Manual Safety-Yes or No

[1911Tuner]

1911 Parts

How 'bout...Let's start by takin' the link out of the 1911 and go shoot it. You may be shocked to see that it works just fine.
The link is redundant. Commanders won't do this trick
due to different geometry on the lower barrel lug.

Then take the extractor out of a GI-spec gun, and shoot it with
true "GI Hardball" ammo or the faithful equivalent, and you may
be even more shocked to discover that the empty brass
will get out and the gun will return to battery without it.. You
may not even get a stovepipe stoppage for several magazines,
and then just on the last round. Want to make it work every time,
last round and all? Use a magazine with a round-topped follower.

Lose the slidestop during an emergency field-strip? Nadda
problemo...Just whittle a stick down to fit and stick it through the
hole. The gun should be good for about 200 rounds with that
"Expedient Emergency Field Repair".

Handy! Kudos, lad! I was wondering if anyone else had the
logic to see through the Marshall/Sanow "definitive" study.
So many take it as gospel, that I've stopped arguing the point.

Cheeeeeeers!
Tuner

 

[Mike Irwin]

Boats,

"Let's see--poor situational awareness, selects a gun with slide mounted safeties, fumbles with his gun and its hard to reach safeties."

Marshall's statistical difficulties aside, this particular incident plays VERY well in this discussion.

Let's take a look at all of your points, one by one, and you'll see what I mean...

"Poor situational awareness."

In that situation Marshall faced what most of us CCW people face every day. The possibility that someone we either see, or don't see, will become an immediate threat. It's a fantasy to believe that we all have TOTAL situational awareness at all times.

We don't have a TacTeam to sweep the area for us. We don't have a perimeter established. We don't do "dynamic entries" into every room we go into, or sweep the spaces between and under parked cars, behind dumpsters, and around trees and bushes before we pass.

selects a gun with slide mounted safeties

That's part of what this entire THREAD is about -- manual safetys, and by extension, their location.

As has been discussed in other recent threads, some people deal very well with slide mounted safeties. Some don't. Here's an ugly fact of life, though... ANY safety, including the generally thought idiot proof 1911 safety, can be fumbled in a high stress situation.

Lack of manually engaged safeties is one of the big reasons why I've chosen a revolver for my primary carry gun. As someone else stated, it's the original point & click interface.

 

[Flashpoint]

The option of the manual safety is why I bought the Steyr M40. They have the trigger safety to like the Glocks and others but also have the manual safety in the trigger guard if needed or desired. If a person doesn't want to use it then pop it up and forget about it. I would rather have it and not need than need it and wish I had it. Same thing goes for my P89 with a slide safty/decocker, I have never had a problem with the slide safety. I believe the Steyr to be safe without the manual safety on despite some the pass debates on the internal mechanisms.

 

[Handy]

1911Tuner,

I'm not sure what I'm getting Kudos for. Graystar asked about decockers, I answered with the consideration of a decocking lever (Sig), not the decocker/safety that Marshall had on his gun in the outlined incident.

Easy to pick on Marshall. He did a bad study, and he's foolish enough to discuss an error he made with the public. Boats (who certainly has never fumbled anything in his life) can feel pretty good about tearing down a noted police officer who had the audacity to both screw up, and be honest about it.


I guess one first needs to decide if you are a man like Boats (without error) or a man like Marshall, who makes small mistakes, even at critical times. I imagine Marshall learned from the experience and carried his Smith with the safety off from then on.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I imagine Marshall learned from the experience and carried his Smith with the safety off from then on."

No, as I noted, I believe that he said he switched to a Sig.

I'm unearthing a LOT of my magazines from the time frame in which that story would have run.

I'll have to keep an eye out for it.

 

[Handy]

Mike,

Sorry, missed the Sig line. Same idea though - take the safety out of the equation.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

how many people who only shoot one type of gun with a manually operated safety and do so often have problems with the safety?

 

[Boats]

Well allow me to shoot back. The safety is OFF.

Let's go over the anecdote again.

Years ago Evan Marshall wrote an article in which he described being surprised by someone popping up where there shouldn't have been anyone.

I admit to having limited information here, but it seems as if he was surprised by someone in a recently or supposedly "secured" area. If so, he also seemingly allowed his guard to drop in an area he seemed aware that he'd best draw down on the unsuspected subject. Bad form. One need not be a tactical Ninja to surmise this.

He drew his gun, an S&W semi-auto, and promptly fumbled the safety several times before he got it off.

Say what you will, this sounds like poor equipment choice and/or severe lack of practice. Several times? First he has a pistol with manual safeties in a inferior location. Second, and as far as I know, "several years ago" still places Marshall in plainclothes. This begs the question of why he is carrying a decocked DA/SA auto, concealed, with the safety engaged. His particular fumbling, several times, indicates lack of familiarity with his manual of arms. Marshall should be carrying DAO so as to not worry about fumbling a decocker it seems.

