External Safety vs No Safety

[Drail]

deleted

 

[fastbolt]

Familiarity with the equipment and how it operates, and is intended to be operated under different conditions.

Training with properly using the equipment, especially done with a mind toward reasonably anticipating the circumstances and situations in which the equipment will be used.

Experience using the equipment, done frequently enough to maintain a practical familiarity with effectively operating it.

Just owning and carrying it around isn't the same thing. Trying to operate it in an unexpected emergency situation, especially when the circumstances are dynamic, chaotic, rapidly evolving and life-threatening, is going to demand more of the equipment user than unhurried, easily anticipated and non-emergency situations.

As has already been mentioned regarding many average licensed drivers who suddenly find themselves unable to react to the sudden needs of an emergency driving situation, it's easy to get overwhelmed by new and unexpected events for which they've not prepared themselves.

Why do you think LE are commonly required to complete EVOC training for operating patrol vehicles in both normal and high speed/pursuit driving conditions, and may often have to keep updated by doing recurrent training? That certainly doesn't keep them from becoming involved in avoidable collisions, but the additional training required has certainly saved lives.

My first "in-house" EVOC instructor was an experienced driver for a type of sanctioned racing in his off-time (and a pilot). I remember him telling us in my first in-house driver training that what we were being taught would probably save out lives more often in our off-duty time. I was skeptical, of course. After the third time his training did save me (and my family) from serious injury or death in unexpected off-duty traffic situations, I joined the list of people he'd trained who sought him out to thank him for the training for saving me and my family.

As a long time SA & DA/DAO revolver shooter, 1911 shooter, TDA (also called DA/SA) pistol shooter, and also a "striker-fired" plastic pistol shooter for some years ... both as owner and a trained LE firearms instructor of 26 years ... I would offer the opinion that yes, safely manipulating and effectively using handguns with manual external safeties can require more familiarization, training & practice then handguns configured without them. Especially in emergency situations that don't give you much (if any) time to stop and refresh your memory and leisurely think your way through things.

 

[ATLDave]

As others have mentioned, if the safety on a handgun is competently designed, and the user has a proper grip on the gun, then all of this is a non-issue.

 

[chardin]

I would offer the opinion that yes, safely manipulating and effectively using handguns with manual external safeties can require more familiarization, training & practice then handguns configured without them. Especially in emergency situations that don't give you much (if any) time to stop and refresh your memory and leisurely think your way through things.

I hate to quote only one section of your excellent post, but that would make the quote longer than the reply.

I agree with what you have said, and will add that if I fail to familiarize myself with a pistol to the point that I can safely and surely carry and engage it, it is my fault if I fail to do those things while carrying it. If I die with the safety on, pulling the trigger, that is not the pistol's failing, but mine. If the gun goes off because I put my finger on the trigger without intending to fire the gun, that is my fault.

At that point, it's a question of deciding what pistol I'm comfortable with, and what tradeoffs I prefer. That is an individual choice, and I don't think the comparison to a longarm illuminates that choice well for me. But this isn't a question of blaming the equipment and never should be. It is a question of choosing the equipment you work best with.

 

[chardin]

As others have mentioned, if the safety on a handgun is competently designed, and the user has a proper grip on the gun, then all of this is a non-issue.

I don't find this remark very helpful. It's an issue to the extent that it affects my comfort and ease with the gun. That is a decision for me to make. You make it for yourself.

 

[ATLDave]

I will concede that if you have a "comfort" issue with something, then that can be an issue.

 

[chardin]

Let me be clearer: You do not decide what my issues are. Is that clear, sir?

 

[ATLDave]

Sure. People have all kinds of issues.

[Snark off] Obviously, I'm fully supportive of people having their own preferences. That's cool. Like whatever you like.

My interest/objection begins when folks set out to persuade others that their own preferences are "right." At that point, a reason-based discussion is perfectly sensible.

 

[chardin]

You have just made my decision very easy for me.

Getting back to the topic, then. If a weapon is to be used mainly as a reactive weapon, as a sidearm is, that might lead a person to make different choices from one that is not. That's why I don't find the premise of comparing the two to be as helpful as I'd like.

 

[ATLDave]

Getting back to the topic, then. If a weapon is to be used mainly as a reactive weapon, as a sidearm is, that might lead a person to make different choices from one that is not.

Nobody with a suitable grip and any familiarity with a frame-mounted, down-to-fire safety (FMDTF) is having to make any conscious decision about taking off the safety. Except for people who are brand new to such guns (and usually combine it with a very low grip) it's just not a thing that happens.

