Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

Instead of the classic tactic of branding negative names, why don't you point out the logical of factual problems of my argument if you are capable of it?

Say what?

 

[TestPilot]

...
From what I can understand, your argument appears to be that people are incapable of successfully operating a semi-automatic trigger on a firearm that incorporates a thumb-operated safety.
....

That is not what I stated. I stated that there is a risk that there can be a mistake or other accidents related to it, and that even if most can and do operate it with success, what benefit it brings can be less than the risk it poses depending on how each individual rates risk.

If you are claimng to have some sort of superiority of command of English by pointing out whether if English is not my native language or not, you are not succeeding at it, since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.

...
I would think it would be obvious to pretty much anyone that the real-world 100 year service record of the 1911,the 50 year service record of the M16 (safety operates identically to a 1911, it's the longest serving US military rifle), and the domination of speed-and-accuracy oriented pistol competitions by the 1911 demonstrates the "factual problems" with your claims rather handily

Someone using it for a long time does not mean it does not have any problems associated with it. I am not saying 1911 is a bad pistol, but if you are saying there is nothing that can possibliy go wrong with its "manual of arms" I'd have to disagree.

Rifle is proactively used in the military for soldiers. Not purposely used defensively and unexpecedly.

Speed shooters like 1911 because of the trigger. The specifically prefer 1911 in a certain class. It is not as if speed shooters prefer all pistols with manual firing inhibitor thumb levers in general. 1911 is not the only gun with a manual firing inhibitor thumb lever.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

yes, the decocker safety.
only a firng pin block will do IMO.

 

[meef]

Instead of the classic tactic of branding negative names, why don't you point out the logical or factual problems of my argument, if you are capable of it?

Why don't you just admit that you really don't care one way or the other?

You just keep on keeping on because you enjoy debate.

 

[benzy2]

Does this forum have an ignore list?

 

[BSA1]

Test Pilot,

I was not going to reply to your comments in Post 35 but it is clear that you have no knowledge about law enforcement and their tactics and will only address my comments in this area.

You are totally ignoring the value of manual and thumb safeties for LEO’s. There are well documented saves, (research Massad Ayoob for starters), of LEO’s when their guns were snatched by a criminal and the criminal was unable to make the gun fire as he did not know about the location and how to use the thumb safety.

Although one can argue that the risk of a civilian having the gun taken away from him is less (or maybe not since many civilians lack training in weapon retention and self defense) there is the very, very real degree of probability that they can have their gun taken from them if they are physically attacked.

Law enforcement agencies have enhanced the protection of officers having their guns snatched from their holsters by issuing holsters that have different levels of retention built in them. Each of these levels require the officers to follow a certain procedure in order to draw their weapon. Yet officers have little if any trouble learning to use these holsters.

The most common retention device on civilian holsters is a leather strap that covers the hammer and is released by the user pushing down on the snap. Many current holsters designed for concealed carry do not have a retention device at all.

You make the statement that “Most training institutions will teach trainees to constantly engage or disengage every time the gun comes off an intended target and that may cause a person to encounter situation where they would be manipulating he lever while the decision to shoot or not changes” but do not support this statement by listing any “training institutions” that teach this method. LEO’s are trained use of the gun in low or high ready position when doing searches and investigating unknown/dangerous situations and do not constantly bring their gun on and off targets. If they use a flashlight attached to the gun (I don't know of any officers that do this but I'm sure there are some somewhere) then they have to us a very high degree of safe gun handling as the first rule of gun safety is don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy. I can not imagine a situation where I am pointing my gun (engaging) at a person then taking my gun off target (disengaging) multiple times. Either the threat is there or it isn’t. If the threat is there I’m sure as heck not taking my gun (disengaging as you put it) or attention off of it.

In summary it is clear that you have a total lack real world knowledge of tactics, weapon retention and the proven value of manual safeties.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[45_auto]

I stated that there is a risk that there can be a mistake or other accidents related to it, and that even if most can and do operate it with success, what benefit it brings can be less than the risk it poses depending on how each individual rates risk.

Very true. Same thing applies to flying (airplane crashes), driving (car wrecks), eating in restaurants (food poisoning), carrying any gun (accidental discharges), etc, etc. Carried to extremes, the behavior that you are describing is called "agoraphobia".

Unless you can apply some newly discovered actual data to the risk, your illogical fear of your capability to use a simple mechanical device is proven unfounded by the experience of millions of previous users.

If you are claimng to have some sort of superiority of command of English by pointing out whether if English is not my native language or not, you are not succeeding at it, since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.

Feel free to point out where you believe that I claimed any type of superiority. I merely pointed out a fact. You have an excellent command of the english language but are obviously not a native speaker. Your use of purposely confusing nomenclature seems to be confusing to you as well as many other posters trying to decipher your claims.

Rifle is proactively used in the military for soldiers. Not purposely used defensively and unexpecedly.

Interesting viewpoint. I would guess that you have never been in combat, and probably never in the military, or you would know that it is VERY common to have to react defensively and unexpectedly. After all, the other side is trying as hard as they can to kill you in any way possible, and you'll find that they are VERY sneaky about it. Just from my own personal experiences when I was in the military (US Army), there were several situations in which I found myself purposely using my rifle both unexpectedly and defensively. In your case, it does help explain your viewpoint. I can understand where someone who believes that the military cannot be surprised or forced to react to a defensive situation would also have strange ideas about weapon manipulations.

Speed shooters like 1911 because of the trigger.

You believe that only "speed shooters" use 1911's? You believe that they only like them because of the manual firing inhibitor finger lever?

 

[Devilfrog]

No. I stick with guns like the XDM and similar, manual safety is just one more thing to think about when every second counts.

 

[AnthonySmithXR]

Yes. Everyone gets stupid. Everyone makes mistakes. If stupid and your gun happen together, a safety can help. Certainly help more than none at all.

 

[TestPilot]

I was not going to reply to your comments in Post 35 but it is clear that you have no knowledge about law enforcement and their tactics and will only address my comments in this area.

Your clear lack of knowledge of what I know or do not know is mildly amusing.

You are totally ignoring the value of manual and thumb safeties for LEO’s. There are well documented saves, (research Massad Ayoob for starters), of LEO’s when their guns were snatched by a criminal and the criminal was unable to make the gun fire as he did not know about the location and how to use the thumb safety.

I never said there is no merit to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers.

I am only responding to the people denying that there are some risks aasociated with it.

Also, being saved because an opponent cannot figure what I can figure out as a kid is luck, not "tactic."

Law enforcement agencies have enhanced the protection of officers having their guns snatched from their holsters by issuing holsters that have different levels of retention built in them. Each of these levels require the officers to follow a certain procedure in order to draw their weapon. Yet officers have little if any trouble learning to use these holsters.

First, holster security features do not hinder gun use once the gun is drawn.

Second, those holsters are used by trading off speed for security. While increased security is a benefit, if you are saying that those holster do not have a risk of their own, it shows lack of knowledge on your part.

Not only do I have first hand knowledge of using Level III retention holsters, LE tactics instructor I have spoken to also acknowledge that it is slower.

You make the statement that “Most training institutions will teach trainees to constantly engage or disengage every time the gun comes off an intended target and that may cause a person to encounter situation where they would be manipulating he lever while the decision to shoot or not changes” but do not support this statement by listing any “training institutions” that teach this method.

That was a comment regarding pistols like 1911 or M&P models with manual firing inhibitor thumb levers.

You will have a harder time finding organization that does not teach it that way. If you did not know that then you clearly are not un the position to whine about my alleged lack of knowledge.

Travis Haley trains people that way. As far as I am aware of, LAPD 1911 program is run that way. Once I get home, I would be able to find more from the books I have.
I might add them here, if you wish to be embarrassed some more.

LEO’s are trained use of the gun in low or high ready position when doing searches and investigating unknown/dangerous situations and do not constantly bring their gun on and off targets. If they use a flashlight attached to the gun (I don't know of any officers that do this but I'm sure there are some somewhere) then they have to us a very high degree of safe gun handling as the first rule of gun safety is don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy. I can not imagine a situation where I am pointing my gun (engaging) at a person then taking my gun off target (disengaging) multiple times. Either the threat is there or it isn’t. If the threat is there I’m sure as heck not taking my gun (disengaging as you put it) or attention off of it.

"Search" is not the situation I am discussing here. What is the point of arguing with you if you, who claims to know enough anout law enforcement tactics to judge that of others, do not even know what context I am speaking of?

 

[45_auto]

I never said there is no merit to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers.

What do you believe the merits of manual firing inhibitor finger levers are as opposed to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers?

 

[BSA1]

Test Pilot,

Your "rebuttal" either do not directly address any of my points or display a appalling amount of ignorance about tactics.

You state in your rebuttal of use of the manual thumb safety in saving officers lives that "being saved because an opponent cannot figure what I can figure out as a kid is luck, not "tactic." This is simply untrue. Making a conscious decision to carry a gun with the thumb safety engaged is both a safety and survival tactic. Your brilliance as to what you figured out as a kid is not relevant to my point or to the well document use of having the thumb safety engaged in saving lives.

In regards to your comment that retention holsters are slower to use you do not state what you are comparing them to and any test data supporting your claim. It is also a fallacy in your argument to generalize your lack of skill in using a retention holster to officers that do use them.

In fact you totally ignore my comments that " first rule of gun safety is don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy" and "I can not imagine a situation where I am pointing my gun (engaging) at a person then taking my gun off target (disengaging) multiple times. Either the threat is there or it isn’t. If the threat is there I’m sure as heck not taking my gun (disengaging as you put it) or attention off of it." Both of these comments directly apply as much to civilians as to LEO's.

As I said it is clear that you have a total lack real world knowledge of (and I will add experience with) tactics, weapon retention and the proven value of manual safeties.

 

[TestPilot]

Very Same thing applies to flying (airplane crashes), driving (car wrecks), eating in restaurants (food poisoning), carrying any gun (accidental discharges), etc, etc. Carried to extremes, the behavior that you are describing is called "agoraphobia".

Watching people playing doctor on TV does not make you a psychologist, especially when you attempt an analogy with things of totally different context.

Unless you can apply some newly discovered actual data to the risk, your illogical fear of your capability to use a simple mechanical device is proven unfounded by the experience of millions of previous users.

Just a mention of millions of users do not prove there is no risk.

There has been incidents of failure displayed in training over and over by people who has trained with pistols like 1911.

Listen to what Gabriel Suarez has to say about the subject.

http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-26990.html

Interesting viewpoint. I would guess that you have never been in combat, and probably never in the military, or you would know that it is VERY common to have to react defensively and unexpectedly. After all, the other side is trying as hard as they can to kill you in any way possible, and you'll find that they are VERY sneaky about it. Just from my own personal experiences when I was in the military (US Army), there were several situations in which I found myself purposely using my rifle both unexpectedly and defensively. In your case, it does help explain your viewpoint. I can understand where someone who believes that the military cannot be surprised or forced to react to a defensive situation would also have strange ideas about weapon manipulations.

Mere fact that military use rifles with manual firing inhibitor thumb switch does not mean there is no problem with it.

Also, where did I ever say it military cannot be surprised ?

Sure they can be surprised. And, when they are, all the risks associated with manual firing inhibitor thumb lever on a pistol applies the same.
Just as, for example, a soldier who got his base of thumb smacked to break a fall,etc., can have a hard time manipulating the switch. Guess how I know that.

If you are basing your support on military use of rifles and pistols, then you should be carrying your pistol with empty chamber until someone gives you permission to chamber.
Guess how I know that.

You believe that only "speed shooters" use 1911's? You believe that they only like them because of the manual firing inhibitor finger lever?

You brought up the issue of competition shooters, not me.

 

[jerkface11]

If you have to draw your gun you don't want the safety on and if it's in the holster you don't need it. So what's the point in having one?

 

[Hokkmike]

jerkface11

If you have to draw your gun you don't want the safety on and if it's in the holster you don't need it. So what's the point in having one?

A very good, concise, and to the point comment.

I have been advised that while I could just stick a .380 subcompact in my pocket that a pocket holster would keep the gun in right orientation and also provide additional safety by covering the trigger. Seems like sound reasoning.

Now I am asking, if I train myself to always pull the safety down when "drawing" my pocket pistol except when unloading for routine purposes wouldn't the extra measure of security be a plus?

It is probably my insecurity and/or lack of training and experience but I have a hard time convincing myself to depend on "not pulling a trigger alone" in place of a manual safe.

I wonder what the actual incidence of guns being discharged in pockets by inadvertent trigger pulls actually is?

Thank you for your comment.

 

[ATLDave]

If you have to draw your gun you don't want the safety on and if it's in the holster you don't need it. So what's the point in having one?

For one, guns aren't born in holsters. They have to be placed there. If you want the gun to be loaded when you draw, they have to be placed in the holster while loaded. One purpose to a safety is to have an "off switch" that can be used while the gun is holstered or is otherwise being manipulated with no intent to fire.

For another, guns don't generally come out of holsters pointing directly at the target. On the contrary, they often come (partially) out of the holster pointing at parts of the gun user's anatomy, or at the ground or at bystanders (particularly for a non-strong-side-waistband holster). Imposing a tenth of a second delay on the trigger becoming active is affirmatively good, and has no impact on time to first shot (the draw is not instantaneous, and the safety is off by the time the gun points at the target).

Yet another benefit is the "gun grab." There have been mulitple documented instances of a (literal, not political/metaphorical) gun grabber failing to kill the gun owner because they could not figure out the safety fast enough to prevent the gun owner from recovering the gun or otherwise ending the gun grab and attack.

There are others, but those are some examples.

 

[TestPilot]

What do you believe the merits of manual firing inhibitor finger levers are as opposed to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers?

It can reduce the responsibility of other parts of the gun to incorporate features to reduce the probability of accidents.

For example a 1911 trigger does not have to have as much as resistance as that of a DA/SA SIG P226.
Which is also the reason why I do not see a point of manual firing inhibitor thumb levers on a DA/SA pistol.

However, that merit is reduced than before, due to medium resistance constant triggers like M&P or Glock.

But, since many people do shoot better with light resistance short travel trigger, it provides some relief for people who insist on pistols like 1911.

Since I do not benefit much from trigger being less resistant than that of M&P, people like myself do not need a manual firing inhibitor thumb switch in order to have a trigger as low resistance as that of 1911. But, there are those people who do benefit from such trigger.

It is also useful when a gun needs to be carried with the trigger exposed when not in use. Not much need for it with a holster, but such situations do occur, such as when someone takes a gun in an emergency and the person is without a holster.

Gun take away scenario where the opponent did not know how to disengage the firing inhibitor is a benefit. I did not deny that. My disagreement with BSA1 is that I do not consider counting on opponents' ignorance of something a middle school kid can figure out is some sort of tactic to fall on.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

So you are admitting that it is a problem on some guns?

No, just that they aren't for me. I can like only some safeties you know.

So the device "prevents something unintentional from happening" and "not 'a inhibitor of something unintentional from happening'" AT THE SAME TIME?

So, it is NOT an inhibitor of something unintentional(accidental discharge)?

That is comical.

I am glad that I have invented the term. It just exposes the thought process behind the people that length to whine about it trying to make the device look good.

I'm sorry, I was tired when I posted that.

Are you saying if the user pulls the trigger when it is engaged, the thing somehow reads user's mind and still fires the gun when it is still engaged?

When it is engaged, it inhibits fire regardless of whether the user intends to fire or not. So, no. It is not an "unintentional discharge inhibitor." It is a firing inhibitor.

You WANT to think it only inhibits accidental discharge while knowing that it inhibits any discharge from trigger pull when user do intends to fire if it is engaged. That is why you're upset about the term, isn't it?

If it's on and someone accidentally pulls the trigger, that inhibited an unintentional discharge did it not? I want to think that it only stops unintentional discharges? You're right! I'm so simple minded! /sarcasm Know your gun. If you can't handle having a simple safety on your firearm then by all means don't carry a gun with one. It isn't for everyone.

Instead of the classic tactic of branding negative names, why don't you point out the logical or factual problems of my argument, if you are capable of it?

Says the person using the classic tactic of branding negative names.

There has been incidents of failure displayed in training over and over by people who has trained with pistols like 1911.

I'm yet to hear about people who properly train on the 1911 (not just a few hours) and fail to take the safety off. Out of all the time I've spent using SAO automatics I've never forgotten the safety off. Same reason why I've never forgotten to put my seat belt on or push the clutch in when I have to suddenly brake. It's muscle memory that I don't think about in the least, it's all in how I've trained to react.

Since I do not benefit much from trigger being less resistant than that of M&P, people like myself do not need a manual firing inhibitor thumb switch in order to have a trigger as low resistance as that of 1911. But, there are those people who do benefit from such trigger.

