External Safety vs No Safety

[Edcnh]

I prefer no safety on my concealed carry weapons. I have only carried a couple of years and feel more comfortable with a gun that does not have a safety. I am comfortable carrying a striker fired pistol with a trigger safety or a Glock. And a long double action pull is fine as well. I would not carry a 1911 style gun unless it had a manual safety.

 

[herrwalther]

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

I didn't read your post, or many others but I am glad we are on the same page. I am not sure where some of these "professional" firearm trainers got their mentality that a firearm with a safety is somehow inferior to the pedestal that Glock helped build. I respect Rob Pincus because of a shared history but we but heads about firearms most times we talk. You would think a firearm with a safety would be preferred because they require MORE training to become familiar with. Which would allow these "trainers" to make more money in class fees. But there I go thinking logically again.

 

[Robert101]

I agree with Tirod's post #12 and will state that both my carry guns are very different. One is a 1911 and the other is a Glock 27. The safeties are vastly different. I do prefer the G27 for simplicity of operation and legendary reliability. I enjoy carrying the 1911 because I can shoot it well at longer distances. I've heard the statistics of self-defense distances (3 to 7 yards) but it does give comfort to know that with my 1911 I can still hit a small target at double the distance of my G27. Please let's not get into a conversation regarding self-defense distances now. I'm only making my comment based on the varied types of safety devices on each of my carry guns. Yes practice makes perfect.

 

[danez71]

Olddog said

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 ...

You mean some of us have thumbs that are every bit as smart as their index finger?


If you think about it, pulling the trigger well enough to still hit the target requires a lot more fine motor skills than sweeping off the safety.

 

[drband]

If you think about it, pulling the trigger well enough to still hit the target requires a lot more fine motor skills than sweeping off the safety.

^^^This!^^^

 

[9mmepiphany]

I have to say it is a bit amusing how some perceive the difficulty of sweeping off the 1911 style thumb safety.

If you are using the optimal grip and are taking off the thumb safety at the optimal point of the presentation, sweeping the safety off isn't a fine motor skill...it is just part of the presentation; it is a matter of correct training/instruction. Your experience may vary, should you choose to use a less optimal grip or to disengage the thumb safety as a separate action.

My primary CCW does not have a thumb safety, because I've found a platform better suited to defensive carry than the 1911-pattern. But I do own a rather nice 1911 build and don't have an issue sweeping off the thumb safety when shooting it in action games or when training

 

[Trunk Monkey]

In my eyes there seems to be a disconnect in popular gun culture when it comes to defensive pistols and long guns. Why is a safety potentially deadly in a stressful situation outside of your home but completely acceptable in an equally stressful situation while in your house?

I'm not aware of any long gun on the market that is offered without an external safety. So there's no alternative.

As a caveat, I would like to mention I'm not creating this thread to spark an argument

Sure you're not.

 

[Ramey]

I've tried to talk about how a manual safety is good on YouTube videos and people tear me a new one in the comment section. So this is a refreshing change for once. The reason I use a safety is simple. Where I live there are a lot of gun free zones. I find myself reholstering in the car, in the dark in a crowded parking lot. Don't wanna make a show of it. A manual safety makes that easier.

 

[ATLDave]

Exactly, Ramey. For virtually everyone, the number of times they are handling their gun and desire it NOT to discharge is much, much larger than the times they are handling the gun and want it to discharge. Not because they're "playing" with the gun (which is to be avoided), but because guns aren't born in holsters. Having an "off switch" on the gun makes such handling quite a bit safer.

 

[cfullgraf]

The following is my preference but I'll respect anyone else's preference.

For my circumstances, I feel the risk of an accidental discharge is much greater than the risk of being accosted by some unsavory person or persons. So, I am not comfortable carrying a handgun that does not have a safety or a heavy first double action trigger pull.

If I lived where the risk to my personal safety was greater, I might think differently. But, I don't know.

Regardless of the handgun used, training and practice is the key to safe, efficient use. While there are common features between brands of handguns, there are also differences. The user must become familiar with how the features of his handgun operates so that it becomes second nature during stressful times.

While traveling in England a few years ago, we rented a car with a manual transmission (aka straight drive). Since they drive on the wrong side of the street over there, the gear shift is operated by the left hand. It took me several days to reprogram myself to not reach for the gear shift with my right hand. Training and practice, otherwise things just do not go as planned.

 

[chardin]

The following is my preference but I'll respect anyone else's preference.

For my circumstances, I feel the risk of an accidental discharge is much greater than the risk of being accosted by some unsavory person or persons. So, I am not comfortable carrying a handgun that does not have a safety or a heavy first double action trigger pull.

Makes sense to me, although with a name like "Chuck", I wonder if you can be trusted.

(Yeah, Chuck Hardin. Pleased to meet you.)

 

[Zerodefect]

The only manual safety pistol I like is the 1911. All the rest seem slow to me. I'm mostly a Glock guy now.

Tried the squeeze cocker HK's. Cool. But I'll shoot my foot with one of those. The squeeze step, and pull trigger step, seems to get crossed up in my lizard brain.

