Pistol Safeties I have Loved.

Since this is in the revolver section, I thought we were gonna be talking about lemon squeezers.

I'd put magazine disconnect in Losers and 1911 thumb safety in Winners. Most 1911 shooters ride the thumb safety while shooting, mostly to keep the hand as high as possible on the grip, and also to keep from activating it by mistake. It's the grip safety on the 1911 I could do without, as there can be problems with not getting it fully depressed. A magazine disconnect seems stupid to me. If a round is chambered, the gun is loaded, and a loaded gun should be able to be fired.

I don't like mag disconnect safeties either.

I like thumb safeties when working with new shooters. Also ok with them for CCW, if you train with them. I do not subscribe, however, to carrying a gun with the safety off and pretending it isn't there. If the gun has a safety, it should be used.

jamesinalaska

I'm a big fan of the thumb safety on single action autos, like the 1911 and Browning Hi-Power. Great location, doesn't require a change with my grip, and operates smoothly and positively. Likewise I'm okay with the frame mounted decocker found on most DA/SA autos, though I prefer the location of the one on my SIG P229 to that on my CZ P01.

Never cared for slide mounted safeties; many of them are too flat to get a good feel for them and they operate just the opposite of the 1911 type thumb safety. For me it's a rather awkward arrangement that doesn't work well and doesn't allow me to use it without altering my grip on the gun. I do like the frame mounted safety on the Taurus Model 92 which works both as a thumb safety like on a 1911 but can also be used as a decocker if you prefer, thereby lowering the hammer and setting the trigger in DA mode.

There's also the somewhat obscure trigger guard safety on the early version of the Steyr M9/M40. While I like the addition of the safety to go with a Glock-like trigger, I really don't care for its location inside the trigger guard or it's method of operation. Kind of close to the trigger and requires a somewhat awkward push upwards with the trigger finger to deactivate it. While I applaud Steyr's effort to incorporate a manual safety to go along with the one in the trigger, I just think it's not a great design or location for one.

I also don't care for magazine disconnect safeties and I'm okay with grip safeties, provided of course they fit and operate properly.

The mag disconnect safety on BHP's are irritating and have to be removed to get a decent trigger.
It's good to see S&W, Ruger and others offering striker models with or without thumb safeties.
Good subject however, I suspect this thread will degenerate quickly.

Looser: The goofy "Swiss" safety (elongated base pin) on SAA clones. As with the key, the key, gubmint induced.

I don't mind frame mounted safeties, so long as they have a firm, positive "click" to them. Like the 1911 and CZ-75. The stock / entry level Hi Powers, not so much.

As for the Glock, XD, etc trigger safety. Actually, upon learning more about them recently I now understand their function. The triggers on those guns are light enough that, were the gun to be dropped from a sufficient height and it lands muzzle up, the inertia of the gun hitting the pavement could result in the trigger maintaining it's momentum moving rearward (physics - a body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force - the "dingle berry" in this case) far enough that it could discharge the weapon - which is why said guns have the dingle berry safety on the trigger that blocks rearward movement of the trigger unless it is pressed.

I still don't like how that dingle berry feels, but, I at least understand why they put it there. Myself? I prefer the trigger were just a little heavier such that the little annoying, sharp edged thingie wouldn't be necessary as I don't mind heavy triggers.

On the Hi Power mag disconnect, removing mine took the trigger from awful to merely mediocre - granted, a fairly significant improvement.

jamesinalaska said:

trigger safety widget

Click to expand...

aka Das Glocklegger

Loser: the mag-out chamber lock, which prevents the slide from being drawn back when there is no magazine in the pistol. This makes it impossible to clear the gun by removing the magazine and then retracting the slide; one has to empty the magazine and re-insert it before clearing the chamber (or use a second, unloaded magazine.)

The only guns I have with this feature/curse are a Phoenix HP22A, and the PT-22 and PT-25 pistols from Taurus, though with the PTs, one can clear the chamber by tipping it open.

MedWheeler said:

Loser: the mag-out chamber lock, which prevents the slide from being drawn back when there is no magazine in the pistol. This makes it impossible to clear the gun by removing the magazine and then retracting the slide; one has to empty the magazine and re-insert it before clearing the chamber (or use a second, unloaded magazine.)

The only guns I have with this feature/curse are a Phoenix HP22A, and the PT-22 and PT-25 pistols from Taurus, though with the PTs, one can clear the chamber by tipping it open.

Click to expand...

Whoa, never seen that "feature." That's immensely stupid! Makes you wonder what goes through the minds of engineers, or what passes for their minds. I wonder the same thing every time I have to depress the brake to shift out of Park.

AZAndy

Whoa, never seen that "feature." That's immensely stupid! Makes you wonder what goes through the minds of engineers, or what passes for their minds.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Pretty much goes against the grain of everything I have learned about dropping the mag first before racking the slide to clear the gun. Why would you add an additional step of reinserting an empty mag to the slide clearing drill? Sounds like a bit of unnecessary effort along with the possibility of inserting a mag with a round in it, back into the gun.

It should always be: drop mag, rack slide, clear gun. The K.I.S.S. Principle at work: Keep It Simple and Safe.

