Pistol engineering and safeties

[Monac]

Respectfully, I completely disagree.

A Glock trigger travel is much shorter than a DA revolver. 1/4” vs maybe a full inch.

It is much lighter than a DA revolver. 5.5 pounds versus 12-15 pounds.

There is no tactile feedback, other than the trigger, to let you know a Glock is about to fire. A DA revolvers hammer must come back to fire. Both visual and tactile indicators that it’s about to fire.

A DA revolver is at rest when holstered. A Glock, at rest, has enough energy to fire (about 75% of the time from my experimenting) It’s not fully cocked, but, very close.

I agree with your figures. A Glock trigger IS much lighter and shorter in travel than a DA revolver, or the pull of a double-action automatic in double-action mode. That is why the Glock caught on like gangbusters and DAO automatic pistols did not. It was a compromise between single action and double action that appealed to many people, including most policemen.

The question then becomes, is the Glock trigger adequately long and heavy enough to avoid the unintentional discharges that are associated with cocked single action guns without manual safeties?

As far as I know, the answer is yes. I am not aware that unintentional discharges went up significantly with the widespread adoption of Glock-type trigger setups. I could be wrong, of course; I have not actually looked into this question. If there has been such an increase, I would be glad to know about it so that I am not going around being wrong and spreading misinformation.

 

[JTQ]

I am not aware that unintentional discharges went up significantly with the widespread adoption of Glock-type trigger setups.

Just one data point, but the LA County Sheriff Department switch from Beretta 92FS to S&W M&P more than doubled their unintended discharges.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-guns-20150614-story.html

I suspect the numbers have reduced in subsequent years as the deputies have gotten used to the new guns. There is a learning curve in anything.

 

[Riomouse911]

Man, this one gets hashed around and around about every 6-12 months or so. The same pros and cons, same positions and rebuttals, always ending with the same results.

The best part about living in the US; if you don’t like something about how a particular gun operates, or you don’t feel comfortable carrying a particular style of gun... don’t buy that gun!

Don’t worry about the next guy. Worry about you.

Buy the gun with the features you feel most comfortable with, seek out good instruction to become competent and confident in its operation, practice sound gun handling, carrying and shooting safety practices at home, on the range and while ccw...and enjoy yourself.

Stay safe.

 

[Tirod]

My point is that however the primer is hit, has nothing to do with how the trigger is controlled. A cocked hammer or cocked striker is equally capable. You have to disable the trigger safety to fire it.

What if someone made a 1911 and it came with the SAFE action trigger only? Photoshop that in your mind .Strikers with thumb safeties were around at the same time as hammers with thumb safety, where are the hammer guns with SAFE action triggers?

Again, we got gas delay, auto revolvers, roller locked autos, bottom firing cylinders, bullpup loading autos, folding Glocks, double action double stack 1911's, and Schofield revolvers with thumb safety, there's some pretty odd mechanical stuff out there. I have never seen a SAFE action trigger on a 1911.

The One Gun To Rule Them All . Ok yeah sure, but really, nobody has done that since 1984. Over 35 years yet no ingenious gunsmith has cobbled up just one ever and shown it to the public. No aftermarket kit or service available for $199. Nobody? A classic, well known trigger throughout the gun community and for the right price there are people who would carry it just for the attention, which is why some guns even exist. The down side? It's considered a massive joke. It's just a different way to secure a trigger, but, no, it's a brain twisting juxtaposition of impossibility?

Actually,, its entirely practical. No reason at all not to do it. Given that SAFE triggers truly are, then we should have done it long ago. What's the hold up?

 

[Kleanbore]

I won't carry a handgun with a manual safety. When I grab the gun to shoot that should disengage any and all safety. From that point forward the safety rests strictly between my ears.

That is my feeling.

I do like a grip safety--it is disengaged when I grab the gun to shoot--but no thumb safety.

The P35 Radom was so equipped--it also had a decocker--and when I first handed one, I, being accustomed to the 1911, thought it deficient in not also having a thumb safety.

That was then. This is now.

My carry pistol has a grip safety only.