Turns out the guy wasn't a hostile, but just a mushroom who had been overlooked.

Wasn't a hostile? Then it begs why Marshall drew on him. A mushroom who had been overlooked? Overlooked by whom? This reinforces the theory that uniforms had swept an area previously containing hostiles, Marshall knew it, and Marshall relaxed, secure in the knowledge that he knew his weapon.

Marshall, IIRC, switched to a SIG after that encounter

Hopefully a DAO one given his demonstrated skill level with a DA/SA. He should be happy he hasn't fumbled a trigger several times already.

Easy to pick on Marshall. He did a bad study, and he's foolish enough to discuss an error he made with the public.

That saccarhin causes cancer,(ahem-if you eat a traincar load in your lifetime), is a "bad study." Continuously publishing demonstrably false statistics and defending one's wilfull innumeracy is tantamount to a being a liar. Creating "case studies" out of "reports" that cannot be verified in the jurisdictions they were allegedly taking place only reinforces the reputation for prevaricating that Marshall has richly earned.

Boats (who certainly has never fumbled anything in his life) can feel pretty good about tearing down a noted police officer who had the audacity to both screw up, and be honest about it.

As said, honesty is in the eye of the beholder, and as any cop knows who has ever testified in a criminal case, get caught lying once, the rest of your testimony is suspect.

I guess one first needs to decide if you are a man like Boats (without error) or a man like Marshall, who makes small mistakes, even at critical times. I imagine Marshall learned from the experience and carried his Smith with the safety off from then on.

If one makes "small mistakes" "several times" pulling one's gun one of the few times it was ever needed, perhaps one shouldn't tout one's self as an "expert" and instead check himself in for some basic refresher training. Changing weapons didn't cure the disease here, it masked the symptom. One need not be perfect to point that out.

However, even incompetents have their defenders.

[edited for formatting error]

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

Manual safety yes or no.

I can take them or leave them.

I have the thumb swipe motion down pat and do it on revolvers and other pistols with no safety. Find I even do it on rifles on occasion.

I am an ardent supporter of the 1911 and made it my choice to carry. That does not mean it is suitable for others.

The presence of a safety or the lack of one does not the ultimate weapon make.

It comes down to one common denominator.....The user.

 

[Graystar]

If it is a decocker, and not a safety decocker, the gun would fire. So what would be the problem?

Oh, no problem, just asking I've never owned a gun like that.

 

[1911Tuner]

Kudos, etc

Handy, the kudos was for having the logic and clear thought
to realize that the Definitive Study wasn't very definitive.
Not picking on either of the authors...They tried to give us
good information based on what was available to them,
though it was flawed. I've encountered so many knowledgeable
people who quote those figuers as if they were absolute
gospel, that I stand and cheer whenever I encounter one who
has the presence of mind to understand that there just aren't any
guarantees.

So I say...Kudos to you, sir...
Tuner

 

[Mike Irwin]

Whatever floats your boats, Boats.

Use the recounting in any way you see fit in an attempt to further the agenda against Evan Marshall instead of keeping to the spirit of the original discussion.

I guess Marshall should have consulted you before he picked his duty weapon.

 

[Handy]

1911tuner,

Do a search in the General Handgun forum. You'll find a disertation there by me, and others, about everything that's wrong with studying "one shot stops".

 

[ebenw]

Safety...

For those that are familiar enough with pistols to know how to be safe with them... a safety is only an additional measure. If the pistol is a DA/SA, I wouldn't bother with the safety, unless the mere fact that the manufacturer included it was for necessity, and not politics. If not the former, disregard the safety on the DA.

Trigger guards are there to keep things from snagging on the trigger. Some guns have only a trigger spur (no trigger guard), but these are all SA.

That said, keeping your finger out of the trigger guard is a better safety than any complexifying contrivance like a safety lever.

BTW, some departments train their officers to holster and snap in a loaded, chambered safety-off DA/SA. This is also the case with the M9 (92F) in the military.

 

[jmbg29]

Manual Safety

Whatever works for the person using it I guess.

Earlier this week there was a thread about an ND in a police video. Las Vegas P.D. if memory serves.

The gun was a Beretta. Has a manual safety. Dummy put a round into the ground next to the perps head. Just seconds before, she was pointing the Beretta w/manual safety at her partner.

Good thing she had a manual safety. Right? :banghead:

 

[Gordy Wesen]

Don't think I'll ever forget the video of the store owner who responded to an armed robery by pulling his gun and getting the drop on the bg's. You could see him jerk the trigger but it was "on safe". BG raised his gun and killed him.

 

[sm]

Way before now CR Sam would have said:

"Revolver for defence, 1911 for offense".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the 1911, not afraid of C&L, I even swipe the "non-exist safety" on a revolver or DAO. Personal choice that do not own or have practiced much with the DA/SA . Yep, I hope I never have to draw again, much less fire...I didn't forget the safety on the 1911 when 'situations' occured before.

