Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?

I tend to use firearms with thumb safeties for a couple reasons.

First and foremost, I prefer a SAO trigger for most of my firearms, and a safety is pretty necessary for lighter SAO triggers. I am faster, more accurate, and more confident with SAO trigger.

DAO and DA/SA I don't need safeties for, but they are not my preferred option for carry purposes. Range they are just fine.

Strikers, esp lighter strikers I want a safety for peace of mind while holstering. I holster/unholster an EDC far more often and an AD/ND to the femoral artery will kill me just as dead as some bad guy on some dark street.

Since I usually carry with a thumb safety, and all my EDC guns have one in the same location/same motion, I've spent considerable time building muscle memory to the point that if the gun is going on target, the thumb is flicking the safety as it gets there. Will it work in high stress? I'm confident that it will, and that's good enough for me as I'll probably never actually find out.

Slide mounted safeties I have no experience with, so I would not prefer one without considerable training and time. Muscle memory is not there.

YMMV, naturally.

ATLDave said:

For one, guns aren't born in holsters. They have to be placed there. If you want the gun to be loaded when you draw, they have to be placed in the holster while loaded. One purpose to a safety is to have an "off switch" that can be used while the gun is holstered or is otherwise being manipulated with no intent to fire.



For another, guns don't generally come out of holsters pointing directly at the target. On the contrary, they often come (partially) out of the holster pointing at parts of the gun user's anatomy, or at the ground or at bystanders (particularly for a non-strong-side-waistband holster). Imposing a tenth of a second delay on the trigger becoming active is affirmatively good, and has no impact on time to first shot (the draw is not instantaneous, and the safety is off by the time the gun points at the target).



Yet another benefit is the "gun grab." There have been mulitple documented instances of a (literal, not political/metaphorical) gun grabber failing to kill the gun owner because they could not figure out the safety fast enough to prevent the gun owner from recovering the gun or otherwise ending the gun grab and attack.



There are others, but those are some examples.

Click to expand...

Very well said.

Your "rebuttal" either do not directly address any of my points or display a appalling amount of ignorance about tactics.

You state in your rebuttal of use of the manual thumb safety in saving officers lives that "being saved because an opponent cannot figure what I can figure out as a kid is luck, not "tactic." This is simply untrue. Making a conscious decision to carry a gun with the thumb safety engaged is both a safety and survival tactic. Your brilliance as to what you figured out as a kid is not relevant to my point or to the well document use of having the thumb safety engaged in saving lives.
...

Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether if counting on a criminal not figuring out how to disengage a manial firing inhibitor counts as a tactic.

In regards to your comment that retention holsters are slower to use you do not state what you are comparing them to and any test data supporting your claim. It is also a fallacy in your argument to generalize your lack of skill in using a retention holster to officers that do use them.

Click to expand...

When did I ever say I compared others to myself?

Also, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that I have spoken to a tactics instructor who acknowledged that level III retention holsters are slower.

Since you are accusing me of wrong for saying so, what proof do you have that level III holsters are equal to level II or regular thumb break holsters? Who says that? What publication?

Also, logically, if holster A requires one motion to remove retention, and holster B requires two motion to remove retention, and the two motion must be sequential, then how is it logically possible that holster B can be as fast as holster A?

If you have any experience with Safariland SLS rotating hood holsters, you should know that the thumb has to get to the lever that releases the internal lock mechanism only after unlocking and pushing forward the rotating hood. The two action cannot be done with the primary hand thumb simultaneously. It must be two separate and seqential motion. How the hell can two separate and sequential motion be faster than one motion?

...
In fact you totally ignore my comments that " first rule of gun safety is don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy" and "I can not imagine a situation where I am pointing my gun (engaging) at a person then taking my gun off target (disengaging) multiple times. Either the threat is there or it isn’t. If the threat is there I’m sure as heck not taking my gun (disengaging as you put it) or attention off of it." Both of these comments directly apply as much to civilians as to LEO's.

As I said it is clear that you have a total lack real world knowledge of (and I will add experience with) tactics, weapon retention and the proven value of manual safeties.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I missed that the first time, and how kind of you to bring it to my attention to help me expose you for what you are.

An opponent posing a deadly threat that warranted a firing process being started can quickly change action, which can make situation shift between shooting justified and shooting not justified situation fast multiple times. Also, the person responding to the opponent may have to go to low ready,coming off target when the target suddenly turned to not justifed to shoot target because keeping firing position would make the gun and arms obstruct view of the opponent which can make the person unable to see if the opponent turned deadly again.

That is a very real scenario in deadly force encounter, and your post above prove beyond any doubt that you are incapable of thinking of such a real possibility in a deadly force encounter.