 

[Monac]

What if someone made a 1911 and it came with the SAFE action trigger only? Photoshop that in your mind .Strikers with thumb safeties were around at the same time as hammers with thumb safety, where are the hammer guns with SAFE action triggers?

OK, my first reaction to that statement is that I am pretty sure that if you put a Glock-type trigger mechanism in a 1911, then it isn't a 1911 any more. Part of the defintion of a 1911 is having a single action trigger. It's like how you never see a double action Colt Single Action Army - if you make it double action, it's a different kind of pistol.

My second reaction is to realize that my first reaction misses Tirod's point. He is asking why no one has designed a Glock type-mechanism with a hammer instead of a striker.

I think the reason is that it doesn't make sense. If you give the gun an external hammer, you are suggesting that the firer has the ability to either cock the hammer fully or lower it completely, because otherwise why make it external? The whole point of having an external hammer isn't just a cocking indicator, it is to give more options for the carry mode. But reducing those options is kind of what the Glock-type trigger is all about. It gives the user one consistent trigger pull on all occaisions, and nothing else to remember, at least until the gun is empty.

And if you give the gun an internal hammer, why bother? What is the difference to the user between an internal hammer or an internal striker from the user's point of view? I can't think of any.

I hope I have not missed the point and gone off on a silly tangent. Apologies if I have.

 

[chicharrones]

The advantage you'd have with your LCP over the Canik is when holstering, you could put your thumb on the hammer. If anything should happen to foul the trigger during holster insertion, you'd know it because you could feel the hammer pushing against your thumb. With the Canik, the first indication of trigger fouling would be the sound of the gun discharging.

Hammer fired guns aren't for everybody. Manual safety guns aren't for everybody. You have to decide what features you value and choose your guns accordingly. Choose what you like, you just have to realize there are no perfect firearms. Everything compromises something.

Unfortunately, the LCP (and everything else based off the KelTec P3AT) doesn't have a hammer that protrudes outside of the slide. Which means the thumb on hammer trick doesn't work with those guns.

 

[chicharrones]

Covered trigger.
Gun cannot fire unless trigger is pulled.
Drop safe.
View attachment 1010480

Point made, but you're messing with my brain.

 

[sgt127]

Point made, but your messing with my brain.

 

[Jonesy814]

There's a video on YouTube where a police chief in a gun store, after comparing the size of another pistol to his, decides to re-holster his pistol where upon doing so his weapon discharges putting a bullet in his leg. The culprit was a striker fired no thumb safety pistol that happen to have his jacket drawstring tab catch in the trigger guard releasing the trigger to fire the weapon. I'll always go for the hammer fired thumb safety because an accident like above won't happen with one. I know pushback's coming with all the Glock owners and how safe they are, so was the police chief's.

The culprit was the idiot that pulls out his loaded gun in the gun shop in the first place. Most gun shops frown on that and some will ask you to leave, even if you are the police chief

 

[Kleanbore]

He is asking why no one has designed a Glock type-mechanism with a hammer instead of a striker.

I think the reason is that it doesn't make sense. If you give the gun an external hammer, you are suggesting that the firer has the ability to either cock the hammer fully or lower it completely, because otherwise why make it external? The whole point of having an external hammer--

Not all hammers are external.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Iver Johnson invented the "trigger safety" and used it on some of his DAO revolvers, so there has been some application outside striker automatics.

 

[danez71]

DA striker or SA hammer doesn't really matter due to the end product is that....

Trigger weight and stroke distance are very comparable when not viewing through a biased lens.

And then we have this....

A short action, light trigger doesn’t care what pulls it. It can’t differentiate between a finger. Stick. Drawstring, shirt tail.

Yet, carrying a DA striker is promoted but carrying a SA hammer such as a 1911 or BHP with the thumb safey off is frowned upon.

 

[Monac]

Not all hammers are external.

True. As it happens, I am aware of that. That is why I also said "And if you give the gun an internal hammer, why bother [designing a Glock-type trigger mechanism with a hammer instead of a striker]? What is the difference to the user between an internal hammer or an internal striker from the user's point of view? I can't think of any."