I've never been in a gunfight, and plan never to be. But I've RO'ed thousands of USPSA shooters. Shooters who were so nervous they lost their grip entirely. Or forgot to put a round in the chamber. Or who forgot a plan they just spent 10 minutes burning into their brain. Or who couldn't cleanly pick up a gun or magazine or other object from a table. I've seen all kinds of fine motor control failures and general pressure-induced numbskullery. But except for shooters who have just switched over from safety-less guns and haven't yet learned how to grip a gun with a FMDTF safety, I haven't ever seen someone "forget" to take off the safety. Because, as I said, it's just a non-issue barring either rank inexperience or some weird physical infirmity.

 

[HonorableHojutsu]

My brain is the best safety.....

*runs for cover...*

 

[chardin]

My brain is the best safety.....

*runs for cover...*

I'm imagining bits of your brain locking, blocking, or intercepting the firing mechanism. It's kind of Gigeresque.

 

[JTQ]

I think I care a bit more about how error-prone it is to bring a defensive pistol to bear with a minimum of steps than how to do the same with a long gun.

This is the advantage of high thumbs with the 1911. Your thumb is always on the thumb safety.

Most 1911 shooters will get their thumb to the thumb safety when getting a full firing grip on the gun while holstered. It becomes automatic.

Note Ed Head, of Gunsite Academy, getting a grip on his 1911, at about the :40 point, in this GunTalkTV video

 

[chardin]

Yeah, as I said, my problem with that hold is that I don't find it as comfortable or as solid as the one I currently use. For those who like that hold, that's not at all a disadvantage.

 

[Kman314]

I shoot revolvers, DAO, and DA/SA semiautomatics. For first trigger pull I have a heavy trigger. For all but the DA/SA, I have that all the time. For the one that is sinless action after the first round I am likely hot and engaged with a threat. My P226 TACOPS has the SRT that gives me quicker reset for accurate followup shots.

What I don't like are light trigger pulls of SAO with the hammer cocked even with a manual safety for self-defense as they are easy to fire all the time from first shot forward. It is not my personal preference. I want a heavy trigger pull for the first shot for stressful situations so I have some leeway.

I'm with you on that. My wife and I are both currently carrying Beretta Px4s with the safety/decocker. When the gun goes in the holster, the safety goes off so the gun is ready to fire. We both feel much more comfortable with the heavier first trigger pull.

 

[Shaq]

I prefer no safety on a defensive pistol, provided it doesn't have a light trigger. I prefer around 8-10 lbs. My house Glocks have the NY1 trigger which is around 8 lbs. Hammer-fired D.A. autos that have a heavy trigger for the first shot need no safety since the trigger is like a D.A. revolver (as long as the hammer isn't cocked). My bedside shotgun has the mag loaded but chamber empty & safety off.

 

[SwampWolf]

↑
QUOTE: "My take is simple. The odds of needing to actually use a weapon for self defense are much less than the possibility of injury or death due to accidental or negligent discharge. Safety first always. However that needs to be accomplished is up to the shooter in his/her choice of gun and how and if he/she practices its use. For me, a safety is mandatory on a SAO and a DA/SA but somewhat optional on a DAO."

QUOTE:" Hang on. For DA/SA?


"I am not understanding the thinking here.
The reason for DA/SA is so you don't have to have a safety but are still as safe as any DA revolver."

I agree with Corpral_Agran. There are many DA/SA pistols that don't come with safeties (SIG being a good example) that are as safe as any double-action revolver to carry and use.
There have been more than a few instances over time, mostly involving le officers engaged in a physical confrontation with a perp, when being able to shove the safety on before losing possession of the pistol to the criminal has saved a person's life because it took time for the perp to figure out how to get the safety off and shoot the pistol.
There is one potential problem with some pistols having safeties that people carrying/using them should be aware of: it is possible to unknowingly move the safety in the process of clearing a jam like a "stovepipe". After my agency transitioned to semi-autos from revolvers, we were issued "Third Generation", DA/SA Smith & Wesson pistols and were trained to carry them with the safety in the "off" mode. However, during clearance drills it was quickly learned that the accepted way of ridding a stovepiped case, by sweeping the palm of the support hand over the top of the slide and knocking the case free could also result in inadvertently engaging the safety. Once you knew this anomaly could happen and were trained to look for it if it did, it wasn't a problem anymore. The same thing can happen with pistols like the Beretta Model 92 and others of its ilk.
Good training and lots of practice will make choosing between a pistol with or without a safety nothing more than a personal decision to accommodate individual needs and/or wants.

