Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?

[hentown]

I don't have any objection to having a safety on a true single-action semi-auto; however, would consider a safety on a Glock to just be a placebo for the ignorant proletarian.

Actually, I consider an external safety as a huge potential danger in the heat of a bad situation. I like the manual-of-arms of my Glocks.

I wouldn't dare trust a newbie to depend on a firearm with an external safety for s.d. purposes.

 

[ATLDave]

I will not own a semi-auto that doesn't have an external safety. To me they are non-negotiable.

 

[meef]

I don't have any objection to having a safety on a true single-action semi-auto; however, would consider a safety on a Glock to just be a placebo for the ignorant proletarian.

Well bully for you.

Actually, I consider an external safety as a huge potential danger in the heat of a bad situation. I like the manual-of-arms of my Glocks.

It would appear that becoming proficient with an external safety is something you consider beyond your ability.

I like the manual, thumb-operated external safety and attendant manual-of-arms on my Glock 19 just fine - ignorant proletarian that I am.

 

[Old Dog]

Actually, I consider an external safety as a huge potential danger in the heat of a bad situation.

Some folks actually train with firearms that possess external safeties. I guess, considering how unsuccessful the 1911 has been in bad situations over lo, these past 100 years ... oh, wait, nevermind.

safety on a Glock to just be a placebo for the ignorant proletarian.

Whoa, bonus points for using the word "proletarian" in a technical thread.

I wouldn't dare trust a newbie to depend on a firearm with an external safety for s.d. purposes.

Well, I've trained a few hundred newbies in academies back when we used pistols that had safeties, and they pretty much did just fine. Maybe it's you?

 

[Tirod]

The Glock DOES have a safety. The little lever right there inside the trigger. And it's carried at the half cock - the trigger just finishes the last part of the loading.

The real difference SA vs SAFE action is that you don't have the longer trigger travel and higher weight. For some, it's not really about "safety," we've carried both and they are. It's about having a lighter trigger, or more importantly, a shorter one. Age and intrinsic ability to simple pull a trigger causes some people to prefer a much shorter travel. It's the normal younger guy with good hands who can enjoy a longer trigger and then discard the safety.

In a pistol like the LCP, the travel is the safety. It takes a lot of stroke. That is also the major complaint about it over the years - it's got a long travel, and the weight isn't low.

That creates an age and ability situation - I don't hear of carpal tunnel sufferers preferring a long heavy trigger and trying to make points about how safeties are dangerous. They aren't - of the three things that cause issues, ammo, mags, and then, the user, that last is largely why there are ND's and malfunctions.

Blaming the safety for user ineptitude is pretty lame. Considering that both styles have been on the market and issued weapons for all sorts of LEO's and the military side by side for over one hundred years.

There's no real predominance of one being particularly more dangerous than the other. Just when someone associates it with their persona and then makes it a statement of how they think they rank as a shooter.

"I use/don't use a safety and it makes be a better shooter than you. Genuflection, please."

Having or not having a safety isn't a make or break issue with being a successful firearms user. Not having unintentional discharges is, for one factor. Both do well, both have their recorded instances.

Which ever you choose, work at not being the next, and it's all good. As for the advantage in combat, it doesn't exist except in the minds of those to whom it makes a difference. Both work, both have failed - again, it's the user, not the gun.

When the user if forced to move from one type to the other, guess what? After proficiency is gained, the record shows there's no higher incidence of issues one from the other. Both are designed to be used by the human hand, get used to it - program the mind - they work.

Those who ask which is better aren't down the road of firearms use to know. Both are good, it depends on who you are and where you are on your journey in life. Don't be blind to the fact that as you age, you will have to make adjustments, and just maybe, you will be forced to switch sides.

The professional shooters have no issue with it, they win with both.

 

[TennJed]

"Proper" according to who?





I refuse to call a device that does not make a gun safer a "safety" here.











I am not a pilot. The ID was originated from a game.

by game you mean a "Childs tool to pretend" since that would be a more proper definition

 

[Esoxchaser]

I grew up shooting 1911's. I do most of my shooting with 1911 style pistols. Even when shooting my DA/SA Sigs my thumb instinctively attempts to sweep off the nonexistent lever on the pistol just before pulling the trigger the first time. The 20 somethings I shoot with were laughing at me one day because I did it to one of their Glocks. Just a quick flick of the thumb and boom.......

 

[TestPilot]

by game you mean a "Childs tool to pretend" since that would be a more proper definition

"Proper" according to you, based on your tiny universe where only children plays games. However, my definition of games would differ, since it is based on reality where people of every age plays game.

You never played a game after reaching 18? Or, perhaps this is your way of admitting to the world that when YOU place a game, it is actually a display of YOUR desire for regression to childhood while other adults are just enjoying themselves? Assuming you are an adult that is.

 

[Teachu2]

I transitioned from 1911s to Glocks for carry guns a couple of years back. Now I'm adding a Shield - and will carry it without using the manual safety.

