Any cons of a thumb safety?

[TestPilot]

Having No manual thumb safety, IMO, didn't start to get 'popular' until glock/mid 80s. That's a long time for the thumb safety to be the standard. That's also about the same time 'glock' leg became more popular too.
...

Never mind that revolvers did not have them way before the existence of Glock.

…
IMO, if you cant trust your thumb to remember when to flick off the safety, you shouldn't trust your index finger either...

By YOUR own logic, if you can "trust your thumb to remember when to flick off the safety," you should trust your index finger too. You just nullified your support for thumb switch type manual firing inhibitor.

...or walk and chew gum at the same time..

So, you never tripped in your life? Even without chewing gum?

You being able to multi-task does not mean you should.

…or wear a seat belt because you might forget to unbuckle if you have an emergency in which you need to get out of the car quickly...

Seat belt can become death trap. I wear it because of risk and benefits analysis, but I am aware of the risk. Which is why some state exempt police officer from wearing one in certain situations.

…
or hit the brakes and turn the wheel at the same time to avoid hitting something.

Not a valid comparison. There are situations where a driver has to swerve and brake to avoid collision: not avoidable.

Use of manul firing inhibitor is purely because of a shooter' choice to have one, unless it is some sort of workplace mandate: totally avoidable.

 

[45_auto]

Use of manul firing inhibitor is purely because of a shooter' choice to have one, unless it is some sort of workplace mandate: totally avoidable.

When you say "manual firing inhibitor" do you mean "trigger"?

How do you avoid having a trigger? Are you trying to say "safety"?

Your posts would be much less confusing (people might even read them) if you used common terminology.

 

[hentown]

In my humble opinion, the use of a pistol with a thumb safety by a newbie is dangerous for s.d. purposes.

 

[bainter1212]

I just helped a friend (a newbie to pistols) pick out his first. We decided on the CZ 75. It has a low profile manual safety which is easy to manipulate and can also be carried DA/SA so he can ultimately choose the mode of carry he likes best.

I look at it this way - anyone who is taught to drive a manual transmission vehicle can also drive an automatic....whereas the reverse is not true.

I will train my friend on a manual safety firearm. If in the future he buys or is called upon to use a gun with no safety, operation of the firearm will not be impeded by lack of knowledge as to the controls of said firearm. If anything, his training will cause him to sweep the non-existent safety with his thumb and continue with firing the gun.

 

[ATLDave]

TestPilot, do you also call the sear disconnect a "firing inhibitor"? Because that's what it is, too. Sometimes, you WANT firing to be inhibited. During holstering, for example.

As for the difficulty of properly or quickly manipulating safeties, have you ever been to a USPSA or IDPA match? You'll see a hell of a lot of people using guns with manual safeties (1911's, CZ's, etc.), all in an environment where speed and accuracy are at a premium. And often where the use of the one hand (sometimes even the weak hand) is mandatory. It's just not a problem. At all.

I saw dozens of draws at my local USPSA match last night by folks using safety-equipped guns. Not a single one fumbled with the safety. And that group included some C and D shooters, so we're not talking exclusively about near-pro's.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Why are SAO guns said to be "safe" when "cocked and locked"? Because the firing is inhibited. No matter what word you might like to use or substitute with, there is no getting around that fact.

That's only partially true. SAO semi-autos without firing pin blocks such as some 1911s and Hi Powers, can still fire without the trigger being pulled, if the gun is jarred severely enough to set the firing pin in motion.

I understand your point in using the term - see my previous post - but it's no better, and arguably worse, than using the term "safety."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by leadcounsel: If you plan to keep your finger off the trigger, it's unnecessary.

That assertion is based on the assumption that only a finger can pull the trigger.

That is demonstrably untrue, and many of us understand that.

 

[JTQ]

Thumb lever type manual firing inhibitor

Thanks for the terminology clarification Mr. AssessmentFlightControlManipulator

 

[ATLDave]

That assertion is based on the assumption that only a finger can pull the trigger.

