Pistol engineering and safeties

[Monac]

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

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

Yes. A grip safety needs to be pressed in order to fire the pistol; a trigger-lever safety must also be pressed to fire the pistol. Both can be defeated by various mishaps, such as the examples you give. Both require somewhat improbable things to happen; I would be happy to concede that an accidental discharge involving the grip safety is somewhat more improbable, because pressure must be unintentionally put on two places (the grip safety PLUS the trigger) instead of just one in the case of the trigger-lever. But that may be partly because I do not regard the trigger-lever safety as much of a safety at all.

Look, ignore my opinion. Just observe this: Iver Johnson made and sold a lot of revolvers with trigger lever safeties, like this one: https://www.icollector.com/Iver-Joh...Hammer-Safety-Trigger-Pocket-Pistol_i10301565 (The picture gets bigger if you click on it). All of their First and Second Model Hammerless Safety Automatic revolvers had that device, and that's a lot of pistols.

Yet Iver Johnson dropped it when they switched to the Third Model. And who else built pistols with such a device until the Glock came along? Darn few. That suggests that few people regarded it as being of practical use. Of course, revolvers were not regarded as needing external safeties at all; but even automatic pistol designers did not bother with it until Glock. Until the Glock, it was not regarded as a significant safety device. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of people who designed, manufactured and bought pistols.

My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that the trigger-lever safety on the Iver Johnson and the Glock was more of a marketing gimmick. It was something they could point to and say "See? Our pistol has a safety which must be operated to be fired, but operating it is also part of the process of firing, so you have extra safety without extra trouble!". I am just not a fan. To me, a grip safety is better because I think it provides more safety against accidental dishcharge if the gun is dropped or struck. That may be false; if so, perhaps I have just explained why grip safeties have largely disappeared from modern pistols.

At any rate, that last paragraph is just my opinion, and many here are better informed.

 

[sgt127]

Well, the US Military required one.

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 know quite a few people that “love” their Glocks. But, carry them with an empty chamber because they “don’t trust them”.

I encourage them to go get a S&W 642. A loaded 5 shot revolver beats an empty chambered 16 shot pistol.

 

[danez71]

You're taking a lot out of context to fit your own ideas, <snip>

Picking out only >~ 10% of a well explained post has a way of doing that.

In 100s if not thousands of other threads on THR, when people say/ask about 'a safety', the context is typically a manual safety; not a drop safety, not a firing pin safety, not a grip safety as those are all spelled out.

As such, from the onset of this thread and throughout this thread, including your easily understood post, 'a safety' has been clearly used in the same context as it typically is here on the THR day in and day out to refer to a manual safety.

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

Its not the 1st time both (taking out of context and putting words in others mouth) have been done and said. It's a pattern.

 

[JohnKSa]

Picking out only >~ 10% of a well explained post has a way of doing that.

Picking out the problematic parts to address makes perfect sense.

It's clearly not necessary to go through the entire post pointing out both what is accurate and what is not in order to address a problematic portion.

In 100s if not thousands of other threads on THR, when people say/ask about 'a safety', the context is typically a manual safety; not a drop safety, not a firing pin safety, not a grip safety as those are all spelled out.

But in this case, the context was specifically spelled out. It's one thing to say that passive safeties are different from manual safeties. They are. It's another thing to say that passive safeties aren't manual safeties--that's also true. And it's yet another thing to make up a proprietary definition of safety that excludes all safeties other than manual safeties.

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

Damn! I love this forum.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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.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'.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.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.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.I agree 100%!

"Common meanings" do not necessarily imply accuracy or correctness.

A "clip" is not a "magazine". There is a real and valid difference and whereas context may imply the correct intent, it still does not convey accuracy or understanding.

And you're again filtering what I posted into something you wish me to have said. My opening paragraph in my original post should have clarified the context of the entire post:

"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."

ANY discussion on "safeties" in general must also include what those safeties are, what they're intended for, and how they're designed to function. This is because there are many types of safeties.

Doing this is not "mak[ing] up their own personal definitions".

When people do not acknowledge this, or otherwise make this clear, then they often end up arguing/debating over issues because all such discussions are being made with the assumption that they (safeties) are all the same.

They are not all the same, and you and I are in agreement on this.

Most people use the word "safety" to mean "manual safety", for example. How many times have people posted about how they like or dislike a particular gun because "it has no safety"? For example, many people refer to the Sig 320 as having no safety, yet there are several in that model...just no "manual safety". They MEAN manual safety, but that's not what they say and, quite often, not what they understand either.

