Dumb Question about S&W Auto triggers

Yes, it's the "Smock" trigger safety, same as the Glock blade in the middle.

rc

For the life of me, I don't see how these trigger safeties are supposed to help anything. It would be helpful as a drop safety but I'm fairly sure they have additional features for that. It wouldn't be any different if it were a solid trigger. Put something in front of the trigger and pull rearward, be it a finger or a shoestring, and the gun fires.

It's a drop safety, nothing more.

Actually, the trigger safety on a Glock or S&W has nothing at all to do with drop safety.

The drop safety is a plunger inside the slide that locks the firing pin / striker from moving foreward unless the trigger is fully pulled to the rear to cock the striker and release it.

It is only a feel-good safety to try to prevent snagged clothing or holster edge, or an errant finger from pulling it against the striker cocking force while re-holstering or whatever.

rc

rcmodel said:

Actually, the trigger safety on a Glock or S&W has nothing at all to do with drop safety.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The drop safety is a plunger inside the slide that locks the firing pin / striker from moving

Click to expand...

PARTLY true. The plunger prevents movement of the striker when the gun hits a hard surface muzzle down.

unless the trigger is fully pulled to the rear to cock the striker and release it.

Click to expand...

And here is where the trigger safety plays its part: if the gun was dropped so it'd hit muzzle up, from a sufficient height where the weight of the trigger powered by the inertia of the fall, it would overcome the trigger spring, etc, and fully depress, firing the gun. The trigger safety prevents this highly unlikely occurrence, but it is a trigger safety.

Just for reference, Glocks own website states "The trigger safety is designed to protect against firing if the pistol is dropped or the trigger is subjected to lateral pressure."

So it's both a drop safety and an attempt at an anti-snag safety.

if the gun was dropped so it'd hit muzzle up, from a sufficient height where the weight of the trigger powered by the inertia of the fall, it would overcome the trigger spring, etc, and fully depress, firing the gun

Click to expand...

I'm thinking this would never happen. Even if you dropped the gun from sufficient height for it to reach terminal velocity, and it struck perfectly muzzle up so that the inertia of the trigger acted in a "pulling the trigger" sense, I just don't see a piece of plastic that weighs a fraction of an ounce overcoming a 6-lbs trigger pull of sufficient length. The momentum just isn't there.

In my honest opinion, it should not legally classify as a safety device and they should be required to provide an external manual safety. I really dislike the complete lack of safety on many striker-fired pistols.

Believe what you will Wolf, but I won't own a pistol that has a manual safety. I believe in the KISS principle and an extrenuous safety doesn't fit that bill. People have NDs with 1911s and Glocks, the problem can't be fixed by a piece of hardware. I also don't think there should be any restriction. Decisions like that should be consumer-driven, not industry-mandated.

To answer the OP, this is basically S&Ws way of using a trigger safety that doesn't interfere with Glock patents. I've read they got in trouble in the past. So even though the trigger safety is fair game now, S&W is a bit nervous about using the Glock style. Most people that I've read reviews from either hate or tolerate the S&W safety. The only people that seem to like it are APEX, because it gives them an excuse to sell a real PFSF trigger.

holdencm9 said:

I'm thinking this would never happen. Even if you dropped the gun from sufficient height for it to reach terminal velocity, and it struck perfectly muzzle up so that the inertia of the trigger acted in a "pulling the trigger" sense, I just don't see a piece of plastic that weighs a fraction of an ounce overcoming a 6-lbs trigger pull of sufficient length. The momentum just isn't there.

Click to expand...

Seems I recall they did testing and found the height required was at least 20 some feet. It's possible, but not probable.

Which brings us back to:

It is only a feel-good safety to try to prevent snagged clothing or holster edge, or an errant finger from pulling it against the striker cocking force while re-holstering or whatever.

Click to expand...

. In my honest opinion, it should not legally classify as a safety device and they should be required to provide an external manual safety. I really dislike the complete lack of safety on many striker-fired pistols.

Click to expand...

The fact that you dislike it has nothing to do with how safe it is. The Glock/XD/M&P/etc pistols still will not fire unless you willing pull the trigger. A 1911/Hi-Power/etc still won't fire unless you pull the trigger. That's like saying revolvers should be required to have a safety, all they require is a trigger to be pulled. The same simple rules apply to handling the firearm no matter its basic operation.

WardenWolf said:

In my honest opinion, it should not legally classify as a safety device and they should be required to provide an external manual safety. I really dislike the complete lack of safety on many striker-fired pistols.

Click to expand...

Legally classify, What does that mean? Is there a form manufacturer's fill out declaring safeties?

If you are ever in Michigan, let me know. Ill take you to the range and introduce you to the safeties on a wide variety of handguns. I'll breakdown a bunch if pistols and show you how the safeties work. We will also discuss why certain guns have different safeties than other guns. Why some types of safeties are useless on some guns.

Every company calls these triggers a different pet name. Glock calls it their trigger, Springfield calls it the USA trigger. I just call it a two-stage trigger. It is definately one of those feel good safeties. Take away the "three state of the art super secret passive safeties" (that everyone else uses) on a Glock and just give it a 5.5 lb trigger and less people will want to use it. The two-stage trigger allows lighter but theoretically safer trigger pulls.

Seems I recall they did testing and found the height required was at least 20 some feet. It's possible, but not probable.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Definitely not probable. I don't know how often anyone carries while up on a roof, and you'd be hard-pressed to drop it perfectly straight even if you tried. Even a slight inclination would cause the force to be diverted sideways and not "pull" the trigger, and any non-concrete or metal surface would definitely soften the impact enough to keep it from firing. I'd consider that pretty safe in my book.

holdencm9 said:

Interesting. Definitely not probable. I don't know how often anyone carries while up on a roof, and you'd be hard-pressed to drop it perfectly straight even if you tried. Even a slight inclination would cause the force to be diverted sideways and not "pull" the trigger, and any non-concrete or metal surface would definitely soften the impact enough to keep it from firing. I'd consider that pretty safe in my book.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this a little more and one scenario that's not as improbable as dropping the gun from a roof top to hit perfectly muzzle-up on concrete is a cop involved in a struggle for his gun. It could get whipped pretty hard against concrete from a short height.

Regardless, in addition to preventing trigger movement from lateral incidental forces, it IS a drop safety, however remote that possibility is.