"I can not imagine a situation where I am pointing my gun (engaging) at a person then taking my gun off target (disengaging) multiple times. Either the threat is there or it isn’t. If the threat is there I’m sure as heck not taking my gun (disengaging as you put it) or attention off of it."

That is your own words.

Also, when did I ever advocate pointing a gun at a non-threat?

TestPilot,

If nothing else, your stamina and determination in this thread are impressive. I'll give you that much.

Regarding this threat-on, threat-off scenario, are you positing some protocol or practice that would have a user toggling the safety on and off while a potential threat, say, slowly raises his hands, but then make a furtive move, but then doesn't draw a weapon, but then turns halfway around, but then complies?

If that's what your are envisioning, can you give us an example of a training program that requires a safety to be flipped on and off throughout such a situation?

Or are you talking about something different?

I love my Glock but the idea of carrying it AIWB with no safety is...a little concerning. I can draw and holster without touching the trigger but what if I fall or if I'm grabbed/impacted in a way that gets at the trigger?

I concede that this is unlikely but it is not impossible that wardrobe failure can occur and the trigger could get touched/pulled by a shirt tail or belt tail or...whatever. Again, I concede it is unlikely but it is not impossible.

I want a switch that makes the gun inert until I physically switch it and make the gun hot as I present and cover what I want to shoot. I cannot mentally rectify the odds of self injury (or shooting a by standing person with a AD) with a hot pistol that has no trigger inactivation. I prefer drop hammer safeties and first shot DA after the lever is flicked up....I have done this for years and it does not slow me down.

I'm safer - everyone around me is safer. Folks can go on and on about it being un necessary but you'll only screw up once. I'm sure the guy with the Glock that discharged into the floor of his car as he sat down and the holster pulled the trigger has rethought his carry/holster options.

I want a safety if I can get it.

VooDoo

Click to expand...

There's a number of Glock like gun with manual firnig inhibitor that require separate motion from firing action.

Ruger SR series have them, and some version of S&W M&P has it also.

If that's what is important to you, go get one. What's stopping you?

There are also hammer fired guns which you can stop it for firing by pressing on the hammer.

Regarding this threat-on, threat-off scenario, are you positing some protocol or practice that would have a user toggling the safety on and off while a potential threat, say, slowly raises his hands, but then make a furtive move, but then doesn't draw a weapon, but then turns halfway around, but then complies?

Click to expand...

That is similar to what I am talking about.

...
If that's what your are envisioning, can you give us an example of a training program that requires a safety to be flipped on and off throughout such a situation?

Click to expand...

No training program I am aware of specifically addresses the issue of fast change between "shoot" and "no shoot", but some just teaches to inhibit fire when there is no more intent to fire, which I consider a problem.

Most of them do not need to anymore, since most trainging programs are geared toward Glocks or pistols like such.

Also, the person may have to go to low ready,coming off target when the target suddenly turned to not justifed to shoot target because keeping firing position would make the gun and arms obstruct view of the opponent which can make the person unable to see if the opponent turned deadly again.

If it's on and someone accidentally pulls the trigger, that inhibited an unintentional discharge did it not?
...

Click to expand...

How convenient for you to just play deaf about possibility of intentionally pulling the trigger and unable to fire because of the device inhibited fire.

Says the person using the classic tactic of branding negative names.

Click to expand...

Again, the lever inhibits fire by manual selection of the user. So, why is that a negative name? Because your emotion cannot stand the fact that it can accidentally inhibit intentional fire too, isn't it?

...
I'm yet to hear about people who properly train on the 1911 (not just a few hours) and fail to take the safety off.
...

Click to expand...

Gabriel Suarez who runs his own training site states this in regards to people failing to manipulate the manual firing inhibitor thumb levers:

"My focus is not to disparage the 1911, but I have personally seen this many times in force on force....with guys who have years and years with the 1911. When I ask them about it, thew answer is "This never happens on the range". Exactly.

Me...I like simple. If I have to grip the gun a certain way or disengage a safety before firing, I am not interested in that gun."

http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-26990.html

...
I bet you $100 if they didn't have the trigger safety, all M&Ps would come with a thumb safety.
...

Click to expand...

But it does come with one, so not all M&P come with a thumb lever.

What is your point?

...
Also you are forgetting that you can only fire a 1911 by pressing the grip safety. In other words, you can carry all day without the safety on.

Click to expand...

YOU are forgetting that when a proper grip is made, "grip safety" is nullified. So, it won't protect you from AD/ND once you have it in ready position, which brings us to square one.

TestPilot... YOUR METHODS DO NOT WORK FOR ME. Please do not try to argue your points to me. I've heard it all. I'm cognizant enough to disengage a friggin' thumb safety thank you very much.

Swipe... pull... ain't hard... ya' know?

meef said:

Quote:
Also you are forgetting that you can only fire a 1911 by pressing the grip safety.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you were actually referring to the interdigital web manual firing inhibitor lever here?