 

[45_auto]

I transitioned from 1911s to Glocks for carry guns a couple of years back. Now I'm adding a Shield - and will carry it without using the manual safety.

It'll be really interesting for you when you need to get that Shield into action real quick one day and the safety has been inadvertantly bumped to the "safe" position .....

 

[TennJed]

"Proper" according to you, based on your tiny universe where only children plays games. However, my definition of games would differ, since it is based on reality where people of every age plays game.

You never played a game after reaching 18? Or, perhaps this is your way of admitting to the world that when YOU place a game, it is actually a display of YOUR desire for regression to childhood while other adults are just enjoying themselves? Assuming you are an adult that is.

I played Nintendo a couple of times in college, but no I haven't played video games since I grew up.

Point being your idea of what a safety on a gun is, is your on opinion and using other words to describe it, is just so you can get attention.

Everybody has their own opinions on thumb safeties. But call them what they are. Trying to use witty terms may impress your Atari buddies, but not so much here.

 

[Old Dog]

So what I have gathered from some of the sillier posts to this thread is that there exists a substantial number of internet "gunnies" who believe that safeties are a bad thing on pistols because they may be inadvertently activated.

What I am also starting to believe is that there exists a substantial number of internet wannabe gunnies who don't seem to understand the concept of actual training to use one's chosen pistol.

Come enter the grown-up world ... if the bulk of your firearms experience has been gained by thousands of hours playing "Call of Duty," I can suggest some trainers and schools where you can learn how to use the real thing ...

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

The risk is that it can be engaged when user do intend to fire, resulting in the user being unable to stop a dangerous threat.

The typical method of using such a gun involves the thumb pressing down on the safety as part of the grip. I do it with my CZ even though I carry it at half cock where the safety being bumped on isn't possible. The Marines don't see it as an issue and they still carry 1911s to combat.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

The risk is that it can be engaged when user do intend to fire, resulting in the user being unable to stop a dangerous threat.

The typical method of using such a gun involves the thumb pressing down on the safety as part of the grip. I do it with my CZ even though I carry it at half cock where the safety being bumped on isn't possible. The Marines don't see it as an issue and they still carry 1911s to combat. I view guns with external safeties that you can't rest your thumb on as dangerous for that reason.

Also stop trying to make something sound worse than it is by calling it something different. manual firing inhibitor? Give me a break! If you have a thumb, you can keep most thumb safeties pressed down.

 

[benEzra]

I personally like the option of a manual safety for holstering, loading/unloading, and whatnot, as long as the pistol is safe to carry with the safety off (e.g. 3rd-gen S&W).

 

[meef]

I personally like the option of a manual safety for holstering, loading/unloading, and whatnot, as long as the pistol is safe to carry with the safety off (e.g. 3rd-gen S&W).

My thoughts exactly (e.g. my Glock 19 thus equipped).

 

[clutch]

I have a M&P Compact, it has a thumb safety, it has a safe action trigger. I can carry it with the safety on or off. I can move it to off since I pocket carry often if I sense something isn't right a head. Yes I use a pocket holster.

I have a XD(m), it has no thumb safety, it has a safe action trigger and a grip safety. I feel pretty comfortable with it in a holster or holstering it.

I have a 442, no safety, just a DA pull and if I don't realize something is about to happen I'm just not paying attention. I feel safe with it.

The bedside gun is an old Ruger P90DC. DA/SA with a decocker. If you pull that trigger when it is down you just have to know something is coming. After problems are solved, decock it, watch your finger if the hammer is back. On the trigger to shoot, along the pistol until ready to shoot.

Last is my 1911. I don't carry it much, it is mostly a play gun, it doesn't have an ambi safety so knocking it off safe from the off body side isn't going to happen. I feel pretty good with it.

I don't have a Glock. I've shot a couple and they shot good for me. They are a bit too ready to go for my liking but if I was in an environment where the likelihood of having to actually use a handgun was high, I'd carry one. I understand why these are popular with LEO types.

I hope this made sense to you all.

 

[2wheels]

"Proper" according to who?

I refuse to call a device that does not make a gun safer a "safety" here.

It is the proper term because it is the term universally used to describe what we're talking about. Whether you like safeties or not, I've never heard anyone use any other words or phrases to describe them.

I respect your opinion when it comes to manual safeties even though it differs from mine, but I don't see the point in inventing your own terminology and refusing to use the commonly accepted terminology simply because of your opinion. It just confuses and distracts from the main discussion.

 

[tuj]

1911 has been in service for a long time, has an external safety which must be used for safe cocked-carry. I would say external safeties are more than adequate with proper training, as would be the case with a DA or striker-fired pistol.

There is really no disadvantage to a well-designed thumb safety in terms of draw speed. Now some of the slide-mounted safeties like on the 92FS or the S&W Gen-3's are somewhat difficult for some people to operate. In these cases however, the guns all have a DA capability which is how they should be carried, safety off, decocked.