And here you're trying to argue semantics:

"Which means that "ANYTHING that can get into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger" is incorrect."

No. What I posted there as you quoted is 100% correct. Read it again, noting the bolded word.

When we discuss safeties, it is important to know what type of safety is being discussed, what its purpose is, and how it functions. If not, then comparing safeties often ends up like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Rexster]

A hammer, that can be managed from outside the weapon, can serve as a safety “flag,” when reholstering. A hammer can “flag” a warning, during the act of holstering. Holstering a pistol should be a quite deliberate, carefully-managed act. Notably, managing a hammer will also remind one to de-cock the hammer, in the case of such pistols.

My first handgun, in 1982 or 1983, was a 1911, and the thumb safety lever became second-nature, to me, but starting in late 1983, I attended a police academy, where I became very much indoctrinated with the long-stroke DA of revolvers. I also became well-acquainted with the safety/decocker of Third-Generation S&W pistols, which works the same as a number of other auto-pistol systems. To this day, I am comfortable with all three systems. Yes, indeed, one motion, with the thumb, will interface with the safety levers of both the 1911, and the 3rd-genertion S&W autos.

I have handled plenty of otherwise-wonderful weapons, with safety gadgets that did not fall within the “natural” range of my thumb, which has caused me to instantly dismiss the idea of using those weapons. Many of these have been striker-fired auto-pistols. It is not a matter of simply choosing to leave the safety “off,” because a safety can be brushed or bumped to the on-safe position. If a safety device is there, it is NECESSARY to manage it.

The absence, of an external safety lever, on a revolver, does not vex me.

 

[Rexster]

To continue, the absence of a safety lever on a Glock does not vex me, either. (I understand that the Glock “trigger safety” is a drop-safe gadget, to prevent inertia-firing, as we saw with the SIG P320, wherein the inertia of the mass of the trigger would serve to press the trigger through its firing cycle.) Obviously, re-holstering a Glock, or any other striker-fired pistol that lacks an active safety device, requires an absolute commitment to keeping the path of the trigger clear, while re-holstering, and during other amninistrative handling.

 

[JohnKSa]

ANY discussion on "safeties" in general must also include what those safeties are, what they're intended for, and how they're designed to function. This is because there are many types of safeties

I think that's reasonable.

Doing this is not "mak[ing] up their own personal definitions".

Simply describing the various safeties, saying what they are intended to so and how they're designed to function is not making up personal definitions.

But, if someone tries to redefine the term safety so that it doesn't include any type of safety other than manual safeties, for example (purely hypothetically speaking, of course) posting a definition that a safety is only a safety if it can be "engaged/disengaged by the operator at will", that's crossed over the line from description, explanation of function and intended use and is into the realm of coming up with a definition that is, at least partially, personal opinion. Clearly there are safeties that are designed to operate automatically without the operator being able to engage or disengage them.

Most people use the word "safety" to mean "manual safety", for example.

Yes they do, and in the absence of any other context, it would make sense to assume that. But when the context is explicit, that's a different story.

But here's the deal. If, when you said: "A "drop safety" is not a "safety"." you really meant to say: "A "drop safety" is not a "manual safety"." then all you needed to do was to clarify your meaning and that would be the end of it.

I agree completely that a drop safety is not a manual safety. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is knowledgeable about firearms could disagree with that statement.

But you've had multiple opportunities to do that and have passed every time.

And here you're trying to argue semantics:

"Which means that "ANYTHING that can get into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger" is incorrect."

No. What I posted there as you quoted is 100% correct. Read it again, noting the bolded word.

Ok, let's bypass the irony of accusing someone of arguing semantics and then immediately turning around and trying to make the point that the entire meaning of an assertion hinges on a shade of meaning of a single word.

We need to decide if this part of your post was about pure theoretical potential or practical analysis. I assumed it was the latter, given the the obvious focus of the rest of your post on functionality and practicality.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, anything that has the potential of getting into the triggerguard AND has the ability to apply sufficient force to depress the trigger safety & trigger has the potential of depressing the trigger.

That's still not quite the same thing as "...ANYTHING that can get into the triggerguard...", but if we're talking about the purely theoretical, that's the situation.

Now, if we're talking about practical analysis--real-world outcomes of practical situations things are quite a bit different from the purely theoretical. As an engineer, I'm sure you can fully appreciate the difference.

