I usually stay out of these aruguments, but I cant resist
When first shopping for a new auto loader, I was very hesitant to buy a glock because of the lack of a manual safety. I was used to my 92FS, and was comfortable with that "safety". I was made aware of a very simple aftermarket manual safety that could easily be added (what isn't easy on a Glock) and convinced myself that that was the easy cure if I should so choose. Every other feature of the gun appealed to me so problem solved.
Since owning the gun, I have become comfortable with it, and educated on how the passive system works, I feel the gun is every bit as safe as the guy holding it.
I don't understand those who say it isn't as safe as a revolver...just doesn't make sense. I think it is safer than a revolver. If the argument is that the trigger is too light, therefore more dangerous, then add a "new york" trigger spring. If i had to bet my life, and have a loaded gun dropped in front of me, I would trust the glock not to go off over any wheel gun.
If in a low level threat enviroment, or in home use, the gun can always be unchambered, making it the most safe thing in the world. the 1 second that it takes to chamber a round is not signifigantly more than it takes to flick off a manual safety or cock a hammer on a revolver.
As far as theoretically 'snagging' on something, cant you snag a 1911 safety tab just as easy thereby rendering safety off?
If one absolutely insist on a manual safety, just add a siderlock. Takes 15 minutes, and doesn't alter any working part of the gun, and is totally snag proof, since it is inside the trigger guard. Similar to a standard safety on a Remington 870 but in the trigger instead of behind it, making very easy to release and quite natural.
http://www.cabelas.com/p-0054357229099a.shtml
Problem solved. Now you one of the most reliable auto shooters in modern history, WITH a manual safety, and the passive safety system to boot.