 

[sgt127]

There is a hammer fired partially cocked design. The Sig Sauer DAK. Actually one of my favorites.

A reasonably light, smooth but, fairly long trigger. With an exposed hammer you can rest your thumb on during holstering.

I have two of them. 9mm and 357 SIG. those and a DA revolver are my carry guns 99% of the time. (I carry appendix).

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The problem with discussions on "safeties" is that too many people apply the word to too many different features, as if they're all one and the same.

They're not.

Your finger, for instance, is NOT a "safety". It's your finger. A safety is a mechanical feature designed and built into the firearm which can be engaged/disengaged by the operator at will and which, in some fashion, blocks the firing mechanism if the trigger is pulled. Your finger is part of the operator (you), not the gun. Your finger (and your brain) is all about "safe handling", not a "manual safety" or "safety feature" designed into a firearm.

A safety is a feature designed to be engaged by the operator in order to prevent the gun from firing unless the operator (finger-owner) intentionally meets the requirements to disengage the safety. This means, with respect to firearms, preventing the firing mechanism from operating even if the trigger is pulled. Most people refer to this as a "manual safety" because it's a safety feature which must be engaged and disengaged by the operator. This can be accomplished any number of ways: a manual safety that prevents the trigger from moving, a manual safety that blocks the hammer from striking the firing pin, a manual safety that interrupts the firing pin unit from the hammer, etc.

If a gun is designed such that you can pull the trigger at any time and activate the firing mechanism, then IT HAS NO MANUAL SAFETY.

There are also many other "safety features", but these are not "safeties" in the sense of physically disabling the firing mechanism such that pulling the trigger will not result in the gun firing.

A "drop safety" is not a "safety". It's a safety "feature" built into the gun to keep it from firing the gun in the event the gun is dropped. It has nothing to do with a finger on the trigger. It is not a "manual safety". It's present and in effect at all times, whether the gun is "cocked" or not. A transfer bar is one such example. A firing pin block is another. Again, NONE of these things will prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled or otherwise actuated., and therefore are not "manual safeties".

A magazine disconnect is another safety feature which prevents a gun from firing without a magazine inserted. This is not a "manual safety", as it's not a safety designed to be engaged/disengaged to disable the firing mechanism of a gun. It's a safety feature that prevents people from inadvertently firing a gun they THINK is unloaded just because they removed the magazine (with a round still in the chamber).

A locking device, whether an external trigger lock or an internal key lock built into the grip for example, are not "manual safeties". They're locking mechanisms applied to prevent unauthorized use of the firearm and not intended to be a manual safety readily engaged/disengaged in the routine use of the firearm.

Glock says this of their "trigger safety":

The trigger safety is the first safety in the firing sequence. It’s incorporated into the trigger in the form of a lever and when it is engaged blocks the trigger from moving rearward. To fire the pistol, the trigger safety and the trigger itself must be deliberately depressed at the same time. If the trigger safety is not depressed, the trigger will not move rearwards and allow the pistol to fire.

The trigger safety is designed to prevent the pistol from firing if it’s dropped or if the trigger is subjected to any pressure that isn’t a direct firing pull.

NOTE: This is NOT a "manual safety". It is a "drop safety" feature. "Direct firing pull" means ANYTHING that can get into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger. NOTHING ABOUT THE "TRIGGER SAFETY" DISENGAGES THE FIRING MECHANISM IF THE TRIGGER IS PULLED.

 

[Bandit67]

I'm with Jonesy814 on this one.
If that Police Chief was carrying a revolver, he would still be an idiot.

 

[JohnKSa]

A safety is a mechanical feature designed and built into the firearm which can be engaged/disengaged by the operator at will and which, in some fashion, blocks the firing mechanism if the trigger is pulled.

People don't get to make up their own personal definitions for commonly used words--at least not if they want to be taken seriously.

That's a reasonable version of the accepted definition of a manual safety, but the term safety as it applies to firearms is much more general.

