Are Manual Safeties on Striker Fired Handguns Heresy??

[trackskippy]

If you agree that the vast majority of people don’t put in the work, then you should agree that a striker fired weapon with no safety is a bad fit for those people. Only problem is striker fired weapons are the norm now, and not the exception, and they are directly marketed to those who want to put forward as little effort as possible.

Its no worse a bad fit than anything else you arent willing to bother to learn.

I would think if anything, the guns "with" a safety are more geared for those who arent willing to put the time and effort in, than the reverse. Since they are supposed to be so much safer, in theory anyway.

For whatever reason, you seem to want the gun to be the problem, when they really arent. A safety is just another something you need to learn, and remember to switch off, and for people who don't bother to ingrain that into their handling, it can be a major problem. Added complexity isn't a good thing, especially for the undertrained, under stress.

None of this is rocket science, either way, but there is homework that needs to be done if you hope to be at least somewhat competent.

 

[Homerboy]

Its no worse a bad fit than anything else you arent willing to bother to learn.

I would think if anything, the guns "with" a safety are more geared for those who arent willing to put the time and effort in, than the reverse. Since they are supposed to be so much safer, in theory anyway.

For whatever reason, you seem to want the gun to be the problem, when they really arent. A safety is just another something you need to learn, and remember to switch off, and for people who don't bother to ingrain that into their handling, it can be a major problem. Added complexity isn't a good thing, especially for the undertrained, under stress.

None of this is rocket science, either way, but there is homework that needs to be done if you hope to be at least somewhat competent.

Since semi auto pistols with safeties had been around for over 70 years before Glocks came along, a pistol with a safety is not the problem. And a pistol without a safety is not a problem, as long as the user puts the serious time necessary to safely handle one. Most don’t, and I would include most of the people on this forum who advocate for them, as being in that group. As lacking as police academy training can be, it’s better than 99% of what civilians get, and it clearly wasn’t enough for the LASD.

 

[JR24]

Most don’t, and I would include most of the people on this forum who advocate for them, as being in that group

Awful presumptive of you.

 

[Homerboy]

Awful presumptive of you.

Eh, not really. In my experience most inflate their experience, especially when on an anonymous forum. Repeating “training training training” over and over again doesn’t change anything.

 

[trackskippy]

Since semi auto pistols with safeties had been around for over 70 years before Glocks came along, a pistol with a safety is not the problem. And a pistol without a safety is not a problem, as long as the user puts the serious time necessary to safely handle one. Most don’t, and I would include most of the people on this forum who advocate for them, as being in that group. As lacking as police academy training can be, it’s better than 99% of what civilians get, and it clearly wasn’t enough for the LASD.

Considering we keep dancing around the same thing over and over here, when the answer is clear and simple, Im guessing maybe the problem here with you and the Glocks, is they are just too advanced for your skill level.

One more time, the guns are not the problem.

 

[JR24]

Eh, not really. In my experience most inflate their experience, especially when on an anonymous forum. Repeating “training training training” over and over again doesn’t change anything.

Over inflated, including yourself I would assume then too.

Can't say that dismissing a large swath of a large forum full of professionals, trainers, competitors and just enthusiasts will help your argument any.

I also gotta say an attitude like that shows me any further discussion with you will be pointless.

 

[trackskippy]

Eh, not really. In my experience most inflate their experience, especially when on an anonymous forum. Repeating “training training training” over and over again doesn’t change anything.

I would tend to agree that "many" overstate their abilities, just another one of those human traits I guess. Then again, there are also a lot of people who really can do what they say, or at the very least, will take the challenge come what may.

Im one who does shoot a lot, and not in the bullseye fashion, and Im always up for a friendly challenge, win or lose. You usually learn something either way, and you pretty much always learn more from those who are better than you. Well, some of us do anyway.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's get a little nicer, here, folks.

 

[Homerboy]

Over inflated, including yourself I would assume then too.

Can't say that dismissing a large swath of a large forum full of professionals, trainers, competitors and just enthusiasts will help your argument any.

I also gotta say an attitude like that shows me any further discussion with you will be pointless.

Didn’t realize I had an attitude. Not trying to offend. Just my experience that people tend to exaggerate on anonymous forums. Not to mention the wide definition of training. 2 days at Thunder Ranch doesn’t give an expert badge to anybody.