 

[AF_Mike]

I don't find that the high thumb hold helps manage recoil. I find it strains my hand and doesn't allow me to form a solid ball with both hands.


It depends on the safety in each case. That said, "difficult" and "error-prone" are not synonyms, and I think the comparison most people are making is in the apples-to-apples case of a pistol with an external safety to one without.

A pistol is a reactive weapon more than a long gun is. If I know I'm getting into a fight right then, I'm bringing a long gun, and a friend with a long gun, and a bunch of friends with long guns. A pistol is on my hip in case a fight starts that I wasn't planning on having.

Reactive weapons will almost always be used in a hurry, long guns only some of the time. Those are their respective tactical niches.

Sometimes long guns are used in a hurry, but when they are, I wonder how one might design one so that it can be carried safely without an external safety. Someone has probably solved this, and there are probably lots of opinions about that solution. (The Nylon 66 does not count as a good solution.)

Therefore, I think I care a bit more about how error-prone it is to bring a defensive pistol to bear with a minimum of steps than how to do the same with a long gun.

I agree totally that any kind of pistol would not be my first choice if I knew a deadly encounter was going to happen. However, I can't imagine many realistic scenarios where an American gun owner is going to know a fight is coming. If I'm having to utilize my HD shotgun in a proactive manner, I would imagine that some very dark days are coming to pass, or for some ungodly reason I moved to Chicago . So for the overwhelming majority of US gun owners I would argue that all of our defensive firearms could be considered reactionary.

This is why I concentrated on CCW in public (handguns) and home defense (handguns or long guns). Both of these situations involve an innocent person being threatened with an unexpected deadly threat and thus, requiring that person to quickly persuade or force that threat to stop. In either situation stress will be a factor and that is why I question the thinking that safeties are less than desirable on defensive pistols, yet A-OK on defensive rifles or shotguns.

 

[chardin]

I agree totally that any kind of pistol would not be my first choice if I knew a deadly encounter was going to happen. However, I can't imagine many realistic scenarios where an American gun owner is going to know a fight is coming. If I'm having to utilize my HD shotgun in a proactive manner, I would imagine that some very dark days are coming to pass, or for some ungodly reason I moved to Chicago . So for the overwhelming majority of US gun owners I would argue that all of our defensive firearms could be considered reactionary.

Reactionary, often. Primarily reactionary? I use my rifles far more for hunting than shooting people in a hurry.

In any case, this might make as good as case for making longarms with no external safeties as for urging their use on pistols.

This is why I concentrated on CCW in public (handguns) and home defense (handguns or long guns). Both of these situations involve an innocent person being threatened with an unexpected deadly threat and thus, requiring that person to quickly persuade or force that threat to stop. In either situation stress will be a factor and that is why I question the thinking that safeties are less than desirable on defensive pistols, yet A-OK on defensive rifles or shotguns.

The two scenarios are different, the guns are different, and I don't see you making the affirmative case for external safeties on longarms. I still do not find your logic persuasive.

 

[AF_Mike]

Reactionary, often. Primarily reactionary? I use my rifles far more for hunting than shooting people in a hurry.

In any case, this might make as good as case for making longarms with no external safeties as for urging their use on pistols.


The two scenarios are different, the guns are different, and I don't see you making the affirmative case for external safeties on longarms. I still do not find your logic persuasive.

I understand that hunting weapons can be used for defensive purposes, but I look at the two roles differently. If I'm hunting with an 12 ga, I am actively pursuing a target. In other words, I'm the aggressor (proactive use). But if that same shotgun is kept next to my bed for HD and I hear my door being kicked in at 2am, I'm responding to the situation by grabbing it while half asleep in my boxers (reactive use). While both can definitely induce stress, I normally am not in fear of my life when chasing down pheasants and grouse in the fields of the northern plains. Hence, my concentration on the stress induced while utilizing firearms in a defensive manner when starting this topic.

However, I think your comment about the case being made against safeties on rifles and for them on pistols hits the nail on the head and I agree completely. The fact that a case could be made in either direction is exactly why I wanted to hear others' opinions on the matter. I was, and still am, legitimately confused about the reasoning behind the commonly held belief of Defensive Pistol w/safety=bad ; Defensive Long gun w/safety=good.