Here's why it doesn't work to try to make up your own definitions. If we can do that, then anyone can counter your new version of the language by making their own alteration. For example, someone could define "firing" a gun to mean intentionally discharging a firearm. Therefore firearms don't require any safeties at all to prevent guns from firing because if they go off unintentionally that's not the same thing as firing them by the definition of 'firing'.

It doesn't change reality, of course, but it does complicate any sort of attempt at constructive discussion.

"Direct firing pull" means ANYTHING that can get into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger.

Well, clearly that's not what it means because not everything that gets into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger. It can be easily demonstrated that pressure on certain parts of the trigger will not depress it. Unless the trigger safety is depressed, the trigger is locked in place.

Simply saying things, even repeatedly and/or with emphasis doesn't make them true.

A "drop safety" is not a "safety".

Say that again, but slowly this time and actually think about what you're saying.

Of course it is. It's not a manual safety, but it clearly is a safety.

As you correctly note, different safeties are designed to prevent different types of unintentional discharges. Some are designed to prevent the gun from firing when dropped. Some to prevent firing when the sear lets go/breaks. Some are designed to allow the user to disable the gun to prevent it from firing when the trigger is pulled. Some are intended to disable the firing mechanism unless the firearm is gripped properly. There has been at least one that will prevent the gun from firing unless a particular ring is worn on the firing hand. There are safeties designed to prevent the gun from firing unless the breech is closed/locked. Some are designed to prevent the gun from firing unless a magazine is inserted.

You can argue that you think every gun should be equipped with a manual safety, or that guns that don't have manual safeties are unsafe (you'll find opinions differ, of course), but if you're going to try to make up your own definitions for commonly used terms, that's a much more difficult row to hoe. You're only going to frustrate yourself and irritate others. And it distracts from the actual point you're trying to make because now instead of focusing on what you want to say, people are going to be focusing on your attempt to make up a new version of the language.

 

[Varminterror]

It's trigger fired

False premise.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

People don't get to make up their own personal definitions for commonly used words--at least not if they want to be taken seriously.

That's a reasonable version of the accepted definition of a manual safety, but the term safety as it applies to firearms is much more general.

Here's why it doesn't work to try to make up your own definitions. If we can do that, then anyone can counter your new version of the language by making their own alteration. For example, someone could define "firing" a gun to mean intentionally discharging a firearm. Therefore firearms don't require any safeties at all to prevent guns from firing because if they go off unintentionally that's not the same thing as firing them by the definition of 'firing'.

It doesn't change reality, of course, but it does complicate any sort of attempt at constructive discussion.Well, clearly that's not what it means because not everything that gets into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger. It can be easily demonstrated that pressure on certain parts of the trigger will not depress it. Unless the trigger safety is depressed, the trigger is locked in place.

Simply saying things, even repeatedly and/or with emphasis doesn't make them true.Say that again, but slowly this time and actually think about what you're saying.

Of course it is. It's not a manual safety, but it clearly is a safety.

As you correctly note, different safeties are designed to prevent different types of unintentional discharges. Some are designed to prevent the gun from firing when dropped. Some to prevent firing when the sear lets go/breaks. Some are designed to allow the user to disable the gun to prevent it from firing when the trigger is pulled. Some are intended to disable the firing mechanism unless the firearm is gripped properly. There has been at least one that will prevent the gun from firing unless a particular ring is worn on the firing hand. There are safeties designed to prevent the gun from firing unless the breech is closed/locked. Some are designed to prevent the gun from firing unless a magazine is inserted.

You can argue that you think every gun should be equipped with a manual safety, or that guns that don't have manual safeties are unsafe (you'll find opinions differ, of course), but if you're going to try to make up your own definitions for commonly used terms, that's a much more difficult row to hoe. You're only going to frustrate yourself and irritate others. And it distracts from the actual point you're trying to make because now instead of focusing on what you want to say, people are going to be focusing on your attempt to make up a new version of the language.

You're taking a lot out of context to fit your own ideas, not to mention ignoring the mechanical realities of certain design features in your examples.