I’m sure some on this forum would put me to shame. I’m also sure I’d do the same to others less skilled than myself. I no longer like to shoot at public ranges due to the gross negligence I have seen. Don’t even like shooting at my club on days where there are people there if I can avoid it. Just an astonishing amount of awful gun handling around.

Enjoy your Glocks. Or don’t. Doesn’t matter to me.

 

[barnetmill]

Striker fired handgun with safety

Striker illustrated below

 

[Hartkopf]

Eh, not really. In my experience most inflate their experience, especially when on an anonymous forum. Repeating “training training training” over and over again doesn’t change anything.

We are all figments of each other’s imaginations on anonymous forums.

 

[danez71]

Since semi auto pistols with safeties had been around for over 70 years before Glocks came along, a pistol with a safety is not the problem.

This point brings up a curiosity of mine.

I wonder how many people that think society has been dumbed down as compared to previous generations also advocate no safety as it being less complicated rather than advocating training for what was successfully used for generations prior?

Is it that they're saying it, such as the beloved 1911, was an inferior design from the start and if so, wouldn't that infer that the previous generations were the dumbed down generations and that its the younger crowd that is the smarter more dedicated generation for having figured out is was a faulty design and are more dedicated to the obvious more simple task of keeping thier finger off the trigger in the first place?


Imo, It really comes down to different tools for different jobs and knowing how to use them properly.


I wonder how

 

[Zerodefect]

Well, it is time for the 1911 to move on. The grip frame especially. We're already seeing far more advanced 2011's. Hopefully that trickles down to 4" carry pistols soon.

I consider my holster as one of the safeties of a striker pistol. I only use firm kydex with them. Generally Ravens, KC, Bravo, or Crossbreed. The pistol is perfectly safe there.

The ease of drawing a striker fired pistol and getting hits on target should not be underestimated. When pistols like the 1911 and M9 were designed, nobody was really in a hurry to draw them, especially from under a concealment garment. Ccw wasn't exactly popular.

As for the trigger finger bit. In between shots, nobody is turning on the safety of a 2011, CZ75, or M9. Not in training, not in competition. If your finger is riding the trigger, you're MORE dangerous than a striker fired pistol guy. As those all have lighter triggers.

This is why I go with a simple rule, the trigger finger touches nothing between shooting. None of that ''rest it on the frame'' or ''on the trigger guard'' rubbish. Eventually touching nothing feels safe. Instead of touching something, and whoops, you screwed up and that something is the trigger.

 

[JTQ]

The ease of drawing a striker fired pistol and getting hits on target should not be underestimated. When pistols like the 1911 and M9 were designed, nobody was really in a hurry to draw them, especially from under a concealment garment. Ccw wasn't exactly popular.

Conversely, I see the "no safety on my handgun" to be a competition/range thing, since those guns get fired just about every time they come out of the holster.

The concealed carrier, on the other hand, in the capacity of concealed carry, spends much more time administratively handling their gun than shooting it. There are many times when there is an advantage to have an off switch for the concealed carrier.

 

[Slamfire]

DoD has buildings filled with safety incident reports that will never be made public, and of which, you will never see. The only people allowed access to DoD safety incident reports are Safety Investigators with a need to know (as determined by his Boss), and law enforcement. So the fact you have never "heard" don't mean squat. Remember this: there is an asymmetry of information. And if you think the manual safeties are just some sort of bizarre, unexplainable behavior, then, maybe they know something you don't. And, P.S. they ain't going to tell you. It will just cause trouble.

When I first handled my first Glock, I decided the thing was an accident waiting to happen, and every accidental discharge I hear of, or read, just reinforces how wise I was, not to buy a gun that is more likely to shoot me, than the bad guy.

There is your safety



I don't trust that firing pin block to always work



If that sear breaks, and the firing pin block is non functional, that gun is going to go bang. And it does not take much to make it go bang anyway, the things are positively dangerous out of the holster.