You are also completely right by stating that defensive scenarios can be different because there are endless variables that can alter a situation. Again, that is why I'm trying to focus on the stress aspect of self defense, as opposed to the endless possibilities that make each situation unique, because the stress of fearing for one's life is one of the few things that will be a constant in any HD or CCW scenario. However, that stress just so happens to be one of the major reasons that many advocate using pistols without safeties for either case, yet they also commonly approve of long guns that have safeties for HD.

But also, please keep in mind I'm not trying to make a case for, or against manual safeties. The AF pretty much made that decision for me, at least for CCW, when they saw fit to station me in ND. My goal is not to persuade, but to create a discussion and hopefully learn something in the process. If anything, I'm making a case that there is no case to be made at all

 

[chardin]

Ah, in that case you are exploring an interesting point. Thank you for explaining it to me.

 

[herrwalther]

Fact of the matter is, many "tactical trainers" are not as experienced as they like to think they are. This whole mentality that a manual safety will get you killed and fine motor skills don't exist is a load of crap. And a bad load of crap. Training is the most important aspect. If your entire carry rotation is 1911s, you will know that safety like the back of your hand. It will come off fast and be second nature. Many who shoot 1911s disengage the safety as part of the draw stroke from the holster. Intuitive.

There are manual safeties on military firearms. M4/M16, M9, M240, M249 and the new M2s all have safety levers. I have been in firefights. And I have never heard any of my fellow soldiers say they were slow getting off rounds because they were tripping over their safety. The difference is training. When given a weapon, we are trained to bring our weapon into the fight and flipping off the safety as the firearm is presented. Do that for 1200 or 1500 rounds and you don't even think about it.

 

[sgt127]

Glock did a great job of redefining how to carry a gun when they pushed the Safe Action.

When I carried a 1911, it had a 4 pound trigger. A grip safety and a thumb safety. (Average trigger for a 1911 is about 5 pounds)

Glock designed a gun that was designed to be carried cocked and the only safety was in the trigger. So it became the norm to carry a pistol with a 5.5 trigger and no manual safety engaged.

Had I carried around a 1911 with the safety off, I would have been thought of (rightfully) as an idiot. Even though it had a grip safety and since the series 80, a firing pin safety.

I'll take a smooth DA trigger or a cocked and locked pistol anytime.

 

[bnolsen]

I carried a glock 20 for a while concealed. One time for some reason I had removed it from the holster and while reholstering it noticed it wasn't going in smoothly...my shirt had somehow gotten caught up on the trigger. Scared me to death...I much prefer a down sweep thumb safety. Super easy to get used to engaging. Before the glock I carried a 1911 and after I carried a cz72 clone.

 

[Old Dog]

Fact of the matter is, many "tactical trainers" are not as experienced as they like to think they are. This whole mentality that a manual safety will get you killed and fine motor skills don't exist is a load of crap. And a bad load of crap. Training is the most important aspect. If your entire carry rotation is 1911s, you will know that safety like the back of your hand. It will come off fast and be second nature. Many who shoot 1911s disengage the safety as part of the draw stroke from the holster. Intuitive.

There are manual safeties on military firearms. M4/M16, M9, M240, M249 and the new M2s all have safety levers. I have been in firefights. And I have never heard any of my fellow soldiers say they were slow getting off rounds because they were tripping over their safety. The difference is training. When given a weapon, we are trained to bring our weapon into the fight and flipping off the safety as the firearm is presented. Do that for 1200 or 1500 rounds and you don't even think about it.

Great post; thank you. And pretty much echoes and reinforces my first post in this thread.

And this:

fastbolt said: ↑
I would offer the opinion that yes, safely manipulating and effectively using handguns with manual external safeties can require more familiarization, training & practice then handguns configured without them. Especially in emergency situations that don't give you much (if any) time to stop and refresh your memory and leisurely think your way through things.

Only if you came up training and shooting only striker-fired pistols (or maybe SIG P-series pistols) or revolvers. Those of us of certain generations that grew up shooting auto-pistols with manual safeties (for my generation, the Colt's 1911A1 , S&W 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation auto-loaders and later the Beretta M9 that were the only auto-pistols then commonly in use).

I see a number of posters here whose assertions fall clearly in line with the only hand-gunning experiences and training they've had -- let's call them the "GLOCK Generation."

Those of you who fall into this category need to stop presuming that difficulty using handguns with manual safeties is an affliction suffered by all. Some of us know better ...