Plus you're putting words into my mouth that I never said.

For instance, I never said "You can argue that you think every gun should be equipped with a manual safety, or that guns that don't have manual safeties are unsafe..."

What I think, and argue, is that every person should understand how and why any firearm the have functions so they can understand its limitations and therefore carry/operate it safely. If any person wishes to have or not to have a manual safety, that's all well and good.

And I'm not making up "personal definitions". I'm an engineer and can quite well explain functional features, not to mention actually read what others describe about their own designs.

And context has a lot to do with deriving intent and meaning. For example, what do you mean by "It can be easily demonstrated that pressure on certain parts of the trigger will not depress it. Unless the trigger safety is depressed, the trigger is locked in place."? A 1911 pistol trigger will not actuate if you apply a lateral pressure to the trigger. That's not a safety feature, it's just not the way this particular trigger design works.

I suspect what you were referring to in this instance was the Glock trigger safety. In context, and by engineering function, this is a drop safety. It's not a manual safety at all.

Not all safeties are the same. This is true and we both agree on this. But this fact is extremely important to understanding how any particular gun is designed to work, which is important to any gun owner. Not knowing these things means the gun owner dies not have a full understanding of the how's and why's and therefore the limitations inherent with his gun.

Note that this does not mean the person cannot possibly fire or reasonably handle a firearm in a safe manner.

For example, take the magazine safety. An owner can obviously fire such a weapon so long as the magazine is fully inserted into the well, and can otherwise handle the weapon fairly safely without and other special knowledge or understanding. But understanding how it works also brings with it an understanding of how it may cause problems or how they can become disabled and not perform its design function.

Safety may start with the person, but a person is not an engineered safety built into the function of a firearm. This is why I said a finger is NOT a safety, manual or otherwise.

 

[JohnKSa]

...not to mention ignoring the mechanical realities of certain design features in your examples.

Nonsense. I'm not ignoring any design features in my examples. There's no need to go into detailed descriptions of common items when the point is merely an enumeration and not a tutorial on operation.

And I'm not making up "personal definitions". I'm an engineer and can quite well explain functional features, not to mention actually read what others describe about their own designs.

You can explain functional features all you want, but that doesn't make it acceptable to try to redefine terms that already have common meanings.

Saying things like: "A "drop safety" is not a "safety"." is not explaining something, it's an attempt to redefine a commonly used term--and a nonsensical attempt at that.

Same with the attempt to redefine the term 'safety' so that its meaning is limited to that of the term 'manual safety'.

For example, what do you mean by "It can be easily demonstrated that pressure on certain parts of the trigger will not depress it. Unless the trigger safety is depressed, the trigger is locked in place."?

See, that's the benefit of using words just as they are commonly used. There's really no need for an explanation because all of the words used are used with their common definitions. You, or anyone, can read it and understand it just by looking at the words. There's no need for me to go through a couple of paragraphs defining/redefining terms before making the statement.

A 1911 pistol trigger will not actuate if you apply a lateral pressure to the trigger.

You're an engineer so I know you have good reading comprehension and therefore I also know this is being intentionally obtuse. However, I will address it anyway.

Yes, pressing laterally on the trigger won't fire it (for several reasons). Also (although you didn't mention it--just to be complete, I will), pressing from the back won't fire it--also for more than one reason. However, I clearly used the word 'depress' (as did you, by the way) which in the context of a trigger doesn't ever refer to pressing on the side or back of it. Which means that I was obviously pointing out that applying pressure on the front of the trigger will not depress it unless the trigger safety is depressed. Which means that "ANYTHING that can get into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger" is incorrect. Beyond the obvious--things only hitting the trigger from the side or back can't depress it--also things that don't depress the trigger safety can't depress the trigger. As an engineer, I'm sure you can see that the trigger safety doesn't cover the entire front of the trigger surface and therefore it is possible for items to exert pressure against the front of the trigger without depressing the trigger safety.

I suspect what you were referring to in this instance was the Glock trigger safety. In context, and by engineering function, this is a drop safety. It's not a manual safety at all.