It immediately becomes obvious that just getting something into the triggerguard (even something that has the ability to apply enough force) doesn't insure that it can actually depress the trigger.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

But here's the deal. If, when you said: "A "drop safety" is not a "safety"." you really meant to say: "A "drop safety" is not a "manual safety"." then all you needed to do was to clarify your meaning and that would be the end of it.

Indeed, that's exactly what I meant. And I had thought in that post that this was clear, given the discussion on this very matter in the three proceeding paragraphs. If anything, my poor wording there is a precise example of exactly what I was talking about...namely that we be correct in our terminology and context.

We need to decide if this part of your post was about pure theoretical potential or practical analysis. I assumed it was the latter, given the the obvious focus of the rest of your post on functionality and practicality.

We need do no such thing. All we need to do is go back to the first two sentences of my first post and see what my intent was:

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.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, anything that has the potential of getting into the triggerguard AND has the ability to apply sufficient force to depress the trigger safety & trigger has the potential of depressing the trigger.

That's still not quite the same thing as "...ANYTHING that can get into the triggerguard...", but if we're talking about the purely theoretical, that's the situation.

Now, if we're talking about practical analysis--real-world outcomes of practical situations things are quite a bit different from the purely theoretical. As an engineer, I'm sure you can fully appreciate the difference.

It immediately becomes obvious that just getting something into the triggerguard (even something that has the ability to apply enough force) doesn't insure that it can actually depress the trigger.

If you're going to go into semantics and try to derive a different meaning, you cannot ignore both content and context behind what I posted and then toss out how I must not have meant what I meant just because it wasn't precisely written the way you would like it. Precision in writing is important, yes. But so is comprehension of what was written in the first place.

We already covered how certain forces, for example, cannot depress a trigger at which you came back with with "...I also know this is being intentionally obsuse. However..." and then went about a long paragraph which amounted to saying (my own words here) 'of course such an application of force could not depress a trigger'.

My statement was, and still is, 100% correct on that particular subject. ""Direct firing pull" means ANYTHING that can get into the trigger guard has the capacity of depressing the trigger."

Now, I suppose we could get really pedantic here and say things like "A thumb tack is a "thing" which can get into a trigger guard, but it does not have the capacity of depressing the trigger." That is being silly in context. Because, as you said, we're "talking about practical analysis--real-world outcomes of practical situations things are quite a bit different from the purely theoretical".

 

[JohnKSa]

Indeed, that's exactly what I meant.

Very good. Yes, I think we can all agree that drop safeties are not manual safeties.

Because, as you said, we're "talking about practical analysis--real-world outcomes of practical situations...

Excellent!

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

So dispensing with the purely theoretical we can look at this statement in the context of practical analysis.

From a practical standpoint, the object must come in contact with the trigger safety and maintain contact with with the trigger safety long enough, and while applying sufficient pressure to deactivate the trigger safety to move the trigger past the point at which the trigger safety can block the trigger. Then maintained pressure will depress the trigger itself.

So, let's look at the trigger safety. We can clearly see that the trigger safety does not cover the entire surface of the trigger, in fact it only covers a a relatively small fraction of the frontal area of the trigger. The trigger is a bit over 0.37" wide, the trigger safety is 0.08" wide. The exposed length of the trigger bow is a bit over 0.87" while the exposed length of the trigger safety is about 0.5".

That means there is a bit over 0.14" of trigger surface on either side of the trigger safety where something could catch and yet have no chance of pulling the trigger. There's also over a third of an inch at the top of the trigger bow that has no trigger safety at all. Pressure on this area of the trigger will not depress it.

Overall, there's about 0.32 square inches of trigger surface area of which only about 0.04 square inches is occupied by the trigger safety. The trigger safety makes up about an eighth of the total surface area the trigger. So merely making contact with the remaining 87% of the trigger surface area isn't sufficient to depress the trigger.

But that wasn't even the claim. The claim was about merely getting into the triggerguard.

The Glock triggerguard is actually pretty wide relative to the trigger. About 0.6" wide. As we saw, the trigger is about 0.37" wide. So an object can get "into the triggerguard" and never come in contact with the trigger at all. There's well over a tenth of an inch of clearance (0.115") on either side of the trigger where something can be "in the triggerguard" and still not contact the trigger, let alone the trigger safety.