Exactly. Very few guns come with fingerprint detection technology embedded in the trigger. So the edge of a holster, the corner of a seat belt buckle, the toggle of a drawstring, the end of a shirttail, a key... all of these things can and HAVE IN THE PAST pulled triggers. On guns that are supposedly "safe" as long as your fingers are kept outside of the trigger guard.

Given that a typical civilian gun owner will need to discharge his/her firearm in anger/fear somewhere between zero and one time in their life, but will likely holster or otherwise handle a loaded gun in a situation where they desperately need the gun NOT to go off many hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of times, the risk-reward analysis seems one-sided.

 

[TestPilot]

TestPilot, do you also call the sear disconnect a "firing inhibitor"?
....

It definitely is a type of firing inhibitor, but I do not feel the need for coming up with a new term for it, since the term "sear disconnect" also does the job without being misleading.

...
Sometimes, you WANT firing to be inhibited. During holstering, for example.
...

Of course there are times when I do not wan the gun fired. How to go about doing it is a different story.

I prefer to achieve that without the risk associated with a thumb lever type manual firing inhibitor. That does not mean you have to be the same.

...
As for the difficulty of properly or quickly manipulating safeties, have you ever been to a USPSA or IDPA match? You'll see a hell of a lot of people using guns with manual safeties (1911's, CZ's, etc.), all in an environment where speed and accuracy are at a premium. And often where the use of the one hand (sometimes even the weak hand) is mandatory. It's just not a problem. At all.

I saw dozens of draws at my local USPSA match last night by folks using safety-equipped guns. Not a single one fumbled with the safety. And that group included some C and D shooters, so we're not talking exclusively about near-pro's.

There is no competition stage where a target with a gun suddenly surrender, then suddenly charge you with a knife while at the exact momemnt when your thumb is doing the swipe up motion, etc.

There is no competition stage where somthing charge you and it is unclear it is deadly or not or an opponent or not.

While competition is fun and all for developing shooting skills, it in no way even remotely represents the complexity of a real life operations.

That's not even accounting for injuries or hand switch.

Please get back to me after you see an IDPA or IPSC competition shooter get his thumb smacked with a baton, or get thrown on the ground by a thug and landing on his palm, getting the base of thumb smashed in the process, then report no degradation in thumb lever maniplation.

 

[TestPilot]

Given that a typical civilian gun owner will need to discharge his/her firearm in anger/fear somewhere between zero and one time in their life, but will likely holster or otherwise handle a loaded gun in a situation where they desperately need the gun NOT to go off many hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of times, the risk-reward analysis seems one-sided.

That "many hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of times" is a controlled environment where there is no rush.

Increasing risk in life threatening situation for gain in some reassurance in holstering and handling a loaded gun in a completely calm, no rush situation of a "typical civilian gun owner."

Risk-reward analysis does not seem one sided at all.

 

[ATLDave]

Test, what does a difficult shoot/no-shoot decision have to do with anything? What are you talking about? Are you supposing a situation where the gun user has the gun out and pointed at someone, but with the safety on?

 

[1911Tuner]

Yeah, because nobody has ever accidentally/negligently discharged a firearm while, say, holstering. No point to a manually safety at all.

Touche' sir.

That's the primary reason that the manual safety was added to the 1911. For reholstering in a hurry.

Never mind that revolvers did not have them way before the existence of Glock.

Well, there is a little difference between a long 10 or 12 pound trigger pull and a short 5 or 6-pound pull with a half-cocked striker.

A body has to work at shooting himself in the leg with a DA revolver while holstering. Not so much with a Glock.

The term "Glock Leg" sprang up for some reason, after all.

 

[TestPilot]

Test, what does a difficult shoot/no-shoot decision have to do with anything? What are you talking about? Are you supposing a situation where the gun user has the gun out and pointed at someone, but with the safety on?

Did you read all my previous post?

It is explained in detail in my second post.

 

[ATLDave]

You mean the part where you allege that "most" training institutions teach people to re-apply the safety every time they "come off" a target? That seems like a complaint about training (if that's what people, in fact, teach), not a complaint about safeties. Again, are you imagining that users of guns with safeties are flicking the things on and off as they transition between targets? Or are drawing guns and pointing them at things more readily because they're relying on the safety?

 

[TestPilot]

You mean the part where you allege that "most" training institutions teach people to re-apply the safety every time they "come off" a target? That seems like a complaint about training (if that's what people, in fact, teach), not a complaint about safeties.

That is in fact what most training outfits and government organizations teach in regards to frame mounted thumb lever. That is what Travis Haley, Chris Costa teach, with both 1911 and M&P45 with thumb lever. That is what LAPD teach. That is what U.S. Military teaches with nearly all small arms that have such device. You'll have a harder time finding a well recognized instructor or organization that does not teach that way, if you can find one at all. Only one I am aware of is Gabe Suarez, and he does not have that high of a respect for pistols that have those thumb levers.

Otherwise, what are thumb lever manual firing inhibitors for anyway? Just to holster? Just to have a holstered gun that has a trigger covered and not handled more safe?

It is to assist not accidently firing when the gun IS being handled and when the gun do have the trigger exposed, isn't it? I don't belive anyone is going to tell me, "No, it's actually for when the gun is not being handled or just in a holster." In that case, what is the point in training otherwise?

Again, are you imagining that users of guns with safeties are flicking the things on and off as they transition between targets?

No. Not transition between targets that have "shoot" written over them. Target that flip flop between "shoot" and "no shoot" with no prior indication, unlike any IDPA or IPSC target.

 

[ATLDave]

That is in fact what most training outfits and government organization teach.

OK, if you say so. But that still has nothing to do with the safety, and everything to do with training. A gun with a safety in the off position is just like a gun without a safety at all. So if you don't like the practice, then don't put the safety on. Although when is a civilian going to be in that position anyway?

Otherwise, what are thumb lever manual firing inhibitors for anyway? Just to holster? Just to have a holstered gun that has a trigger covered and not handled more safe?

It's not about the gun in the holster. It's about the time that the gun is being put into a holster. Or moving significant distances with the gun in hand. (Or, as may be needed when teaching new shooters, to temporarily make a loaded gun somewhat safer to exchange possession of - remember that the OP is getting this gun, in part, to teach new shooters.)

No. Not transition between targets that have "shoot" written over them. Target that flip flop between "shoot" and "no shoot" with no prior indication, unlike any IDPA or IPSC target.

See above. Do you think civilians are going to do lots of holding at gunpoint? What percentage of civilians have ever held someone at gunpoint, caused them to temporarily surrender, then had the abruptly charge? You're going to trade away all the benefits of a safety in order to somehow be better off in that scenario? If that seems like a dispassionate weighing of risks to you... Well, do as you think best.

 

[red04montels]

Interesting read for the morning haha

Thank you all for the input that you have given me and thank you to those that have strayed away from the drama.

I'm going to go back to the store to handle both models and see how I feel about the safety. If it's fine, I'm going to go with that model.

Being my first handgun to train on, if a safety is second nature, while keeping my finger off the trigger until needed is second nature as well, I'll have no issue going back to a handgun or any firearm for that matter that does not have a safety.

 

[TestPilot]

A gun with a safety in the off position is just like a gun without a safety at all.

Those two are not the same at all. A gun without a thumb lever manual firing inhibitor has no chance of the device accidentally coming on when the shooter is bumped or in a physical contact struggle with an opponent.

... Although when is a civilian going to be in that position anyway?

Lot more often than you might think.

Or moving significant distances with the gun in hand.

So, even you admit that a civilian gun owner might have to engage the lever up or down in mid-fight.