There's no need to 'suspect' anything, the meaning is clear. And I never claimed it was a manual safety--which is an ironic thing for me to have to point out given your accusations that I'm putting words in your mouth.

What I think, and argue, is that every person should understand how and why any firearm the have functions so they can understand its limitations and therefore carry/operate it safely.

I agree 100%!

 

[Hasaf]

The vast majority of Glock-type pistol users simply do not want a manual safety, and the Glock-type trigger gives them a gun that comparable in safety to carrying a revolver, with the high-capacity, fast-reload advantages of an automatic, and a lighter trigger than a DA revolver pull.

There is quite a bit of selection bias there. "The vast majority of Glock-type pistol users simply do not want a manual safety," ignores the number of people that are hesitant to carry a Glock due to the lack of a safety. It also ignores the people that buy a Glock style pistol, but wish it had a safety. It would be very hard to determine just how many those are. I know I don't carry my Glock. The lack of the safety just bothers me too much. There is no way that I can agree that the Glock style trigger safety is comparable to the safety in a typical revolver.

To go off on a tangent, what made no sense to me was the Remington R51, which was a single action pistol with only a grip safety. The US Army decided that was not a good idea around about 1910, and neither Colt nor John Browning ever had a problem with that. As far as I could tell, the thinking behing the R51 was "It's a striker fired pistol, therefore it does not need a manual safety!" Otherwise, I could not explain it.

The Grip Safety was a strong part of the appeal of the R51 to me. Of all of the passive safety designs (like putting the safety in the face of the trigger) this is the one that appeals to me the most. There are other reasons that the R51 is rather unused in my safe.

 

[Monac]

There is quite a bit of selection bias there. "," ignores the number of people that are hesitant to carry a Glock due to the lack of a safety. It also ignores the people that buy a Glock style pistol, but wish it had a safety. It would be very hard to determine just how many those are. I know I don't carry my Glock. The lack of the safety just bothers me too much. There is no way that I can agree that the Glock style trigger safety is comparable to the safety in a typical revolver.

The Grip Safety was a strong part of the appeal of the R51 to me. Of all of the passive safety designs (like putting the safety in the face of the trigger) this is the one that appeals to me the most. There are other reasons that the R51 is rather unused in my safe.

The reason I said that "the vast majority of Glock-type pistol users simply do not want a manual safety" is because the Glock has been around for over 35 years, and scarcely anyone has bothered to make such a pistol with a manual safety. A significant demand does not go unfilled for that length of time, not in a capitalist economy, anyway. I could be wrong, but who I am to argue with pretty much anyone who has ever made a Glock-type pistol?

And I, for one, am not seeing a big difference between a grip-safety only type pistol like the R51 and a trigger-lever safety only pistol like the Glock types. The big difference between those two pistols is that the Glock is only semi-cocked when ready to be fired, whereas the R51 is fully cocked. The latter seems less safe to me, but once again, I could be missing your point.

If anything, the trigger-lever safety seems more safe, since good trigger discipline mandates keeping the finger OFF the trigger until ready to fire, whereas it is difficult to avoid pressing in the grip safety whenever the gun is securely gripped. At any rate, grip safeties have largely (although not entirely) disappeared from pistols designed since the Second World War, which suggests designers and users do not see them as worth having.

 

[.308 Norma]

It also ignores the people that buy a Glock style pistol, but wish it had a safety. It would be very hard to determine just how many those are.

You could start counting with me. I'm "1."
Seriously, I have both a Glock 19 and a Glock 44. I like them both, but I wish they each had a "manual" or "thumb" safety - or whatever kind of "safety" you want to call it to go along with their "safety" triggers.

 

[Kleanbore]

And I, for one, am not seeing a big difference between a grip-safety only type pistol like the R51 and a trigger-lever safety only pistol like the Glock types. The big difference between those two pistols is that the Glock is only semi-cocked when ready to be fired, whereas the R51 is fully cocked.

The "big difference" is that the grip safety must be gripped.

The pistol cannot be fired by an errant shirt tail or jacket string.