HK P7M8

My personal favorite safety.....

TarDevil said:

I do not subscribe, however, to carrying a gun with the safety off and pretending it isn't there. If the gun has a safety, it should be used.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The LC9s that I mostly carry is virtually indistinguishable from a LC9s Pro aside from the mag disconnect and the frame safety. I bought mine because I got it brand new for $200 less than a "pro" model. I was willing to take on those two non wanted features for the difference in price. I carry it with the safety off because my other striker fired carry guns operate in the same manner, no thumb safety. And, the fact that most of these small sub compact guns with "thumb safeties" are laughable at best. Me carrying my LC9s with the safety off is no different than someone carrying a LC9s Pro.

The only type of "safety" I'd personally be comfortable with is a 1911 style extended. But even there it wouldn't be my first choice for carry. Simple is fast in a SD situation.

I like the safeties on my 1911's and the decocker safeties on my Beretta 92 S and CZ 50.

I definitely didn't like the decocker safeties on my Ruger P94 and Ruger P345.

Pistol safeties I have loved:

The mag safeties have to be one of the most ignorant designs ever invented. They are designed for people who are not attentive enough to clear a gun properly. Seriously, who does not check the chamber as the last step to determine that a gun is unloaded? I realize that a number of firearms require the trigger to be pulled to disassemble the gun, but training and attention to detail is the correct answer to this question not another mechanical device in the gun.

Anything that requires a key or special tool to activate or de-activate. Included in the list are the S&W guns with the Hillary Hole and the Springfield 1911 guns with the ILS system in the mainspring grip housing.

Slide mounted safeties are next on my list. I find the location and operation of the safety on a Beretta 92/M9 to be irritating to operate. I much prefer the configuration of the Taurus PT92 with a frame mounted safety.

Chamber loaded indicators are about 50/50. The ones that are implemented as a small notch in the slide, allowing me to see the loaded round are unobtrusive and have essentially no impact and are fine. The ones that stick up or out are yet another device designed for a person who is generally not attentive enough to KNOW if their gun is loaded or not. It adds complexity to a device that does not need it. A simple chamber check does the same thing, takes 2 seconds and adds no cost. Additionally unless you are fastidious in your cleaning regime, over time they can become sticky with carbon build up and stay "up" indicating a loaded chamber when there is not one. Seems that this defeats the purpose for those individuals it was designed to protect....the inattentive.

A grip safety and frame mounted thumb safety are fine. As long as the thumb safety is accessible from a shooting grip I don't have a preference one way or the other. On a single action, they are needed and the 1911 design is one of the best I have seen. Thumb rides on top of it during shooting and ensures it stays disengaged. The grip safety is something that is inherent to the 1911 design and I never really have had an issue with it. The ones on my XDm and XDs could probably use a bit more height, like the Powder River Precision extended versions, but overall I don't have any problem with them.

The best thumb safety that I know of is the one on my SIG X-Five. Both detents are crisp, but I can flick the lever to either position without shifting my grip.

I'll throw my spin on this thread as well.

Safeties I like: 1911 style thumb safeties (up is safe, down is fire). Grip safeties, but these are easy to hate like on the pocket sized AMT guns. Tabbed trigger safeties like on Glock and XD. Unobtrusive loaded chamber indicators where the marking is small or part of the extractor. Drop safeties can be hit or miss ie series 70 vs series 80 1911s. Non squishy decockers.

Everything else is mostly a loser. Magazine disconnect safeties. Key lock safeties on Bersas, S&W revolvers, Taurus etc. Anything bio metric or smart gun technology.

My second favorite is the Taurus 92. It's nicely placed and also acts as a decocker.

My very favorite is none. I have a "Frankenstein" Beretta 96 with no safety or decocker of any kind. I am totally okay with that. I never use the safeties that I do have, anyway.

Anything frame mounted in reach of my thumb gets my vote. I love my Beretta M9A1 but can't stand the safety/decocker location

jamesinalaska said:

.......grip safety (Colt 1911's and XD),..........and the Glock-like trigger widgets fail every time a person accidentally pulls the trigger

Click to expand...

Funny, even John Browning didn't like grip safeties.
And FYI no one "accidently" pulls the trigger on any firearm.

drunkenpoacher said:

The mag disconnect safety on BHP's are irritating and have to be removed to get a decent trigger.
It's good to see S&W, Ruger and others offering striker models with or without thumb safeties.
Good subject however, I suspect this thread will degenerate quickly.

Click to expand...

I can agree with this.

I have a FEG HP clone, a S&W 915 with the safety removed, and a S&W 39-2 that still has it (among other guns, but that's another story).

The Smiths don't have much difference with the trigger, between the two. The HP was very crunchy, with it. Much better after removing it.

An interesting example of safeties can be found on the Star 30M. It has a magazine safety, as does the earlier Stars I own. It also has a slide-mounted safety that retracts the firing pin assembly, so that the hammer can physically not make contact with it. Perfect for dry-firing (and perhaps not so coincidentally, the earlier Stars, such as the A, B and Super variants, are extremely prone to firing pin breakage if dry fired). This safety does nothing else, as you can still pull the trigger and drop the hammer, and rack the slide. It also does not decock.