Click to expand...

I actually LOL'd at that.



This thread is painful.

There are pros and cons to a thumb safety or lack thereof. Anyone that doesn't or wont acknowledge is either lacking reasoning skill or stubborn.

45_auto said:

What do you believe the merits of manual firing inhibitor finger levers are as opposed to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers?

Click to expand...

testpilot said:

It can reduce the responsibility of other parts of the gun to incorporate features to reduce the probability of accidents.

For example a 1911 trigger does not have to have as much as resistance as that of a DA/SA SIG P226.
Which is also the reason why I do not see a point of manual firing inhibitor thumb levers on a DA/SA pistol.

Click to expand...

Your reply makes no sense.

How can the manual firing inhibitor finger lever on a 1911 (called a "trigger" by most people) reduce the responsibility of other parts of the gun to incorporate features to reduce the probability of accidents?

You seem confused between what constitutes a manual firing inhibitor finger lever versus a manual firing inhibitor thumb lever.

The manual firing inhibitor finger lever ("trigger") on a Glock contains an additional manual firing inhibitor finger lever ("safety"). Do you believe that a firearm ignition system that utilizes a manual firing inhibitor finger lever containing another manual firing inhibitor finger lever within the primary manual firing inhibitor finger lever is somehow superior to a firearm with an ignition system that utilizes a manual firing inhibitor finger lever combined with a manual firing inhibitor thumb lever?

In your terminology, how do you distinguish the manual firing inhibitor finger lever on a Glock that prevents the other manual firing inhibitor finger lever from moving rearward from the manual firing inhibitor finger lever that releases the striker?

No wonder you're confused.

Your reply makes no sense.

How can the manual firing inhibitor finger lever on a 1911 (called a "trigger" by most people) reduce the responsibility of other parts of the gun to incorporate features to reduce the probability of accidents?

You seem confused between what constitutes a manual firing inhibitor finger lever versus a manual firing inhibitor thumb lever.
....

Click to expand...

I misread your original question.

Had I read it, I would have just ignored the worthless garbage.

You must be the first person in history to claim that a trigger inhibits firing.

How convenient for you to just play deaf about possibility of intentionally pulling the trigger and unable to fire because of the device inhibited fire.

Click to expand...

Oh look, my thumb is on top of the safety holding it down.

Again, the lever inhibits fire by manual selection of the user. So, why is that a negative name? Because your emotion cannot stand the fact that it can accidentally inhibit intentional fire too, isn't it?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that can do bad as well as good but we still normally call them by their name. Not make up names that fit our idea.

Gabriel Suarez who runs his own training site states this in regards to people failing to manipulate the manual firing inhibitor thumb levers:

"My focus is not to disparage the 1911, but I have personally seen this many times in force on force....with guys who have years and years with the 1911. When I ask them about it, thew answer is "This never happens on the range". Exactly.

Me...I like simple. If I have to grip the gun a certain way or disengage a safety before firing, I am not interested in that gun."

Click to expand...

I can't imagine having to grip the gun in a way that the grip safety would stop me. I'm not a fan of cross draw pinky firing either.

But it does come with one, so not all M&P come with a thumb lever.

What is your point?

Click to expand...

It's the trigger pull weight that determines if it needs a safety like you were saying but the design

YOU are forgetting that when a proper grip is made, "grip safety" is nullified. So, it won't protect you from AD/ND once you have it in ready position, which brings us to square one.

Click to expand...

Finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Good thing to practice you know.

They have their purpose on certain guns. I have both guns with safeties and without inside my manual theft inhibitor

testpilot said:

I misread your original question.

Click to expand...

Sorry, were you confused by me using your own confusing terminology??

testpilot said:

You must be the first person in history to claim that a trigger inhibits firing.

Click to expand...

What do you believe that a trigger does? It's the lever that you depress to fire the gun. Unless you have a safety on the gun applied, the trigger is the only thing that inhibits the gun from firing.

I'm pretty sure dictionary's have been around longer than I've been alive. You should try consulting one sometime!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trigger

trig·ger (trgr)
n.
1.
a. The lever pressed by the finger to discharge a firearm.

Click to expand...

In Testpilot terminology, that's called the "manual firing inhibitor finger lever". Sounds almost as stupid as calling a safety a "manual firing inhibitor thumb lever", doesn't it?

45_auto said:

Sorry, were you confused by me using your own confusing terminology??



What do you believe that a trigger does? It's the lever that you depress to fire the gun. Unless you have a safety on the gun applied, the trigger is the only thing that inhibits the gun from firing.

I'm pretty sure dictionary's have been around longer than I've been alive. You should try consulting one sometime!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trigger



In Testpilot terminology, that's called the "manual firing inhibitor finger lever". Sounds almost as stupid as calling a safety a "manual firing inhibitor thumb lever", doesn't it?

