Mike1234567
member
Regardless of what you want to call it the fact is it's still a "thumb safety".
"A rose by another other name..." It's silly to call a rose a "visual and olfactory stimulation device".
Stubborn...
Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?
- Thread starter Hokkmike
- Start date
- Status
Regardless of what you want to call it the fact is it's still a "thumb safety".
"A rose by another other name..." It's silly to call a rose a "visual and olfactory stimulation device".
Stubborn...
Mike1234567
member
This whole thread has become a "written correspondence proof of mental deficiency device"... with lack of a "dumb safety". 
As far as putting it on firing inhibit for slinging goes, there are 3 reasons why I would sling the rifle.
- The fight is over.
- There is a malfunction.
- It is out of ammo.
If the fight is over, I have all the time in the world to put the trigger cover back on.
If my rifle had a malfunction or out of ammo, why do I need to put the rifle on firing inhibit?
Also, your argument reveals that you are either not aware of or forgot that most combat rifles, like AR-15, does not even allow you to "on safe," putting the rifle selector in firing inhibit mode when you discovered there is a malfunciton or the gun is empty after a trigger pull.
So, slinging the gun with the selector swich on "semi" is a non-issue even for an AR-15, not just a rifle designed the way I want.
There may be some situations where I would sling the rifle when I do not have a malfunction and the gun is not empty, but that would be when I am not under direct attack. If I am not under direct attack, I do not see why I cannot take some time to put the trigger cover back on, just like a person would holster a pistol when the person needs both hands for something while not having to shoot. If I just to happen to be in a very limied scenario of slinging my rifle when it is not out of ammo or in a malfunction state while under direct attack for whatever reason, then I will just do what I need to do, even if it means slinging a firing enabled rifle. It is a calculated risk.
I also doubt you are going to argue that no one should use a Glock or M&P on the grounds that the holster might get lost.
Also, I tried a version of a holster below, and it works very well. I do not find it dubious at all.
http://www.rcsquickship.com/
Last edited:
Mike1234567
member
Heh... look who's talking.
My issues are you're asking for a separate piece of equipment that can get lost, you still need to remember to take it off, and it doesn't seem to offer any actual advantages over a well designed manual safety.
As for the holster, what you linked is similar to but different in concept to what I linked. I've seen people using designs like the one I linked for "Mexican style" carry. And I don't feel that carrying a handgun unsecured in your waistband, even with the trigger covered, is a good idea. But that's an unrelated topic, I merely brought it up because the idea is similar to what I think you're imagining.
The advantage of my design is that there is zero issue of manipulation failure or accidental manipulation of the selector lever when the gun is in operation after the user gets it into ready position.
A thumb break holster for a Glock or M&P is a separate piece of equipment, but it poses no problem.
Like I said before, it is a different way of managing risk with each method having its own risk and benefit, and I am not saying there is no merit of having a manual firing inhibitor thumb switch on a rifle. I am only saying I would find my design to be more effective for people like me.
I have seen the selector lever being swiped to firing enabled position during carry of an M4 when it is not supposed to be there multiple times while in the military, so the manual firing inhibitor thumb switch on a rifle has its own share of risks too. Not only have I seen it on M4, but many other types of long guns also. So, there is no fool proof way. We can only select from what suits each of us better, and the choices and risk assessments will be different.
Last edited:
Bert Retta
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2013
- Messages
- 33
I have carried a Colt 38 Detective Special Snubby for a long time, Its like the disposable cameras POINT & SHOOT, NO SAFETY,I have a Beretta PX 4 STORM sub-compact 9mm and a Ruger SR40C Compact they both have manual safety,the only negative about the Beretta is the safety must be flipped up to disengage whereas the Ruger is a sweep down.I love the Beretta.. but its very seldom on my hip because of that.I think a safety on a semi-auto is a good idea but the main safety is your brain and finger.The Colt 38 is as safe a firearm there is with a long and strong trigger pull ,I feel much safer from a ND carrying it than I do with the countless safetys on some semi auto-matics.IMO..
danez71
Member
Along those lines... I've been meaning to ask...
Test,
A BPH, Glock, and M&P all have about the same trigger pull weight and pull distance.
Why do you think a BHP should have a thumb safety and Glock and MP doesn't need one?
If BHP is drop safe, and indeed have a trigger pull distance and resistance similar to Glock or M&P, then I do not see why it should have one. However, BHP was designed in an era prior to devices like automatic firing pin block was widely used.