I prefer something that is safe, out of the holster.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I had thought about replying to this topic yesterday but got sidetracked with something else. Man, five pages. I almost got tired of reading every post.
Some people had a lot to say, and some not so much. But that’s not saying that the ones that had a lot to say, said very much. Go back and read that last sentence again.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that I have a little bit of experience with firearms and have probably handled and fried more then just about anyone here on the forum. It really helps to have a job that pays you to deal with guns all day.
There will always be those that are willing to argue about the manual safety on handguns. These people fall into a couple of different categories. #1 The guy that is set in his ways. He believes that he is right and everyone that disagrees with him is wrong. #2 The guy that is set in his ways, but is ok with you doing things your way. #3 Is the guy that thinks he knows more then he actually does and pushes his opinion as fact. #4 Is the guy that just wants to poke the bear to keep the argument going.
Let’s face it. Most of the guys that like manual safeties are in the older crowd. This is not a bad thing, it’s what they have always used and are most comfortable with.
The guys that like the DAO guns just can’t get past the transition hump. Or they just found what they like and are happy with it.
Then there are the Never Strikers. These see the striker fire guns as unsafe. This is all fine and dandy until they start pushing their opinion on others. Most often these guys know very little about striker fire guns. Not all Striker Fire guns are the same.
I own a lot of different guns, more then most. The 1911 is one of my favorite. I believe that it needs a manual safety. Browning Hi Power behind second. The S&W M&P is my favorite striker fire gun, with Glock running a close second. I see no need for a manual safety on a striker fire gun, unless you are one that prefers a manual safety. There are plenty of manufacturers that caters to those that like manual safeties on striker fire guns, but Glock is not one of them. I know a guy that hates Glocks only because they don’t offer a manual safety option.
So when it comes right down to it, it’s really a personal choice. Carry what you are comfortable and confident with.
Now when it comes to the military and the procurement of weapons, they have been known to screw that up a time or two. They could have done better then the Beretta, which was not a new design in the 80s. The grip itself was oversized for many to handle properly, and the manual safety was backwards.
Here’s another tidbit of information. Go back and look at your post in the last three topics that you have posted in. How many likes did you get. If you’re not getting any, or very few, that should tell you something

 

[gc70]

On page 5 and nobody has mentioned how they train to eliminate a twitch or jerk reflex.

 

[JohnKSa]

On page 5 and nobody has mentioned how they train to eliminate a twitch or jerk reflex.

Not really something you can train out. That's why you train to keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to shoot. Just as you should with any gun, by the way.

 

[Monac]

This point brings up a curiosity of mine.

I wonder how many people that think society has been dumbed down as compared to previous generations also advocate no safety as it being less complicated rather than advocating training for what was successfully used for generations prior?

Is it that they're saying it, such as the beloved 1911, was an inferior design from the start and if so, wouldn't that infer that the previous generations were the dumbed down generations and that its the younger crowd that is the smarter more dedicated generation for having figured out is was a faulty design and are more dedicated to the obvious more simple task of keeping thier finger off the trigger in the first place?

Imo, It really comes down to different tools for different jobs and knowing how to use them properly.

I wonder how

The kind of people who think that society has been dumbed down do not examine evidence and then assess their conclusion; instead, they interpret all evidence in the light of their conclusion and find a way to make it fit.

For example, when police departments began to transition from revolvers to automatics, because they desired more rounds in the gun and faster reloads, the society-is-going-downhill crowd griped. They called the new pistols "crunchentickers" and said they encouraged people to "spray and pray", whereas nobody with proper training needed more than six shots (if they were revolver guys) or seven shots (if they were 1911 guys).

Now they say pistols without manual safeties represent a dumbing down? But the revolvers of their youth did not have safeties either, and they did not call revolver shooters dumb because of that. For other reasons, maybe, if they were 1911 guys, but not that one.

There is no point in worrying about what people like that think, because nothing you can say will ever change their minds. The most important thing is to avoid becoming one.

 

[gc70]

Not really something you can train out. That's why you train to keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to shoot. Just as you should with any gun, by the way.

Since studies have shown that people do not keep their finger off the trigger in high stress situations, the inability to eliminate the twitch/jerk reflex through training becomes an important factor in evaluating trigger mechanisms.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

The truth is having a safety adds zero time to getting the gun ready to fire, can and has prevented ND’s, and people who claim to be so well trained that their finger would never accidentally touch the trigger, or nothing would ever get caught in the trigger guard, can’t seem to be as supremely competent in flicking off a switch.

That is the logical argument for using a manual safety in a nutshell. It's difficult to refute.

 

[JohnKSa]

Since studies have shown that people do not keep their finger off the trigger in high stress situations, the inability to eliminate the twitch/jerk reflex through training becomes an important factor in evaluating trigger mechanisms.

I've not seen any such studies--but I would be interested to read them.

