Manual safeties on carry weapons: yes or no?

[B yond]

Do you prefer to carry weapons with a manual safety or weapons without a manual safety? Why is one better than the other?

I can understand some of the reasoning for both sides of this debate, I'm mostly just curious where the majority lies.

Also, a search didn't turn up this topic in the first few pages, so I thought I'd stir up a fresh argument.

 

[sidheshooter]

All other things being equal, I'll take the safety. But I won't let lack of one stop me from carrying (ie: Glock, my revolvers).

The reason (since you asked) is that I have bought in to the anecdotal evidence that says a safety can possibly be of benefit in a weapon-snatch situation.

But as a CCW, I'm not going to dwell on it too much.

 

[carguy2244]

safety

I mostly carry a Glock, sometimes a Kahr.
I don't want or need a manual safety - it's an additional procedure that's only needed if the shooter can't keep his finger out of the guard.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm basically indifferent.

I have two Glocks which I carry.
I have an M1911 and a Browning High Power which I carry.
I have two S&W revolvers which I carry.

It's all the same to me.

 

[bwsmith2850]

I carry 1 of 3 guns. Glock, S&W revolver, Beretta 96G. None have a traditional manual safety that you would find on a single action automatic like the 1911 & co. All of them, however have passive type saftey devices (trigger lever, hammer block, firing pin block) that keep them from firing unless the trigger is deliberately pulled and held to the rear.

I like the non-manual safety designs because all their passive safeties are automatically disengaged when the gun is securely gripped and the trigger is pulled. It may be because I learned to shoot on a revolver and then Glock. A manual safety just seems like one more thing to remember under stress.

 

[General Geoff]

Single action autoloaders, I prefer to have safeties. Double action autos and revolvers, I like no safety.

 

[theotherwaldo]

The guns I have lined up for concealed carry are Glocks and revolvers. If Texas started allowing open carry then I might add 1911s and Brownings, but, until then... .

 

[Forklift352]

I got a PT-145 semi. It has a safety......But I'm a south paw and it would be way to
much monkey motion to use it.

 

[AirborneNCO]

"No Safety"

I prefer no manual safety for a concealed carry weapon. My personal reasoning for it is: in the event that one needs to shoot quickly in order to save his own life or something of equal or greater importance, the smallest fractions of a second are precious. To me, a safety is just one more thing that could either be forgotten, and even if it is remembered, it can potentially add a small piece of time to the delay before the first round goes off. In addition, it adds to the complexity of motion that may be required, no matter how minute that may be. That being said, carrying concealed should be done as much as is reasonably possible with muzzle awareness despite the fact that the weapon is stowed and concealed, regardless of the type of safety device it has, since as we should all know weapons should be treated as though they are loaded and ready to fire and as if the safety is turned off.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's not so much that I prefer a safety. It's that I like a 1911, and those just happen to have safeties. I've been well trained, and practice a great deal, to sweep off the safety just after the gun leaves the holster and as it's being rotated toward the target (with the trigger finger off the trigger and idexed on the frame). Therefore, disengaging the safety adds no time.

 

[AirborneNCO]

It's not so much that I prefer a safety. It's that I like a 1911, and those just happen to have safeties. I've been well trained, and practice a great deal, to sweep off the safety just after the gun leaves the holster and as it's being rotated toward the target (with the trigger finger off the trigger and idexed on the frame). Therefore, disengaging the safety adds no time.

With no added time, there is still complexity of motion, but I'm sure that's negligible for someone as well trained as you.

 

[brandnew]

Originally Posted by fiddletown
It's not so much that I prefer a safety. It's that I like a 1911, and those just happen to have safeties. I've been well trained, and practice a great deal, to sweep off the safety just after the gun leaves the holster and as it's being rotated toward the target (with the trigger finger off the trigger and idexed on the frame). Therefore, disengaging the safety adds no time.

+1. I am also a 1911 fan and I agree with fiddletown on all accounts.

 

[dkk73]

Well, this discussion always has a religious flavor.

My own faith as changed over time.

I used to be a Glockite, though not devout. Then, with children, I broke the situation down into first principles and thought about it from a safety/risk perspective.
Most of my civilian situations are not high-risk, but I handle the weapon a lot and need to store it when going to certain places. For me, the likelihood of ND was probably higher over the years than the likelihood of needing to shoot "tactically" or "in earnest". Yes, I know stakes are high and you can't predict the future and all, but I stood back and this is where the #s fell.
So, I ultimately decided I preferred a manual safety, and committed to training with it.

I carried the USPc variant 1 (DA/SA "krunchenticker" as Jeff Cooper referred to them) for a while.

Eventually, the convenience of pocket carry made me take a more ecumenical view and I carried a J-frame DA. But I am more scrupulous of never taking that when it might leave my person even for a second without going straight into a real safe or hard lockbox handy. And I would never shorten or lighten the pull.

Eventually I found the HK P7 and that is about the perfect solution for me. The squeeze-cock action is so intuitive that you will never forget to work the "safety" but it's damn hard to "disengage" accidentally. It's fast, slick, ambidextrous, etc. So it kind of solved the problem for me.