And, that's the point. You have a pre-determined category of situations where you train to engage it and other pre-determined category of situations where you train to disengage the device. Then confusion comes when you face a situation where those two flip-flop or face a situation where the situation does not clearly fall in to any pre-determined category.

Do you think civilians are going to do lots of holding at gunpoint? What percentage of civilians have ever held someone at gunpoint, caused them to temporarily surrender, then had the abruptly charge? You're going to trade away all the benefits of a safety in order to somehow be better off in that scenario? If that seems like a dispassionate weighing of risks to you... Well, do as you think best.

What makes you think flip flop between "shoot" and "no shoot" only happens when you "hold" someone at gun point for a certain length of time? It can happen even while the gun is in transition from your holster to firing position, and still flip flop when the gun gets there. Anyone who did research on use of force dynamics would know this.

And, I see that you are conveniently ignoring the hand injury issue.

 

[tomrkba]

I find the S&W M&P thumb safety to be incorrectly placed. I would verify that she can operate the safety properly and keep her thumb on it without discomfort under recoil.

 

[tomrkba]

to re-apply the safety every time they "come off" a target?

I think the correct answer is to use some sense based upon urgency. There will be times it makes sense to engage the safety and other times where it does not. Any administrative action should be preceded by engagement of the safety (unless the action must be opened in the case of most handgun designs). Sometimes movement may necessitate engagement of the safety. I can certainly see not engaging it if action of any sort is expected.

 

[red04montels]

Is the safety on the M&P really that easy to hit when firing?

I guess you can always just remove it?

 

[wally]

A body has to work at shooting himself in the leg with a DA revolver while holstering. Not so much with a Glock.

The term "Glock Leg" sprang up for some reason, after all.

And a now famous DEA agent took it to a whole new level by demonstrating how to do it in front of a room full of school children while being video taped!

Yup, no need for manual safeties at all.

OTOH didn't some internet commando give himself a case of 1911 butt by re-holstering with the video recording? Proves the only real safety is between the ears.

 

[tomrkba]

OTOH didn't some internet commando give himself a case of 1911 butt by re-holstering with the video recording? Proves the only real safety is between the ears.

Tex Grubner shot himself while drawing his 1911 during CQB practice.

The entire "safety/no safety" argument is one for Internet Commandos. It's silly because, as you said, the only real safety is behind the ears. Any idjit with a gun can bypass all mechanical safeties while violating one or more of the gun safety rules. Someone will still manage to shoot himself despite ten safeties and "Smart Gun" technology (hopefully the first one will be that ATF guy).

 

[tipoc]

With all due respect to Test Pilot I think he has two problems here. One is that it seems he has decided that thumb safeties, like the one on the 1911 and BHP are more trouble than they are worth and that the term thumb safeties to describe the external safeties on these guns is misleading. So he has come up with his own term and is campaigning for that. It is "external firing inhibitor device".

Now some hubris is involved here. I believe the Borchardt pistol of the early 1890s had a thumb safety device. The Luger definitely did, the early Swiss Luger of 1900 also had a grip safety. Since that time external and internal safety devices have been called that, "safeties". On pistols, rifles and shotguns the term "safety" is used to described the levers, switches, etc. that are used to make the weapon "safe" until the shooter is ready to shoot. Glock has a "safe-action" trigger, not a "manual firing inhibitor".

Test pilot has decided that the old term is inaccurate and should go. OK.

I have decided that I have a "satellite enabled personal communication and internet access device" and that the common term "cell phone" or "smart phone" is inaccurate and misleading. Henceforth all should use my term!

The above error flows from the central error though...I don't think he understands how handle a gun with a thumb safety. He's read the critiques of it and regurgitates those. But he doesn't understand. At bottom he does not believe they can be used safely and effectively or that it can be done with training. He opines that anything that inhibits the gun from firing unless it's trigger activated is an obstacle to effective personal self defense.

The term he has invented "manual firing inhibitor" reflects this opinion and flows from it.

tipoc