 

[TestPilot]

I played Nintendo a couple of times in college, but no I haven't played video games since I grew up.
...

Yeah yeah, I get it.

So the society's definition of children should change because you think your time in college was also childhood, and anything you don't do after you "grew" up is childish.

A very childish way of reasoning.

...
Point being your idea of what a safety on a gun is, is your on opinion and using other words to describe it, is just so you can get attention.
...

I call it that because that is what I think it is. I cannot care less about what grabs your attention.

I must be an attention seeker because my word got your attention? You must really think high of yourself.

...
But call them what they are.
...

That is what I am doing.

... Trying to use witty terms may impress your Atari buddies, but not so much here.

I cannot care less how impressed or upset you are with whatever terms I use.

I call it that because of accuracy issue, not wit.

Do not be upset at me because of your failed attempt at wit by your lame attempt to equate game with childishness, you did that to yourself.

 

[TestPilot]

I respect your opinion when it comes to manual safeties even though it differs from mine, but I don't see the point in inventing your own terminology and refusing to use the commonly accepted terminology simply because of your opinion. It just confuses and distracts from the main discussion.

What confusion? You knew exactly what I meant, and so did everyone else who complained about it, obviously. What else device on a gun inhibits fire by manual operation of a lever or a button by motion separate from firing motion by thumb, etc?

Same thing when John Farnam calls DAO pistols "self-decocker."

It only distracted because a few here whined about it. They failed to prove why my term is inaccurate. They keep asseting that is not "proper" solely because that is not the mainstream term.


"It is the proper term because it is the term universally used to describe what we're talking about."

By that logic, then we should give up the term "standard capacity magazine" which describe standard capacity magazines for what they are because "high cap magazine" is the mainstream term, surrendering to the anti-gun logic that anyting over 10 round is "high cap." By your reasoning, not conforming to common mainstream term is not "proper."

I refuse to call socialists and statists "progressive" or "librals" because they stand for neither progress or liberty, but I guess that is not proper also?

 

[TestPilot]

The typical method of using such a gun involves the thumb pressing down on the safety as part of the grip. I do it with my CZ even though I carry it at half cock where the safety being bumped on isn't possible.
...
If you have a thumb, you can keep most thumb safeties pressed down.

I already explained why your solution is not universal.

Exactly how are you going to keep accidental movement of the thumb lever by using your press-down technich on a gun like M&P Shield or Beretta M92F?

Also, some people, such as my self, do not want to exert downward force on the trigger hand thumb side, purposely exerting asymmetrical force on one side when I want stability.

...
The Marines don't see it as an issue and they still carry 1911s to combat.
...

They use it because 1911 has some good things, such as SAO trigger, to offer, not because they get a high out of flick flicking their thumbs. The discussion here is risks and benefits of that thumb lever, not how highly you think of 1911s.

...
I view guns with external safeties that you can't rest your thumb on as dangerous for that reason.
...

So, according to you, M&P Shield, Beretta, and S&W 3rd Gen are dangerous guns?

...
Also stop trying to make something sound worse than it is by calling it something different. manual firing inhibitor? Give me a break!
...

Actually, that is interesting. Why does my term make it sound worse?

Guns are designed to fire bullets when trigger is pulled. That is the very purpose of that machine. The very purpose of what you call "manual safties" is to provide a means to inhibit that function until user manually enables firing function.

So, why does describing it that way make it sound bad? I think you are on to something here.

Please explain.

 

[CajunBass]

Some guns got 'em. Some guns don't.

Either way is not a deal breaker for me.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I greatly prefer to carry a sidearm cocked-and-locked. If a handgun can't be carried cocked-and-locked than I don't want a safety on it at all. Basically this has come from 25 years of experience running handguns this way. If I were a young buck starting out I'd probably do it the pull-the-gun-and-shoot way since it's simple and requires less training. Occasionally I carry a striker fired Nano; it took me a while to get used to the lack of a hammer and safety lever but it doesn't bother me now.

So far in all the years I've used SA autos (BHPs and 1911) and guns like the HKs that can be carried cocked-and-locked I've never tried to fire the gun and been stymied by the safety lever. Could it happen? I suppose so. I hear anecdotes that indicate that in games people occasionally do this. I don't remember ever hearing about a trained person carrying cocked-and-locked being killed because s/he forgot to snik the safety off, although it may have happened. I know of one case where a civilian survived this problem but I don't know if they were carrying the gun or storing it, nor what kind of sidearm it was. I do however know of a lot of people who've shot themselves in the leg holstering a Glock (including one amusing case caught on video and one fatal instance- both were LEOs).

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

 

[meef]

I do however know of a lot of people who've shot themselves in the leg holstering a Glock (including one amusing case caught on video and one fatal instance- both were LEOs).

Ergo, my penchant for Glocks with thumb safeties.