Personal choice an individual has to make--regardless of choice practice, train , repeat.

 

[Boats]

"The original spirit of the discussion. . . ?"

The spirit of this discussion seems to be skunk spraying between those who are saying two distinctly different things that are never going to have a meeting of the minds.

The first group, of which I am evidently a camper, is that a manual safety, particularly a frame mounted one, presents no peculiar difficulty under stress to the trained user. By extension, if someone wants to dabble with multiple manuals of arms, is a klutz before stress is added to the mix, can't walk and chew gum at the same time, or won't commit to learning one's safety until he or she is swiping a phantom safety off on revolvers or rifles, then go ahead and join the other camp because no one is going to get them over their fear of leaving the safety on at a crucial moment.

The opposition camp seems dedicated to the principle of, "Since I am an imperfect human duffer who would have, has had, or has heard of, trouble with a manual safety, everyone else is too, no matter their direct experience on the matter, therefore my safetyless approach is the one for everybody."

Good luck on the proselytizing. We manual safety heretics are just going to have to weed ourselves out of the gene pool freezing up and missing the little bitty lever several times in self-defense shootings, starving to death because we can't hit the crossbolt on shotguns or rifles in time to bag game birds or other game when startled, and then not living to tell about our swordpoint conversions to the one true path.

 

[jmbg29]

The spirit of this discussion seems to be skunk spraying between those who are saying two distinctly different things that are never going to have a meeting of the minds.

Actually there is at least one other camp. That camp (of which I am a member) says that people should use whatever works best for them.

 

[Delmar]

jmbg29

people should use whatever works best for them.

Partypooper

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I agree with that.


I still would like to know, however if the people who have problems with working a safety 1. shoot/carry the same gun all the time and 2. shoot it often.


i have a feeling those who have problems are casual carryiers, who only carry when they think they'll need it.

 

[Handy]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Boats is going to get killed because of the manual safety.

This is a general question, and comes with general answers and reasons.

As such, the DA crowd is mainly arguing that IF there could be a choice of only one or the other, getting rid of the safety would likely be a safer course.

We're saying this because it is simpler. Period.


There are two arguments for safeties. One involves losing control of your gun, which is an argument we should all be embarrased of. The other is that a safety allows the use of a really light trigger to facilitate more accurate shooting, which is realistic.

So I see this as a balance of simplicity vs. first shot accuracy. As we are all fond of calling pistols "defensive weapons", I'm firmly in the simplicity camp, and if I had to impose my will on a LE dept or military, it would be a DA gun, sans safety.


Making this into a personal thing where you feel insulted because of the generalizations offered (which are implicit in the question) is foolhardy. There will always be both varieties.

 

[Boats]

In my view, the "debate" as it were, is between those likely to panic and those likely to remain calm.

Just look at the second posting DA defender in this thread:

I agree with Handy, I don't want to have to think about anything other than pulling the trigger if I am attacked. I would also add that I am not fond of DA/SA guns for defensive purposes; I don't want the additional operation of lowering a hammer following a gun fight. I have never been involved in a gun fight but I am certain that in the event I ever was I would be quite shaken up afterwards and the less I have to remember to make the gun safe the better. I realize that this doesn't hold true for everyone, I can only assume my own reactions, therefore all of my defensive guns are either DA revolvers or DAO pistols. I leave my DA/SA and SA pistols for recreational shooting.

I think that about sums it up. The whole two times I had to ready a firearm for action were in the Navy, but the lessons of constant drilling were also imparted to me there. Remarkably enough, after a sprint to General Quarters, I didn't forget the charging handle on Ma Deuce before engaging Iranian motorboat borne attackers. The other time involved having to take shots at a magnetic mine as a navagation hazard. I somehow remembered to both adjust the range on the sights of the M-14 and lock and load in under a handful of seconds. Gee, could drilling make that possible? Could constant practice (even dry firing) negate the need to "think" about proper employment of the firearm? Go figure. Such feats of "not forgetting under stress" seem unfathomable to some here though they are quite routine--hell, they are a product of routine.

 

[Handy]

Boats,

Well, I already asserted that it doesn't have to be a MENTAL failing - one's thumb could simply slip in a critical moment.

Your insistance on the infallibility of training goes entirely contrary to my military aviation training; the only reason to ADD a safety step is to slow one down. And never is training assumed to be the entire story - it is well known in our community that people DO make mistakes, DESPITE training.


But if you would like to write us all off as panic ridden morons, I'm sure your attitude will win many converts.

 

[ebenw]

Not all guns apply to this one, but

I've found my DA/SA .380 to be quite cumbersome in the safety lever department, so in the interest of sparing my thumb a few blisters (from practice), I'd just as soon leave the safety alone.

Call me a lightweight, but I have better things to do than wrap fingers.

I don't mind practice, and leaving that safety alone allows me to practice more.