To contact the trigger safety and therefore have the capacity to depress the trigger, an object would have to be over a quarter of an inch into the triggerguard.

For comparison, a Ruger GP100 revolver has a triggerguard that is less than 0.4" wide and it overhangs the trigger by only about 0.035" on either side. A Kahr CW9 has a triggerguard that is about 0.49" wide that overhangs the trigger by about 0.065" on either side.

So, we see that an object can get well into the triggerguard of a Glock and still not have any chance of making contact with the trigger.

We can see that an object can be over a quarter of an inch inside the triggerguard and still not have the capacity to depress the trigger because it hasn't yet reached the trigger safety.

We can see that an object can make contact with the trigger with sufficient force to operate the trigger and still not have any chance of depressing the trigger if it makes contact with the majority of trigger surface which isn't occupied by the trigger safety.

From a practical standpoint, then, as you commented was your intended context, we see that it obviously takes more than merely getting into the triggerguard for an object to have the ability to depress the Glock trigger.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

From a practical standpoint, then, as you commented was your intended context, we see that it obviously takes more than merely getting into the triggerguard for an object to have the ability to depress the Glock trigger.

And yet, from a practical standpoint, there are enough examples of things other than fingers which have gotten into the triggerguard and have depressed the Glock trigger to have lent credibility to the term "Glock leg". (Keep in mind, though, that I fully realize that there are plenty of incidents where "Glock leg" was caused by a negligent finger in the trigger guard while holstering...or drawing for that matter.)

Here's an incident where a worn holster caused such an event:

https://www.itstactical.com/warcom/...her-holsters-can-cause-accidental-discharges/

Here's one in which a tangled clothing (windbreaker drawstring) caught in the trigger guard caused a Glock to fire after having been holstered:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/windbreaker-drawstring-triggers-glock-negligent-discharge/


NOTE:

Since we're specifically talking about the Glock trigger here, I should make it clear again for the benefit of those who may be "skimming" through the postings here that I make no recommendation for or against a Glock. The discussions in this thread have to do with various safety designs and their functions across many firearms, not the firearms themselves. Glocks are, by all accounts, excellent pistols. Like any other pistol, their design must be understood and they must be carried/used with a full understanding of how they work.

 

[JohnKSa]

And yet, from a practical standpoint, there are enough examples of things other than fingers which have gotten into the triggerguard and have depressed the Glock trigger to have lent credibility to the term "Glock leg".

While the design makes the trigger somewhat resistant to being inadvertently operated, I am certainly not claiming that the design makes it impossible for something to inadvertently press the trigger--that would be absolute nonsense. I'm just pointing out that it takes more than just something merely getting into the triggerguard to depress the trigger.

Reality lies between the two extremes, and to be perfectly honest, my assessment is that it's a good deal closer to the "anything in the triggerguard" end of the spectrum than it is to the "completely resistant" end.

This general style of guns needs to be carried in a hard holster that completely protects the trigger. Holsters need to be well-designed, made of good materials, and monitored for condition.

Holstering needs to be done carefully, especially when cover garments or loose clothing is involved. It's dangerous for anything to get into the holster while the gun is being holstered.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This general style of guns needs to be carried in a hard holster that completely protects the trigger. Holsters need to be well-designed, made of good materials, and monitored for condition.

Holstering needs to be done carefully, especially when cover garments or loose clothing is involved. It's dangerous for anything to get into the holster while the gun is being holstered.

Absolutely.

And while we often hear the phrase "Glock leg", we could just as well substitute "Colt leg", "Peacemaker leg", "Beretta leg" in there when you consider the majority of such incidents happened because someone actually had their finger in the trigger guard during those incidents...and none of those other pistols are immune to this if they didn't have a manual safety engaged (or the hammer down...whatever).

Guns, when carried, should also REMAIN in their holsters unless there is NEED for them not to be. When going through the holster-learning process we all do at some point, one of the features the holster I settled on for my EDC has belt loop snaps (magnetic, in my case). It's very convenient for me to don or doff my holster with the pistol in it, further minimizing any "need" to unholster my weapon.

Pretty much, it comes out when I clean it and at the range.

 

[GEM]

I've mentioned before that I was almost shot in the foot at a match, where a guy was told to load and make ready a 1911. He was supposed to put on the safety and holster. Instead he shot a round about a foot from my foot (I was score keeper) and two inches from the SO. Finger on the trigger, didn't put on the safety. Colt foot almost.