Also, pistol designers put one on it if the customer wants it. M&P has a version with a manual firing inhibitor thumb lever. Although it is not needed as far as I am concerned, some customers, like Belgium Federal Police, want it that way, so they make them.
Also, 1911's original design by Browning did not have one either.
Last edited:
45_auto
Member
testpilot said:
Don't forget that according to your definitions, Browning's original design included a manual firing inhibitor palm lever and a manual firing inhibitor finger lever as well as a manual firing inhibitor spring lever and a manual firing inhibitor pivot device.
We wouldn't want you to get confused.
JTQ
Member
The more of these threads I read about how complicated manual safety's are, and how dangerous they are to have on your gun since you'll forget to switch them off in the heat of the moment, the more I think they are a benefit to me.
Apparently, the new shooters of the world, that have grown up during the "Glock Era" of "safe action" pistols are too incompetent to operate a gun with a manual safety. On the other hand, I consider myself pretty competent in the operation of a safety equipped gun. Therefore, unless I'm overpowered on the street by a guy over 50, or my house is broken into by the "over the hill gang", the chances of the bad guys ever being able to use my own firearms against me is practically zero. I feel much safer now.
Apparently, the new shooters of the world, that have grown up during the "Glock Era" of "safe action" pistols are too incompetent to operate a gun with a manual safety. On the other hand, I consider myself pretty competent in the operation of a safety equipped gun. Therefore, unless I'm overpowered on the street by a guy over 50, or my house is broken into by the "over the hill gang", the chances of the bad guys ever being able to use my own firearms against me is practically zero. I feel much safer now.
Those are YOUR definitions, not mine.
Don't put words in my mouth. Although, I understand that asking you to give up cheapshots is essentially asking you to put down your primary weapon.
Also, "grip safety" is intended to be a device that does not require conscious thought to manipulate, since gripping the gun itself is a manipulation. However, that often did not turn out to be the case. Countless cases of failure for it to be properly pressed in resulted in custom makers installing "memory grooves." This is a very common problem with 1911. That is a very well known problem with 1911s.
This shows what is at the heart of the argument.
Some people cannot accept that there is a risk involved the device they like. No one said the choosing a pistol with the device or use of it is wrong.
But, they just could not accept there can possibly be anything not good about it.
So, they have to turn a probabilities in to absolutes and brand people who doss not want to deal with it as incompetent.
JTQ
Member
I'm saying that having a safety is a good thing. I'm also saying that not having a safety on my gun would be a greater risk to me than having the safety on the gun.
I know how to work a manual safety, and it is part of griping my pistol. However, if my gun gets grabbed, as you have pointed out repeatedly, apparently most people won't know how to work it. It is to my advantage to have a safety.
Massad Ayoob, American Handgunner, Mar/Apr 2011, page 32 http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHMA11/?Page=32
I know how to work a manual safety, and it is part of griping my pistol. However, if my gun gets grabbed, as you have pointed out repeatedly, apparently most people won't know how to work it. It is to my advantage to have a safety.
Massad Ayoob, American Handgunner, Mar/Apr 2011, page 32 http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHMA11/?Page=32
el Godfather
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
Yes-
However, it is not an absolute necessity for me.
However, it is not an absolute necessity for me.
If that's why you want one ans use one, then good. There is nothing wrong with that.
I never said most people do not know how to use it. I did say there is a probablity for people, even trained one, to make a mistake in manipulation.
Yes, some felons who just happens to not know how to manipulate one can be a benefit sometimes. But, for me, how a gun handles for me is more of a priority then how it handles for someone else. I am not saying you choose guns based on how it handles from someone else, but if your choice happens to be a hindrance to an opponent who got your gun, then good for you.
OP
OP
Hokkmike
Member
meef
I like your sense of humor.
I like your sense of humor.
AnthonySmithXR
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 62
Mike1234567
member
Do not try and activate the safety. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
What truth?
There is no safety.
What truth?
There is no safety.
Nom de Forum
Member
The feeling I just got from reposting this must be just like setting a fire is for a pathological arsonist.
To Testpilot,
You certainly have backbone to continue to defend your position in the face of so much criticism and insult. Whether your beliefs are expressions of courageous truth or obstinate error, no matter what you've got the guts to stay in the fight even though you are outnumbered. Bravo! The guys giving you a hard time are taking more easy shots at your nomenclature than making the effort to refute you opinion.
To all the guys who like manual safeties,
The only good manually operated safety is the tip of the forefinger. All the other manually operated safeties have too many operational variables that can result in failure.
Did I just hear someone call "incoming"?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked