Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?

[Nom de Forum]

Nor have manual safeties been proven a detractor to flawless high performance. Your point?

You are correct it is not proven. My point is they also are not needed for flawless high performance, so why bother with something that is not needed.


And guys (girls, too) with Glocks have numerous times been defeated by guys (girls, too) using guns with manual safeties. Your point?

My point is that arguing that most competitors are using guns with manual safeties must mean these guns are superior is a logic error.

Statistics on just often this occurs? Can we prove that someone who errs in competition -- or on the street -- would have performed flawlessly if using a gun without a manual safety? I submit that the root problem is training and practice, not equipment.

Exactly! Training people to keep there fingers out of the trigger guard is simpler and does not give the false sense of security of a manual safety.

And Guns without manual safeties have the potential -- there are statistics to back this up -- for increased instances of negligent discharge.

Can you provide these? I have seen more NDs from 1911s than any other gun. Of course I have also seen more 1911s shot than any other pistol so that doesn't necessarily prove my point. What does prove my point is that all the NDs I have seen were because someone put their finger inside the trigger guard. Keeping your finger out of the trigger guard is a much simpler mental and physical safety procedure than relying on manual safeties.


Sigh. You haven't been paying attention, lo these past decades, have you? Features on firearms aren't always there because that's what the end-user desires, requires or actually needs. Law enforcement bean-counters, risk management specialists, insurance companies, extremely stupid elected officials (see U.S. Congress and the legislative bodies in states such as California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Colorado, et al) and in particular, those litigators who spawn like vermin, have all conspired to bring us collectively to this point.

I have been certainly been paying attention as much as you since I was already aware of the above brilliant statement of the obvious.

And while we all wish we were such master gunfighters in the mold of Gabe Suarez, Rob Pincus, "Test Pilot" and others (sorry, too numerous to mention), most of us probably SHOULD be carrying handguns with manual safety devices. If you are one of the high-speed guys that doesn't feel you need a safety on your pistol, more power to you.

Wrong, most of the general population who own but rarely shoot guns, should be carrying handguns without manual safeties that are known as Revolvers. The best known, manual safety-less, handgun.

(By the way, my employer gave me a couple S&W M&Ps -- without safeties. We used to issue pistols with decocking safeties, but alas the increase in NDs and the decrease in budget funds still sees us with our polymer perfection ...)

You have my sympathy for your misfortune. Training to keep your finger out of the trigger guard is not prohibitively expensive,however ego can make it possibly difficult to conduct.

 

[meef]

Hokkmike:

Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?
I have heard a lot of shooters express disdain for manual safetys on semi automatic pistols.

What is your take? Any rationale?

Also, would you please state why your personal preference is vastly superior to the opposing point of view?

And while you're at it, could you please also repeatedly throw in some really silly nomenclature regarding firearm parts in order to see just how much you can stir the pot?

There.

Fixed it for you.

Back to the show.

 

[danez71]

Manual safeties for modern pistols are like 3-gear manual automotive transmissions in an 8-gear computer controlled automotive transmission World.They are nothing more than charming anachronisms fun to play with but a hinderance to flawless high performance.

LOL... Well the CVT (continuously variable transmission) makes your 8 speed look like a transmission from the Flintstones.

Anyways, back on topic.

The above bolded statement vs the below statement.

The manual safeties do not contribute to flawless high performanc .

Back peddle much?



Then we have these next 2 gems;

BTW guys with Glocks have numerous times defeated guys using guns with manual safeties.

Originally Posted by JTQ
That's right, because none of the top competition shooters are using single action 1911's, CZ's, Tanfoglio's, or SIG's

Your statement is a classic error in logic.

If you're going to say that about JTQ's post, you must apply it to yours as well. YOUR statement is a classic error in logic.

Thanks for the laugh!

I couldn't agree more.

 

[45_auto]

Sear holds the cocked hammer or striker from striking the primer.

Trigger force the sear to release the held hammer or striker.

Manual firing inhibitor, when engaged, inhibits that from happening.

What inhibits the sear from releasing the hammer when the safety is not engaged? Could it be the "manual firing inhibitor finger lever device"?

Maybe you could understand it better if I put it in "testpilot" language:

The manual firing inhibitor device holds the potential energy enabled impacting device or colliding device from colliding with the chemical energy ignition supplier device. Disengaging the manual firing inhibitor thumb lever device allows the manual firing inhibitor device to be controlled by the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device. Depressing the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device forces the manual firing inhibitor device to release the potential energy enabled impacting or colliding device which then strikes the chemical energy ignition supplier device.

Is it clear to you now?

It has been I while since I went to a pistol competition, but I started when nobody outside of Arizona knew the names Latham and Enos.

OK, I give up. Who is Latham, and who knows anyone with that name now, inside or outside of Arizona?

 

[Nom de Forum]

LOL... Well the CVT (continuously variable transmission) makes your 8 speed look like a transmission from the Flintstones.

Well danez71 I'll bet you are unaware that CVT transmissions are practically ancient technology going back to before WWII.Even the most modern CVTs are relegated to low performance vehicles like Prius and Nissans. Nobody uses them in high-performance cars.


Anyways, back on topic.

The above bolded statement vs the below statement.





Back peddle much?

There is no back peddling indicate by my two statements, they are complementary in describing the situation. Manual safeties are a hinderance and they do not contribute to flawless high performance. Perhaps your reading comprehension level hinders your understanding my statements and does not contribute to you comprehending what I am attempting to convey. He is a restatement for your benefit: Manual safeties create the possibility for a shooter to fumble disengagement thus preventing shooting at the highest performance level of applying DVC, which could be fatal. Pistols with manual safeties could have the manual safeties removed or permanently deactivated with no loss of performance. So in other words, they are not necessary and provide no benefit to performance.

Then we have these next 2 gems;


What are you implying, that Glocks have not been used to defeat competitors using pistols with manual safeties? If so, this is a real turd of ignorance.





If you're going to say that about JTQ's post, you must apply it to yours as well. YOUR statement is a classic error in logic.

Do you even understand what the word logic means?

 

[Nom de Forum]

OK, I give up. Who is Latham, and who knows anyone with that name now, inside or outside of Arizona?

I hope this is a joke, if not it is incredible ignorance of shooting history.

 

[meef]

Pistols with manual safeties could have the manual safeties removed or permanently deactivated with no loss of performance. So in other words, they are not necessary and provide no benefit to performance.

That is just a massively subjective statement.

No benefit to performance? Not unless you consider performance to include the ability to engage a manual safety for the purpose intended - namely to lower the likelihood of an unintended discharge.

Guns ain't all about "Grab'em point'em make'em go BOOMBOOM ASAP!"

There are other aspects to the use of firearms.

Or is that somehow an error of logic on my part?

 

[Nom de Forum]

That is just a massively subjective statement.

No benefit to performance? Not unless you consider performance to include the ability to engage a manual safety for the purpose intended - namely to lower the likelihood of an unintended discharge.

Guns ain't all about "Grab'em point'em make'em go BOOMBOOM ASAP!"

There are other aspects to the use of firearms.

Or is that somehow an error of logic on my part?

Wow! This sure is fun!

A manual safety only lowers the likelihood of a ND ("unintended discharge" is a misnomer for a negligent discharge) if the operator remembers to apply it before negligently pulling the trigger. They do nothing to aid shooting performance. What they do though, and I have witness this many times, is lead to people who are just experience enough to become arrogant riding the trigger when the safety is engaged. That increases the likelihood of an ND.

Something to consider is that for most of the history of semiautomatic pistols having manual safeties, the safeties even when applied could not prevent NDs. Case in point: the 1911 pre-firing pin safety, the P-08 Lugar, etc, etc. Only safe gun handling prevented NDs then and now.

"Grab'em point'em make'em go BOOMBOOM ASAP!" - Are we now discussing Jerry Ms' revolver technic cause this is a simple description of it? I don't recall seeing or hearing of him having a problem with NDs.

"Other aspects of firearms use", I thought we were discussing a very specific one. What aspect of semiauto pistol use do you think requires a manual safety on a semiauto?

Yes, I think your argument is supported with flawed logic.

 

[meef]

Wow! This sure is fun!

Couldn't agree more.

A manual safety only lowers the likelihood of a ND ("unintended discharge" is a misnomer for a negligent discharge) if the operator remembers to apply it before negligently pulling the trigger. They do nothing to aid shooting performance. What they do though, and I have witness this many times, is lead to people who are just experience enough to become arrogant riding the trigger when the safety is engaged. That increases the likelihood of an ND.

Short version: A manual safety works if the person using it is competent. If not, are you under the assumption that anything will help? That the lack of a manual safety will somehow make things better?

Only safe gun handling prevented NDs then and now.

As my next door neighbor's daughter would say, "Well...DUH!"

"Grab'em point'em make'em go BOOMBOOM ASAP!" - Are we now discussing Jerry Ms' revolver technic cause this is a simple description of it? I don't recall seeing or hearing of him having a problem with NDs.

I was under the impression we were discussing your assertion that guns, like high performance cars (transmissions, whatever) only needed to go "faster", and things like safeties (or maybe brakes?) served no useful purpose in this regard.

"Other aspects of firearms use", I thought we were discussing a very specific one. What aspect of semiauto pistol use do you think requires a manual safety on a semiauto?

Well, how about some weird aspect, oh... such as... the aspect of safety? Not a difficult concept to grasp if you put your mind to it.

Yes, I think your argument is supported with flawed logic.

And I think your argument and claim to logic is supported by nothing at all. I suppose we both have our respective opinions here.

 

[danez71]

Nom, if you know how to correctly use the quoting feature, you should. If you don't, it wouldn't be surprising.

Originally posted by Nom de Forum
Well danez71 I'll bet you are unaware that CVT transmissions are practically ancient technology going back to before WWII.Even the most modern CVTs are relegated to low performance vehicles like Prius and Nissans. Nobody uses them in high-performance cars.

Well, you'd loose that bet for a few reasons. One of which is high mpg cars aren't low performance. They are high performance in terms of mpg's. Its a matter of what performance is measured. You didn't define it. If youre talking speed, well did you know top fuel dragsters are single speed?

"Performance" is subjective when not defined.

. Perhaps your reading comprehension level hinders your understanding my statements and does not contribute to you comprehending what I am attempting to convey.

Or perhaps, what you're attempting to convey is hindered by your level of writing skills which include contradicting statements.

Manual safeties create the possibility for a shooter to fumble disengagement .....

So you're counting it as a hindrance before it happens?

Huh, so I guess the paint on the sights are also a hindrance because they could possibly fall out and "create the possibility for a shooter to fumble" getting on target.

Or the grips are a hindrance because they could possibly loosen up and create the possibility for the shooter to fumble the gun.

Or a Glock trigger safety is a hindrance because it could possibly fail and create a non functioning trigger.

Seriously, why have the trigger safety on a Glock? It doesn't add performance and only creates another "possible" failure point which you count as a hindrance.

And if the Glock trigger safety was removed, "performance" as you say, would not suffer.

The Glock trigger safety meets all the same criteria you've stated for the thumb safety being a hindrance yet included them in the 'high performance' group.

Contradictory once again.


A "possibility" is not a "hindrance" unless you're counting chickens before they hatch.

Wow! This sure is fun!

Sure is!

 

[Nom de Forum]

Couldn't agree more.

Short version: A manual safety works if the person using it is competent. If not, are you under the assumption that anything will help? That the lack of a manual safety will somehow make things better?

As my next door neighbor's daughter would say, "Well...DUH!"

I was under the impression we were discussing your assertion that guns, like high performance cars (transmissions, whatever) only needed to go "faster", and things like safeties (or maybe brakes?) served no useful purpose in this regard.

Well, how about some weird aspect, oh... such as... the aspect of safety? Not a difficult concept to grasp if you put your mind to it.

And I think your argument and claim to logic is supported by nothing at all. I suppose we both have our respective opinions here.

Yes I think the lack of a manual safety does make things better. They make for a simpler manual of arms and stimulate more awareness of keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

I never said safeties "served no useful purpose". I like like safeties that do not require a separate and unique motion for disengagement. The types used in the Glock and S&W MP series for example.

I respect and support your right to your opinion. This whole debate reminds me of an conversation I had over 20 years ago with a Sig Saur owner whose ultimate defense of the superiority of the Sig over the Glock was that the Sig was all metal. He thought I was a lunatic to suggest Sig will eventually make polymer frames. Modern firearms design and training does not benefit from continuing placement of manual safeties on semiautomatic pistols.

 

[TestPilot]

What inhibits the sear from releasing the hammer when the safety is not engaged? Could it be the "manual firing inhibitor finger lever device"?

Since "manual firing inhibitor finger lever device " is your defective way of calling the trigger, I will assume that you are saying the trigger is inhibiting the sear from releasing.

That proves beyond any doubt that you do not know that the trigger bar on a 1911, or even pistols like M&P, only moves the sear in the direction that releases the hammer or striker, not in a direction that holds the hammer or striker. The later is the role of a sear spring.

You are only making it clear that you do not know how these guns operate.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Nom, if you know how to correctly use the quoting feature, you should. If you don't, it wouldn't be surprising.



Well, you'd loose that bet for a few reasons. One of which is high mpg cars aren't low performance. They are high performance in terms of mpg's. Its a matter of what performance is measured. You didn't define it. If youre talking speed, well did you know top fuel dragsters are single speed?

"Performance" is subjective when not defined.



Or perhaps, what you're attempting to convey is hindered by your level of writing skills which include contradicting statements.




So you're counting it as a hindrance before it happens?

Huh, so I guess the paint on the sights are also a hindrance because they could possibly fall out and "create the possibility for a shooter to fumble" getting on target.

Or the grips are a hindrance because they could possibly loosen up and create the possibility for the shooter to fumble the gun.

Or a Glock trigger safety is a hindrance because it could possibly fail and create a non functioning trigger.

Seriously, why have the trigger safety on a Glock? It doesn't add performance and only creates another "possible" failure point which you count as a hindrance.

And if the Glock trigger safety was removed, "performance" as you say, would not suffer.

The Glock trigger safety meets all the same criteria you've stated for the thumb safety being a hindrance yet included them in the 'high performance' group.

Contradictory once again.


A "possibility" is not a "hindrance" unless you're counting chickens before they hatch.




Sure is!

Oh well you got me, I am sloppy using the quote function. Something that totally undermines my credibility.

Yeah right, we all think high miles per gallon when we refer to high performance cars.

Glock safeties do not require a separate and unique motion to be disengaged or engaged. I never used the term "thumb safety" but that is a type of manual safety requiring a separate and unique motion. I have never seen or heard of someone fumbling the disengagement or engagement of the trigger safety on a Glock. I have heard about a guy who engaged his 1911s thumb safety, gripped the bottom of his vertical shoulder to steady it, slid his 1911 in to the holster until it bottomed out, whereupon the sudden stop cause his thumb to disengage the thumb safety and trigger finger to pull the trigger. Guess what happened. I think the reattachment was somewhat successful.

I hope that all who are making a spirited defense of manual safeties do not think in anyway I am denigrating their favorite pistol. This is usually what causes such passion in these threads. This thread is getting to be like drinking beer; eventually it is no longer fun. I am close to having a belly full so I think I will stop, at least for tonight, and probably for good.

 

[HisStigness]

If it's an option, why wouldn't you take it? Just because a safety is there doesn't mean you have to use it. I can go all day shooting, manipulating, drawing, holstering, and cleaning without accidentally turning the safety on, so why is it such an issue for some people? I get quite irritated when someone asks an opinion on a gun (let's use the FN FNS thread I saw on another forum as an example) and a bunch of people said they would never consider buying it because only LE/milt can get it without a manual safety. If the glock was the perfect weapon for every situation, then there wouldn't be a market full of great handguns, would there? But if you are comfortable carrying a glock with essentially no safety, then why is it any different than an M&P with the safety off?

 

[TestPilot]

If it's an option, why wouldn't you take it?

Because that option comes with both risks and benefits, and if I am not using it, then I am only left with the risks.

But if you are comfortable carrying a glock with essentially no safety, then why is it any different than an M&P with the safety off?

Glock and M&P I carried which did not have a manual firing inhibitor thumb switch have no risk of the lever moving by accident, and it also does not require me to hold the lever down topprevent accidental movement.

 

[guyfromohio]

I prefer a decocker or no safety on a carry gun. If I had a 1911, I'd be ok with that safety as I find its activation a very natural movement (clarification... I don't have a 1911 now, but had a great colt for years).

 

[45_auto]

It has been I while since I went to a pistol competition, but I started when nobody outside of Arizona knew the names Latham and Enos.

OK, I give up. Who is Latham, and who knows anyone with that name now, inside or outside of Arizona?

I hope this is a joke, if not it is incredible ignorance of shooting history.

Actually, it's someone who is quite knowledable of shooting history teasing someone dropping names hoping to increase their credibility. I even left you an opening to correct it. You could haved claimed a spelling mistake if you really knew what you were talking about.

Here's another hint, apparently that first one was a little too subtle for you:

Google "Latham", then Google "Leatham".

Sorry testpilot, I've found someone even less knowledable than you to discuss things with! I'll have to get back to your silliness when I get a chance.

 

[Gtscotty]

I prefer that my carry and HD guns don't have a manual safety. I've only been to a couple defensive pistol classes, but during both i saw otherwise firearms - competent individuals forget to remove their safety when drawing and firing under time imposed stress. I don't know how much better than them I am, but I do know that just last week I forgot to take the safety off of my rifle when I was tracking a wounded pig through heavy brush. When I got to within about 25 ft of where I knew it was lying, I should have slid the safety off, but I guess, being a bit on edge, I forgot. When the pig popped up I pulled up, centered the crosshairs .... and nothing happened. Under extreme stress I don't trust myself not to forget a thumb safety, but I do trust myself to safely handle, holster, unholster, etc. my handguns every day in my normal low stress environment.

 

[45_auto]

Sorry, just couldn't resist!

That proves beyond any doubt that you do not know that the trigger bar on a 1911, or even pistols like M&P, only moves the sear in the direction that releases the hammer or striker, not in a direction that holds the hammer or striker. The later is the role of a sear spring.

You believe that I should have specified that the manual firing inhibitor spring lever device instead of the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device is what inhibits the manual firing inhibitor device from allowing the potential energy enabled impacting device or colliding device from colliding with the chemical energy ignition supplier device?

Ok, let me clarify it for you:

The manual firing inhibitor device holds the potential energy enabled impacting device or colliding device from colliding with the chemical energy ignition supplier device. Disengaging the manual firing inhibitor thumb lever device allows the manual firing inhibitor device to be controlled by the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device. Depressing the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device overcomes the force provided by the manual firing inhibitor spring lever device and allows the manual firing inhibitor device to release the potential energy enabled impacting or colliding device which then strikes the chemical energy ignition supplier device.

Is that what you meant?

Since "manual firing inhibitor finger lever device " is your defective way of calling the trigger

It's almost (but not quite) as stupid as calling the safety the "manual firing inhibitor thumb lever device", isn' it?

 

[Hokkmike]

I think in some cases I must be getting the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" version of some things. Of course I realize that some, probably most of it, is tongue in cheek.

Summarizing then, it seems most of you DO NOT prefer a manual safe on a DOA gun.

Thanks all for your participation.

 

[TestPilot]

You believe that I should have specified that the manual firing inhibitor spring lever device instead of the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device is what inhibits the manual firing inhibitor device from allowing the potential energy enabled impacting device or colliding device from colliding with the chemical energy ignition supplier device?

You claimed trigger is the inhibitor of firing. So, I will not let you pretend that you were claiming something else but just failed to specify it.

Ok, let me clarify it for you:

The manual firing inhibitor device holds the potential energy enabled impacting device or colliding device from colliding with the chemical energy ignition supplier device. Disengaging the manual firing inhibitor thumb lever device allows the manual firing inhibitor device to be controlled by the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device. Depressing the manual firing inhibitor finger lever device overcomes the force provided by the manual firing inhibitor spring lever device and allows the manual firing inhibitor device to release the potential energy enabled impacting or colliding device which then strikes the chemical energy ignition supplier device.

Is that what you meant?

Translation: "Since TestPilot proved my argument that trigger is an inhibitor of firing function is wrong, I will just pretend it never happened. Then I will make up some garbage and try to paas it off as a rewording of what he said, although that does not disprove anything he said, the pathetic attempt at humor will make me feel like I won."

It is not my job to teach you how to read. If you do not understand my previous post, too bad for you.

 

[IdahoHk416]

IMO they are not a necessity for me. None of my pistols have them.

 

[jerkface11]

Test Pilot maybe you should stop making up your own terms. I've read your posts and haven't figured out which side of this you are on. So can you please go thru and edit all of your posts.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Actually, it's someone who is quite knowledable of shooting history teasing someone dropping names hoping to increase their credibility. I even left you an opening to correct it. You could haved claimed a spelling mistake if you really knew what you were talking about.

Here's another hint, apparently that first one was a little too subtle for you:

Google "Latham", then Google "Leatham".

Sorry testpilot, I've found someone even less knowledable than you to discuss things with! I'll have to get back to your silliness when I get a chance.

You really love playing "Gotcha" with trivialities. You are quite correct that I misspelled Rob Leatham's last name. If you check my posts you will probably find other misspellings of words I rarely write. Oh well, another middle-aged moment amongst many now. I find it silly you can use that to imply I am less knowledgeable than you about what we are discussing. I don't know if I am "knowledable" (sic) than Testpilot, but I am sure Testpilot and I are less "knowledable" (sic) than you.

I am sure there is much more I don't know about semiauto pistols than what I do know. I am aware that my training as a National Match Armorer, Glock Armorer, etc., etc. is not all encompassing of firearms knowledge. Neither is my competitive, instructor, and military experience. More importantly my language and debate skills are less than adequate to express on this forum the firearms knowledge I have. You and I fundamentally disagree about the value of manual safeties. That is not going to change. Why don't we amiably agree to disagree and refrain from attacking each others credibility?

 

[TestPilot]

Test Pilot maybe you should stop making up your own terms. I've read your posts and haven't figured out which side of this you are on. So can you please go thru and edit all of your posts.

I do not have a "side." I am on the side of each person using whatever that.suits them best.

People thinking that I am on one side is the reason why they are responding the way they do.

I only used one term that is different from what others used. Just replace "manual firing inhibitor" with "manual safety " then you won't have any problem.