I bet you $100 if they didn't have the trigger safety, all M&Ps would come with a thumb safety. Also you are forgetting that you can only fire a 1911 by pressing the grip safety. In other words, you can carry all day without the safety on.

 

[meef]

Also you are forgetting that you can only fire a 1911 by pressing the grip safety.

I'm assuming that you were actually referring to the interdigital web manual firing inhibitor lever here?

 

[Mike1234567]

I think about the thumb safety each and every time I pick up or set down my pistol. I check to ensure it's engaged. I think each and every time I pick it up... to remember to swipe the safety if needed. I check it's function regularly. When shooting I keep the safety engaged until I aim at the target then reengage it while the muzzle is pointed down range. I'll not forget to disengage it when needed. Also, I like to keep a round chambered. If I don't use the thumb safety then I won't keep a round chambered.

Which am I more likely to forget: 1. Swipe the thumb safety? or 2. Rack the slide?

Which takes more time and effort: 1. Swipe the thumb safety? or 2. Rack the slide?

I choose #1. I don't like long/heavy trigger pulls.

 

[BSA1]

Test Pilot,

Since you have not responded to my counter points then the logical conclusion is you have conceded your position to me.

 

[TarDevil]

When I think about everything involved in using and maintaining a semi-automatic handgun, the safety (or "inhibitor thingy" for those so inclined) just isn't a big deal. If I can field strip it, clean it, assemble it, load it, chamber it and shoot it... surely that little thumb device isn't going to be much of a challenge for me, is it?

When I was flying myself around for business I had a couple of serious in-flight emergencies. The training took over, everything was handled and I survived. I'm certain I had a few more things to do in the cockpit than manipulating one switch. I can handle it under pressure, I'm quite sure.

First priority for me is making sure the gun in my hand is the one that allows me to point best and deliver an accurate high rate of fire. If that means it's a "beginner gun" with a safety/inhibitor/whatever, so what? My manhood is not offended. My life, however, will best be defended because I have chosen the gun that gives me the best chance of defending me and my loved ones.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I love my Glock but the idea of carrying it AIWB with no safety is...a little concerning. I can draw and holster without touching the trigger but what if I fall or if I'm grabbed/impacted in a way that gets at the trigger?

I concede that this is unlikely but it is not impossible that wardrobe failure can occur and the trigger could get touched/pulled by a shirt tail or belt tail or...whatever. Again, I concede it is unlikely but it is not impossible.

I want a switch that makes the gun inert until I physically switch it and make the gun hot as I present and cover what I want to shoot. I cannot mentally rectify the odds of self injury (or shooting a by standing person with a AD) with a hot pistol that has no trigger inactivation. I prefer drop hammer safeties and first shot DA after the lever is flicked up....I have done this for years and it does not slow me down.

I'm safer - everyone around me is safer. Folks can go on and on about it being un necessary but you'll only screw up once. I'm sure the guy with the Glock that discharged into the floor of his car as he sat down and the holster pulled the trigger has rethought his carry/holster options.

I want a safety if I can get it.

VooDoo

 

[TestPilot]

[Since you have not responded to my counter points then the logical conclusion is you have conceded your position to me.[/QUOTE ]
What the hell do you think this is? Timed chess?

I am not home yet.

I will let you cook in the meanwhile.

 

[meef]

I love my Glock but the idea of carrying it AIWB with no safety is...a little concerning. I can draw and holster without touching the trigger but what if I fall or if I'm grabbed/impacted in a way that gets at the trigger?

I concede that this is unlikely but it is not impossible that wardrobe failure can occur and the trigger could get touched/pulled by a shirt tail or belt tail or...whatever. Again, I concede it is unlikely but it is not impossible.

I want a switch that makes the gun inert until I physically switch it and make the gun hot as I present and cover what I want to shoot. I cannot mentally rectify the odds of self injury (or shooting a by standing person with a AD) with a hot pistol that has no trigger inactivation. I prefer drop hammer safeties and first shot DA after the lever is flicked up....I have done this for years and it does not slow me down.

I'm safer - everyone around me is safer. Folks can go on and on about it being un necessary but you'll only screw up once. I'm sure the guy with the Glock that discharged into the floor of his car as he sat down and the holster pulled the trigger has rethought his carry/holster options.

I want a safety if I can get it.

Well heck, you can. And you can keep your Glock too.

See post #93.