Given that I've seen a good bit of video of U.S. soldiers in combat situations with their fingers clearly off the triggers I'd be a bit skeptical of the idea that it's impossible to learn to keep one's finger off the trigger in high-stress situations.

Also since the general training for manual safeties is to disengage them as the gun is drawn, they really offer no protection against the situation where a person can't keep their finger off the trigger in a high stress situation.

I suppose if a person trained to only flip the safety off right before shooting, reengaging it after shooting or when shooting isn't required, then it might be possible to bill it as a means of preventing issues arising from improper trigger finger discipline. Assuming, of course that they managed to operate the safety properly even though they can't manage to keep their trigger finger where it belongs when not shooting.

The truth is having a safety adds zero time to getting the gun ready to fire, can and has prevented ND’s, and people who claim to be so well trained that their finger would never accidentally touch the trigger, or nothing would ever get caught in the trigger guard, can’t seem to be as supremely competent in flicking off a switch.

1. If the safety is disengaged as the gun is drawn (the only way it would add zero time to getting the gun ready to fire) the only potential benefit in terms of reducing NDs is during reholstering. It's not going to do anything to prevent issues from a person who can't keep their finger off the trigger because the safety is already off by then. I'm not saying that the benefit during reholstering is not a potentially significant benefit, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

2. If the safety is not disengaged at the draw, then it will add time to getting the gun ready to fire.

3. I'm always interested in the idea that a person who can't learn to keep their finger off the trigger is somehow able to learn to operate a manual safety infallibly. Never forgetting to disengage it when appropriate, never forgetting to engage it, always driving the control into/out of position positively. If those behaviors can be learned to the point that none of them ever poses any problems, wouldn't it actually be easier to learn a single behavior (keep the finger off the trigger) to the point of infallibility?

4. The presence of a manual safety doesn't obviate the requirement for keeping a finger off the trigger. Which means that a person using a gun with a manual safety must learn everything that a person who properly learns to operate a gun without a manual safety has learned. PLUS, they also have to learn to use a manual safety properly. To be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible or unlikely that a person could do that effectively, just pointing out this debate often seems to imply that the two options are using a manual safety vs. keeping one's finger off the trigger. In reality, that's not the case. The two options are using a manual safety AND keeping one's finger off the trigger vs keeping one's finger off the trigger.

 

[Zerodefect]

DoD has buildings filled with safety incident reports that will never be made public, and of which, you will never see. The only people allowed access to DoD safety incident reports are Safety Investigators with a need to know (as determined by his Boss), and law enforcement. So the fact you have never "heard" don't mean squat. Remember this: there is an asymmetry of information. And if you think the manual safeties are just some sort of bizarre, unexplainable behavior, then, maybe they know something you don't. And, P.S. they ain't going to tell you. It will just cause trouble.

When I first handled my first Glock, I decided the thing was an accident waiting to happen, and every accidental discharge I hear of, or read, just reinforces how wise I was, not to buy a gun that is more likely to shoot me, than the bad guy.

There is your safety

View attachment 1014850

I don't trust that firing pin block to always work

View attachment 1014851

If that sear breaks, and the firing pin block is non functional, that gun is going to go bang. And it does not take much to make it go bang anyway, the things are positively dangerous out of the holster.

I prefer something that is safe, out of the holster.

That's a whole lot of "what if's". That dont really happen to OEM or properly tuned Glocks.

Some people should stick to revolvers. But that's none of my biz.

This thread is right up there with the lame: "Is it safe to carry the safest semiautomatic pistol ever made, cocked and locked?" threads.

I prefer a better fighting pistol, to a pistol that has a safety crutch for novices.

There's really nothing wrong with preferring manual safety pistols. Just dont infer that striker pistols are actually less safe. They're safe when handled and carried properly.

 

[Old Dog]

I prefer a better fighting pistol, to a pistol that has a safety crutch for novices.

"Safety crutch for novices?" Seriously? Plenty of fighting pistols that have been produced with manual safeties and performed admirably over the years. Your statement displays only minor indications of hubris and a superiority complex. I've worked with large numbers of true professionals over the years who've actually preferred manual safety levers on handgun, and never once heard them referred to as "safety crutches for novices."

Perhaps I'm not reading carefully enough, but I'm not seeing folks inferring that striker-fired pistols without manual safeties are less safe.

 

[JTQ]

delete