iMagUdspEllr
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 88
@balance 740:
I did say
But, a design with a trigger safety is a mistake because it doesn't stop the trigger from being pulled if something snags it (because most things that would snag on the trigger would disable the trigger safety in the process).
Your Steyr M9 argument is a straw man because I am pretty sure it was clear that I stated the trigger safety lever was a mistake... not firing pin blocks. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not X model has X safety or not. My argument is that the point of a safety is for it to prevent the gun from firing when you don't want it to. My point about a trigger safety is that it doesn't stop a gun from firing when you don't want it to.
GLOOB pointed out that the Glock design needs the trigger safety because they designed the pistol to use the trigger safety to hold the trigger bar in the forward position while the gun cycles. If the trigger bar isn't held in the forward position while the slide cycles the firing pin block and drop safety will not be engaged as they should. At least that is my understanding of what he said.
I would also like to repeat that the OP was asking about how safe a gun intended to not have a safety lever on the trigger was. That has nothing to do with disabling safeties on designs that are designed to have them. So, you are talking about something beside the point of discussion.
To be absolutely clear (because I have to repeat myself in a text-based medium for some strange reason). I think anyone who owns a gun designed to have a trigger safety should leave it as configured from the factory (especially the safety features).
Now, as far as the OP's point of discussion, a gun designed without a trigger safety is just as safe as one that is designed with one. To support this argument of mine (for I guess the third time now) I would like to point out that anything that snags the trigger will nearly 100% of the time also snag the trigger safety lever also (which defeats the purpose of having a trigger safety). I have asked other people to give an example of something that would snag the trigger but not snag the trigger safety also. Nobody has cared to respond to that request.
So, I'm not talking about disabling safeties on existing designs. I'm talking about how companies should have never designed their guns with a trigger safety if they could have helped it.
At least Glock does not classify the trigger safety as a drop safety. The Glock's drop safety is it's drop safety.
Glock Safe Action
GLOOB pointed out that if the slide cycles with the trigger safety disabled the gun will not function properly because the trigger bar will move rearward with the slide which will cause the other two safeties to be deactivated. But, again, this is besides the point the OP wanted to discuss. Neither the OP or myself are talking about disabling safeties on currently manufactured guns. We are discussing whether or not it would be so bad if these guns were designed without these safeties from the beginning.
The Sig website states that the Sig P320 has a striker safety (i.e. firing pin block) not sure about what else. But, I would be surprised if Sig decided to make a gun to compete with other striker fired pistols and not make it drop safe like the rest of them.
I never claimed that. Straw man. I am claiming that if you make a gun without one it would be just as safe as the designs that do have them. I am confident that a company can make a gun drop-safe without the stupid trigger safety many striker pistols have. Actually, they did. Colt series 80. They put firing pin blocks in them so you could drop them without the firing pin freely slamming into the primer. I don't see why a company couldn't do the same with a striker design. Yes, I know the 1911 has a grip safety and a manual thumb safety that physically blocks the path of the hammer. But, blocking the striker is all you have to do on a striker fired pistol. Anyway, it looks like Sig has done it. But, yes, I will have to wait for a manual or a diagram to know for sure.
I did say
iMagUdspEllr said:...nearly every single striker fired pistol manufacturer...
But, a design with a trigger safety is a mistake because it doesn't stop the trigger from being pulled if something snags it (because most things that would snag on the trigger would disable the trigger safety in the process).
Your Steyr M9 argument is a straw man because I am pretty sure it was clear that I stated the trigger safety lever was a mistake... not firing pin blocks. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not X model has X safety or not. My argument is that the point of a safety is for it to prevent the gun from firing when you don't want it to. My point about a trigger safety is that it doesn't stop a gun from firing when you don't want it to.
GLOOB pointed out that the Glock design needs the trigger safety because they designed the pistol to use the trigger safety to hold the trigger bar in the forward position while the gun cycles. If the trigger bar isn't held in the forward position while the slide cycles the firing pin block and drop safety will not be engaged as they should. At least that is my understanding of what he said.
I would also like to repeat that the OP was asking about how safe a gun intended to not have a safety lever on the trigger was. That has nothing to do with disabling safeties on designs that are designed to have them. So, you are talking about something beside the point of discussion.
To be absolutely clear (because I have to repeat myself in a text-based medium for some strange reason). I think anyone who owns a gun designed to have a trigger safety should leave it as configured from the factory (especially the safety features).
Now, as far as the OP's point of discussion, a gun designed without a trigger safety is just as safe as one that is designed with one. To support this argument of mine (for I guess the third time now) I would like to point out that anything that snags the trigger will nearly 100% of the time also snag the trigger safety lever also (which defeats the purpose of having a trigger safety). I have asked other people to give an example of something that would snag the trigger but not snag the trigger safety also. Nobody has cared to respond to that request.
So, I'm not talking about disabling safeties on existing designs. I'm talking about how companies should have never designed their guns with a trigger safety if they could have helped it.
At least Glock does not classify the trigger safety as a drop safety. The Glock's drop safety is it's drop safety.
Glock Safe Action
GLOOB pointed out that if the slide cycles with the trigger safety disabled the gun will not function properly because the trigger bar will move rearward with the slide which will cause the other two safeties to be deactivated. But, again, this is besides the point the OP wanted to discuss. Neither the OP or myself are talking about disabling safeties on currently manufactured guns. We are discussing whether or not it would be so bad if these guns were designed without these safeties from the beginning.
The Sig website states that the Sig P320 has a striker safety (i.e. firing pin block) not sure about what else. But, I would be surprised if Sig decided to make a gun to compete with other striker fired pistols and not make it drop safe like the rest of them.
balance 740 said:I think it is irresponsible to state that it is useless, unnecessary, or anything of the sort, unless you have done extensive drop tests on the pistol or pistols that you claim to have unnecessary safety components.
I never claimed that. Straw man. I am claiming that if you make a gun without one it would be just as safe as the designs that do have them. I am confident that a company can make a gun drop-safe without the stupid trigger safety many striker pistols have. Actually, they did. Colt series 80. They put firing pin blocks in them so you could drop them without the firing pin freely slamming into the primer. I don't see why a company couldn't do the same with a striker design. Yes, I know the 1911 has a grip safety and a manual thumb safety that physically blocks the path of the hammer. But, blocking the striker is all you have to do on a striker fired pistol. Anyway, it looks like Sig has done it. But, yes, I will have to wait for a manual or a diagram to know for sure.
Last edited: