for me. No manual safety is the least of my worries...

cackalak said:

Hello, I’ve been a member here for a bit.

I’ve mostly been in the revolvers and rifle sections, because that’s all I’ve had.

Well, last year, I decided to pick up a Glock. My friends all swear by them, so I went to a gun show and purchased one.

After having it for a bit, I’m not too enthralled with it. It shoots fine. But the grip angle is awkward. And there is no manual safety.

I’ve been reading up and watching some videos on it. And it appears some of the professionals and well-experienced folks do recommend a manual safety (ie Ayoob).

But those folks are pros who are around and use firearms every day. For casual hobbiest and shooter like myself, how big of a deal is it to have a manual safety?

My rifles all have it (except the black powder), but never had to deal with one shooting revolver all my life.

Thanks for any input.

Click to expand...

For me, a necessity.

Of my 8 autoloaders 6 are 1911's.
2 are Springfield's (XD9, XDM 40)
I am so accustomed to 1911's that when I pick up an XD my thumb swipes the non existent safety.
If you have a handgun with a manual safety, train (a lot) with it. Done right and your brain will take over in a stressful situation.

Manual safety: A big deal?​

Only to those who fall into one of the two camps:

- Those that believe handguns without manual safeties are begging for a negligent discharge and are the primary firearms that contribute to the majority of all negligent discharges,

- Those that believe that, for whatever reason, a competent gun owner cannot train enough for the inevitable occurrence of not being able to take his/her handgun off-safe in a lethal force encounter.

I would say that in my experience, the majority of those that argue against carrying a handgun with a manual safety seem to be Glock owners/fans. And many who argue for the manual safety seem to have come up as 1911 shooters, and cannot understand what all the fuss is about. I'm over it.

(I told myself I wouldn't get sucked into another one of these threads, but... just... cannot... resist posting anyway)

If you train with that Glock and adhere to the basic rules of firearm safety, you will be fine. As far as the ghrip angle, there are aftermarkey attachments that will can be installed and make that angle closer to what most other pistols have.