 

[benEzra]

My EDC is a DA/SA 9mm with a manual safety (S&W 3913LS); my other pistol is a striker-fired 9mm with a trigger safety (FN FNS 9). One of the things I don't like about the FNS so much is that when reholstering, putting in the safe, etc., the exposed hammer and manual safety of the 3913 give a level of safety redundancy. If a zipper or jacket pull gets caught in the trigger guard of the 3913 as I reholster it, my thumb is on the hammer (instant feedback if it starts to move), the trigger is temporarily disconnected, and the firing pin is physically blocked from the hammer by the manual safety lever itself. With the striker fired pistol, I always verify visually or otherwise that the holster is unfouled before reholstering, since there is no tactile feedback and less redundancy with that system, and the pistol always goes into the safe in its holster.

 

[fastbolt]

...
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 ...

I think you may have mistaken some of my posting.

I'm likely of the same "generation" as you.

I grew up learning to shoot on SA revolvers, a Ruger Standard and 1911's, and later on using DA revolvers (after grudgingly accepting the fact that they weren't a fad that was going to go away, as I really preferred SA revolvers ). I didn't particularly care for Browning HP's or the early 1st gen S&W TDA's (but that was mostly because they were 9mm's, and my youthful preferences for defensive/working calibers didn't extend to 9mm back then ).

I started to dabble with some of the S&W 2nd gen's, but didn't serious about it until they took my issued .357 MAG service revolver and replaced it with one of the then-new M5903 3rd gen alloy pistols, forcing me to become conversant and adept with them. This occurred just as I was becoming a LE firearms instructor, and was just about the time we were seeing the Glock starting to gain some headway in LE circles.

Having been a longtime 1911 shooter, I didn't see any issue manipulating the decocker of the S&W TDA's, and we were told to carry those new TDA's in the Off-Safe/Ready-to-Fire condition. Some agencies were training their folks to carry such pistols On-Safe, though. Having seen any number of those folks come through range sessions, and who had to manipulate the safeties to take them Off-Safe during their draw & presentation, it became fairly common to see them have to take an additional half second, or longer, to manipulate their safety levers during training & quals. No biggie. Thatnw as just more of a technique and training emphasis issue, anyway. IT became more of an issue to try and train some users of the L3 "safety" holsters, as those folks could find themselves losing some time unless they invested effort in really mastering their use.

I waited several years after the introduction of the Glock before becoming mildly interested in them, and only really did so because we were seeing more of them appearing as off-duty choices, so it behooved me to become familiar with them as an instructor and armorer.

Nowadays? Everyone and their brother has seemingly introduced some striker-type plastic pistol, but the TDA (and even DAO) hammer-fired pistols aren't going to fade away completely, at least not anytime soon. (I developed an interest in the unique Walther P99 system, what they now call their Anti-Stress mode, because it's simple, robust ... and still offers me a nice DA trigger press for the initial shot.) Issued and optionally authorized duty weapons include a variety of hammer-fired/TDA models, as well as Glocks and other striker-type weapons. A modern firearms instructor needs to learn to become familiar, and able to teach, using a variety of common pistols designs.

Given my druthers I'd always prefer a DA revolver (or some of my DAO J's) or a 1911, but enough years have passed for the TDA and striker-type designs to have become just fine as working guns.

 

[fastbolt]

Some aspects of this thread remind me of some folks debating the pro's & con's of automatic transmissions versus manual, while operating cars/trucks and motorcycles in situations ranging from everyday to emergency/exigent.

Training and experience, and the ability to effectively utilize one's training and experience when operating different equipment. Plan for it, or be prepared to risk experiencing failure.

No biggie ... unless someone let's themselves get caught up in some situation where it becomes one (and it was foreseeable and preventable, on their part).

Choices, decisions and actions can have consequences. Life's funny, that way.

 

[Hangingrock]

(I developed an interest in the unique Walther P99 system, what they now call their Anti-Stress mode, because it's simple, robust ... and still offers me a nice DA trigger press for the initial shot.

I have an example of the collaboration between Smith&Wesson&Walther, SW99-45ACP. Unique is an accurate description of the Anti-Stress triggering system.

 

[DBEAM]

I have gotten to where I like a gun with a safety and a holster with some sort of action needed for release. I think the main driving force for this has been kids. I don't mean I leave guns sitting around and rely on a safety. I mean that in the event I have a momentary lapse of judgement say I accidentally leave a gun safe open which even though I have positioned it out of reach my 2 year old is amazingly fast with a chair there is one more step he has to go through to fire the gun. That same 2 year old will try to get a hold of a holstered gun, hence why I like holsters with active retention.
All this being said the only gun I have ever had to use (to run off a dog or two) is a 38 in my pocket with an exposed hammer, every time I've needed it just seemed to appear in my hand. I don't train that much with the gun but it goes in and out of my pocket at least twice each day.

 

[Tallball]

I prefer my long guns with a safety and my SD handguns without.