But, in general, for all comers I prefer an external safety. I look for guns in DA/SA or simplified safety/DAO configurations. I agree you need to practice the manual of arms thoroughly, or you risk forgetting the thumb safety.

I am not arguing that trigger discipline is not important. But safety is a sum of parts (the swiss cheese idea). Same reason we have checklists and cross-checks, standardization and all kinds of nice things that keep us all safe when flying or under anesthesia. People fail and smart systems account for this.

The people who think a 1911 thumb safety is too much to remember in the heat of action... Do they decline to use ARs as well? I always found that strange, that the orthodox Glockites will still own and use ARs. AR manual-of-arms, esp. immediate action drills, are not exactly simple.

 

[AirborneNCO]

Just talking about safeties in general here with the mention of ARs, there's something about that I should mention while I'm thinking of it.

I often carried my M16 on presence patrols at the low ready with the inside of my right trigger hand thumb on top of the safety, ready to flick it off. I know training may vary with different units, but the supposed "doctrinal" training we received with CQB was to be adamant about putting the safety back on after shooting and going back to the low ready. So much so that we might put a controlled pair toward one target, go to the low ready, and a few seconds later do the same thing - each time engaging the safety once firing was complete, and only not doing that if you knew you were transitioning beforehand. Granted, that stuff is liable to go out the window depending.

When it comes to a back up side arm or concealed carry, if I make an assessment based on sheer speed and avoiding a failure on the operator's part of some kind, that's how I come up with preferring, just barely on that side of the line, having the least amount of manual safeties to disengage as possible - but I definitely agree with the other posts about preferred types of weapons, long term risk assessments, etc. Those are things I hadn't considered with my vote.

 

[Ltp0wer]

I don't mind either way. I voted yes though because the gun I carry has a manual safety, and I think having the option is better than not having it.

Although, I suppose this conversation is more about using the manual safety, rather than the gun having one. I do not use the safety on my DA/SA autoloader when I open carry it. To me, the added complexity of flicking the safety off if needed is too much of a risk, and I keep the hammer down so I think the trigger pull is all the safety I need.

 

[dondavis3]

On 1911 yes ... but I rarely carry my Kimber concealed any more.

Double action auto's & revolvers no safety.

So I voted no safety.

 

[alohachris]

No safety for me, please. I've watched too many guys:
Draw, pump the trigger a couple of times,
realize the safety is on,
deactivate safety,
then finally fire.

And this is in a low stress, IDPA environment.

 

[Fred Fuller]

More appropriate for Handguns...

lpl

 

[RobMoore]

It depends on the gun.

On a 1911, I have one because that is what it came with, that is how I'm used to shooting it, and it works.

On a striker fired or DA gun, like my M&P, I chose to get it without a thumb safety.
I don't see a need for them if it isn't inherent to the design, and naturally placed.

People skip over safeties because of two reasons
#1 The safety itself was poorly located on the gun, and takes conscious thought to disable
#2 The safety is placed well, but the shooter's grip doesn't allow for a thought-free deactivation.

An example would be the 1911. If your strong hand thumb rides on top of the safety, deactivating it comes naturally out of the holster. If you grip it too low (thumbs down) more mental effort is required to switch it off before you grip in and shoot.

 

[blue_ridge]

Anyone who has trouble de-activating a 1911 safety naturally is simply lacking a basic amount of training. It doesn't take more than the average amount of range time used to break in a gun and sort through defense loads to make the manual safety an afterthought.

What about the time and effort to deactivate a 12# double action trigger and keep the bullet on target? I'll take a quick snick of the safety as the gun comes out of holster and a 4-5# trigger any day. That said, I love the reliability and accuracy of my Sig P226 Elite. So I've been considering a P220 CArry Elite or P229 Elite for CCW. Also considering the SAO version of the P220 CArry which comes with manual safety.

 

[Titan6]

Well, for combat I would prefer a Glock type weapon, but the army has issued us all 92Fs. For SD/HD it is more situation dependent.

 

[MICHAEL T]

I use safety when I carry my 1911's My other pistols no safety needed DA trigger and brain safety

 

[Jim K]

Anyone who carries an SA pistol like the 1911 with the hammer cocked and the safety off is, quite simply, a fool and trouble looking for a place to happen. We can only hope he blows off his own foot rather than harming some passerby.

The reason for a manual safety is not to prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is not pulled; it is to prevent the gun from firing when the trigger IS pulled without the intention of shooting.

Jim

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

It depends on what kind of pistol I've chosen to use. If it is a single-action/cocked and locked, a safety is a necessity. On DAO or its variants, a safety is superfluous. If I choose the former, I will practice with it until safety operation (both wiping off and putting on) becomes habitual. I do not currently own such a gun, however.

 

[barneyrw]

<<"The reason for a manual safety is not to prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is not pulled; it is to prevent the gun from firing when the trigger IS pulled without the intention of shooting.">>
I agree totally with Jim Keenan's statement. I like a thumb safety in case someone else, like a child were to pick up my gun and pull the trigger. No one is 100% throughout a lifetime when it comes to gun safety. A brief moment of careless can happen, and a thumb safety is just another layer of safety.