Click to expand...

+1 you are correct

Sorry, were you confused by me using your own confusing terminology??
...

Click to expand...

No. I did not see that part at all.

And, that is YOUR inaccurate term, not mine.

...
What do you believe that a trigger does?
...

Click to expand...

Makes the gun fire.

...
It's the lever that you depress to fire the gun. Unless you have a safety on the gun applied, the trigger is the only thing that inhibits the gun from firing.
...

Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA.

Trigger is not what inhbits fire. On SAO or striker guns, it is the sear that inhibits fire. On traditional DAO guns, it is the rested hammer that has no potential to strike the firing pin that inhibits fire.

Go study firearms some more.

I can't imagine having to grip the gun in a way that the grip safety would stop me. I'm not a fan of cross draw pinky firing either.

Click to expand...

Mr. Suarez was talking about those trained men failiing to manipulate the manual firing inhibitor thumb lever, not "grip safety."

You may not want to believe it, but fact of the matter is that it did happen.

Finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Good thing to practice you know.

Click to expand...

So, "grip safety" being nullified is ignorable for that reason, but AT THE SAME TIME we need a manual firing inhibitor because that reason is not enough?

So, "finger off trigger" is enough, but not enough at the same time, at your convenience for arguments?

Since TestPilot admitted he is not a pilot, I refuse to call someone a test pilot who is not.

From now on he will be known as

evaluation_procedure_video_game_aircraft_operator

Mr. Suarez was talking about those trained men failiing to manipulate the manual firing inhibitor thumb lever, not "grip safety."

You may not want to believe it, but fact of the matter is that it did happen.

Click to expand...

YOU were talking about the grip safety. I've already addressed what I think about Mr. Suarez (who miraculously isn't in jail) and the thumb safety. If you don't rest your thumb on the safety, you aren't gripping it right and AREN'T properly trained on the 1911 no matter who you are.

So, "grip safety" being nullified is ignorable for that reason, but AT THE SAME TIME we need a manual firing inhibitor because that reason is not enough?

So, "finger off trigger" is enough, but not enough at the same time, at your convenience for arguments?

Click to expand...

Grip safety is there because of the original design, the 1910, didn't have a thumb safety because Browning thought it was enough. Army wanted a thumb safety added and so it was. It's now part of the gun and it doesn't hinder me in the least. It actually helps by giving my thumb a more secure place to rest.


This thread is getting really stupid and going in circles with someone trying to sound more educated than us.

And TestPilot is the first person I've needed to put on an ignore list at this website. Using complex terms for simple and commonly named parts is a tactic used when a person knows they have a weak point.

This thread is getting really stupid and going in circles with someone trying to sound more educated than us.

Click to expand...

Getting?

Naw. The thread surpassed stupid some 5 or 6 pages ago.

And all he's really doing is playing with folks. Yanking their chains, rattling their cages, etc., just because he can.

Do you honestly think he's so passionate about his silly terminology that he would spend this much effort on it?

People are being played and he's enjoying himself.

No.

I have 6 handguns. Not one has a manual safety. I prefer it that way.

TestPilot said:

Had I read it, I would have just ignored the worthless garbage.

You must be the first person in history to claim that a trigger inhibits firing.

Click to expand...

That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Really? "manual firing inhibitor thumb lever"

Do you honestly expect anyone to take that, or you defending it, seriously?

Not a lot of posts since 2006. You really broke out of your shell recently. Must have been doing a lot of reading.

This is where "Test Pilot" goes off the deep end:

An opponent posing a deadly threat that warranted a firing process being started can quickly change action, which can make situation shift between shooting justified and shooting not justified situation fast multiple times. Also, the person responding to the opponent may have to go to low ready,coming off target when the target suddenly turned to not justifed to shoot target because keeping firing position would make the gun and arms obstruct view of the opponent which can make the person unable to see if the opponent turned deadly again.

Click to expand...

Does he even know what it is that he's trying to communicate here in these two convoluted run-on sentences? "Warranted a firing process being started?" Yeesh! Ah, what do I know though ... except that, as a certified law enforcement firearms and deadly force instructor, I'd be laughed out of the classroom or off the range if I spoke like that.

Does he even know what it is that he's trying to communicate here in these two convoluted run-on sentences? "Warranted a firing process being started?" Yeesh! Ah, what do I know though ... except that, as a certified law enforcement firearms and deadly force instructor, I'd be laughed out of the classroom or off the range if I spoke like that.

Click to expand...

A certified law enforcement deadly force instructor who does not understand a very basic deadly force encounter problem. Not surprising, judging from some people agencies were willing to call "instructor " that I had the displeasure to have met.