I carry my long guns around in rough country with my finger near the trigger. I stumble sometimes. I am after meat that I can afford to buy if my hunt is unsuccessful. I would much rather lose a deer from having to click the safety off than blowing my foot off because I stumbled and my finger did something weird.

I carry a handgun in a holster that covers the trigger. My hand is not near it. If I need it, I will need it fast and the results might easily be life or death one way or the other. I want something snag-proof with as few buttons or levers as possible. I prefer DAO revolvers, but have a couple of DAO semi-automatics as well.

 

[AF_Mike]

I'm not aware of any long gun on the market that is offered without an external safety. So there's no alternative.

I think you're right about long guns and safeties, barring some lever actions and old SxS shotguns I've seen (although I suppose external hammers could be considered a form of manual safety). But then that begs the question: Why is it that the experts that push for pistols without safeties over those that do have them for CCW, do not also promote those pistols over long guns with safeties for HD as well? In other words, if safeties are so "bad" in defensive situations, shouldn't all CCW and HD firearms be pistols without safeties since there are no long guns that meet this "requirement"? I suppose the increase in fire power that a long gun gives a person could be the answer, but is that benefit enough to outweigh the "deadly" disadvantage of having an external safety?

Sure you're not.

I'm glad we agree

But seriously, I think this thread has been very civil and interesting (at least for me) so far. To me, that's a testament to the caliber (pun most certainly intended) of the people participating in the discussion.

 

[AF_Mike]

I've tried to talk about how a manual safety is good on YouTube videos and people tear me a new one in the comment section. So this is a refreshing change for once. The reason I use a safety is simple. Where I live there are a lot of gun free zones. I find myself reholstering in the car, in the dark in a crowded parking lot. Don't wanna make a show of it. A manual safety makes that easier.

I hate those pesky "All Active Shooters Welcome" zones. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where there aren't that many. Although the AF Base I'm stationed at is 100% restrictive on CCW. But that's another topic for another day.

Interesting point about safeties and reholstering in odd situations though. I've honestly never thought of that.

 

[chicharrones]

I think you're right about long guns and safeties, barring some lever actions and old SxS shotguns I've seen (although I suppose external hammers could be considered a form of manual safety). But then that begs the question: Why is it that the experts that push for pistols without safeties over those that do have them for CCW, do not also promote those pistols over long guns with safeties for HD as well? In other words, if safeties are so "bad" in defensive situations, shouldn't all CCW and HD firearms be pistols without safeties since there are no long guns that meet this "requirement"? I suppose the increase in fire power that a long gun gives a person could be the answer, but is that benefit enough to outweigh the "deadly" disadvantage of having an external safety?

.

Single action triggers on long guns versus handguns that are DA/SA, DAO, or semi-cocked striker.

As you note, the long guns without safeties are usually the type that the hammer(s) can be lowered to a half cock position. Even the fairly uncommon modern revolver carbines with DA/SA triggers can have their hammers lowered manually and have additional protection with something like a transfer bar.

I gotta admit when my hand strength fades as I age, I will probably move away from heavy trigger carry guns with no safety lever and get into single action carry guns with a manual safety. A nice 1911 in 9mm might be perfect.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

But seriously, I think this thread has been very civil and interesting (at least for me) so far. To me, that's a testament to the caliber (pun most certainly intended) of the people participating in the discussion.

Can't deny that. Usually these threads become pissing contests pretty quick

 

[Nuclear]

I've tried a number of different styles of handguns for carry and I've never had problems adapting to their types of safeties (or lack thereof). The slowest "safety" for me, hands down, is a DA/SA. The rest make no appreciable difference. I don't carry 1911's (too heavy) but I can't even tell you when I take off the safety because I shot them in competition & training and it is automatic now. I'm pretty sure I swipe the area where a thumb safety would be when I shoot a handgun without one.

Wasn't there a long gun that came out that was DA? Only one I can remember.

 

[barnbwt]

The SITES Spectre (and or one of the newer B&T offerings if I'm not mistaken) is the answer, such as there is one needed; double-action/single-action striker fire with a decocker. Designed to be carried with a round in the chamber, but totally protected against discharge unless the trigger is first pulled. The thinking was a bridge between the police pistol/revolver carried with a round in the pipe decocked, and the SMG carried empty more like most service rifles (since this was a police-oriented SMG).

To a much (much) lesser extent the Hotchkiss Universal also employed a number of pistol-like safety features, in that it had a magazine safety and out of battery safety that disconnected the trigger linkage (as opposed to simply blocking it or operating on bolt position as an autosear; a dedicated autosear had that job for the select-fire mode).

It's a good question, since people seem fully comfortable with the 'more complicated' manual of arms where pistols are concerned (multiple carry conditions or carrying completely ready-to-go with no conscious indication besides a trigger pull being needed for 'bang'), but overwhelmingly desire the century-old manual-safety-only layout on all rifles. A side project of mine is actually a small pistol carbine that has a grip safety in lieu of selector, intended to be carried in a scabbard, for light-duty trail defense, basically like an oversized pistol.

TCB