Please explain why some do not like manual safeties on semi-autos?

[Hokkmike]

I it it just the "I meant to fire but forgot to release the manual safety" on my pistol that is the objection to having one on your pistol?

Is a person less of a shorter or some kind of wimp if he/she elected to buy a gun with one?

I finally picked up a P-365 with a safety and couldn't be more pleased.

Given the odds of actual use for self-defense verses the likely hood of an AD, an extra layer of protection seems like a non brainer.

 

[BreechFace]

Less parts, less complicated, less likely to fail. All three are what I want in a SD pistol.

My holster, handgun safe and training take place of the mechanical manual safety.

I don’t think any less of someone with a manual safety, don’t know why that was even brought up. More power to a person if a manual safety is what they want to train around.

 

[Gary H]

Not exactly responsive to the question, but is a reason that I hate some safeties. I love manual safeties, but they are not all created equally. I love my M&P Shield Plus, but the manual safety is nothing more than an abrasive surface that makes the gun uncomfortable to use.. at least to use with the safety. It bothered me so much that I purchased an M&P 2.0 3.6” compact with a great safety. Like the 1911, the compact’s safety can be a high thumb rest while shooting and allows to grip the gun as high as possible. Disengaging, or engaging the safety is a matter of practice. I have now purchased an extended safety to install on my three Shield Plus’s.

 

[chicharrones]

I started with double action revolvers some 30 years ago, so using defense pistols without safety levers keep me from "learning how to drive" again.

Sure, I have range handguns with safety levers that could be used for defense, but that's not how I intend to use those guns.

 

[chicharrones]

My holster, safe, and training take place of the mechanical manual safety.

Same here.

 

[bangswitch]

Since all I have or all I want are BHP's and 1911's, I guess I'm stuck with them.

That's okay, though, They do what they're supposed to do and I know how and when to release them.

 

[groundhog34]

They are hard to disengage in a stressful situation.

 

[American_Fusilier]

Less parts, less complicated, less likely to fail. All three are what I want in a SD pistol.

My holster, handgun safe and training take place of the mechanical manual safety.

I don’t think any less of someone with a manual safety, don’t know why that was even brought up. More power to a person if a manual safety is what they want to train around.

This answers it very succinctly ^

 

[Gary H]

They are hard to disengage in a stressful situation.

Strange that the 1911 was used throughout many wars. The ease of use is also a great argument in favor of revolvers.
I believe that ease of use is related to training in all aspects of firearms use..finger off the trigger…holstering .. grip…trigger control.

 

[mcb]

I don't carry a handgun (semi-auto or revolver) with a manual safety. Nothing wrong with a manual safety but if you spent years competing, carrying, practicing and training with a handgun that does not have a safety is would seem fooling to switch without a good reason. The converse is equally true.

 

[General Geoff]

Given the odds of actual use for self-defense verses the likely hood of an AD, an extra layer of protection seems like a non brainer.

All guns come with a manual safety. It's called the trigger

 

[Anchorite]

Same here.

And the six inches between the ears.

 

[GRIZ22]

I believe lack of a manual safety is one of the reasons Glock became popular with LE. Glocks prices were also popular with the bean counters.

 

[jar]

Folk are strange and inexplicable.

 

[irving]

an extra layer of protection seems like a non brainer

Protection against what? Pulling the trigger when you didn't really mean to? I do not want a manual safety on my semi-automatic handgun because I feel it is unnecessary, possibly confusing, and possibly in the way when racking the slide.

I do like a manual safety on my shotgun, however, which I engage while climbing over fences. My grandfather somehow shot the tip of his thumb off while setting his shotgun on the far side of a fence before climbing over.

 

[jmr40]

I've seen the pendulum swing both ways. When Glocks were 1st introduced with no manual safety that was the biggest complaint. But they've been around for so long and are so prolific that for many having a safety is a negative. It's all about what you're used to using.

I started with 1911's and never really liked the "backwards" safety on most DA/SA pistols. To me flipping the safety switch down is something I do without even thinking about it. But for the guys who have spent the last 40 years using Glocks, or other striker fired guns with no manual safety I completely understand the argument that the safety could get them killed. Using it isn't 2nd nature to them. And their argument that it is no different than using a DA revolver is accurate to a point.

I own and like Glock pistols. I have no issue with it having no safety as long as it is carried in a proper holster. They are probably ideal for LE. But I don't always carry a gun that way. For nightstand or glovebox duty I really prefer a safety. I'm thinking the new generation of striker fired guns with a manual safety similar to a 1911 is a good idea. I also have a Sig 365 as well as the M17 and M18 with safeties. Most of the Smith M&P's have that option too.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

It's not complicated.

SAO guns find need/get safeties.

DA/SA guns don't need them.

Striker guns may or may not benefit from a manual safety depending on trigger setup.

 

[bearcreek]

I feel like I've read something on this forum before on this subject......... Oh well. Probably didn't cover it well enough before. I mean, the 1911 won two world wars and Glocks are perfect. One day, when the internet no longer exists, this'll be settled.

 

[.308 Norma]

One day, when the internet no longer exists, this'll be settled.

I kind of doubt it. But I'm 75, and probably won't be around when the internet no longer exists anyway.

 

[bearcreek]

I kind of doubt it. But I'm 75, and probably won't be around when the internet no longer exists anyway.

Serious question. Did people get as worked up about folks' pistol choices pre internet as they do on these forums? I'm guessing not. I'm quite a bit younger than you but I don't remember these sorts of things being that big of a debate 25 years ago.

 

[CapnMac]

The argument, such as it is, appears to be that, given the first decision, e.g. the first safety, is the decision to shoot. That this is at the end of an OUDA (Observe, Understand, Decide, ACT) loop, that anything "in the way of" that decision is "bad." That any hesitation at that point could have bad consequences.

The countervailing notion being that, anything that ensures that an "uh oh" does not occur is a self-evident "good" is also argued.

Neither side is actually "right." Which is why it's argued so much to no real end.
And the number of options like SAO or DAO or the like for handguns does not simplify that arguing.

Which pretty much leaves it to personal preference (or to external regulation, e.g., "My Department requires...").
Like as not, and for my 2¢, that means we each get to pick out own Goldilocks answer.

One thing often overlooked in these barneys is that safeties are a binary, that the person carrying can select for "off" as a choice. Which, practically is the same as "not having a safety."

Our modern world is filled with many with a bent to "better safe than sorry" which argues for adding/selecting them. But, against that, they can collect lints, pocket fiber, snag on things, all manner of less-good things. Which argues against.

The real question probably ought to be: Are you practicing as you dress? The old saw about "Practice as you will fight; fight as you have practiced" applies.

 

[Howland937]

They are hard to disengage in a stressful situation.

If a person is counting on brain memory and not muscle memory, they need more training. Hitting targets is hard in stressful situations, too...

 

[halfmoonclip]

Protection against what? Pulling the trigger when you didn't really mean to? I do not want a manual safety on my semi-automatic handgun because I feel it is unnecessary, possibly confusing, and possibly in the way when racking the slide.

That pretty much covers it. My defensive guns have exactly one control, the bangswitch. That includes some strikers and a Centennial.
Now I do like a safety for administrative stuff. Have a safety on the P365, and the BodyGuard, and it is applied when either goes in the lockbox, or on the shelf above my bunk at camp. When I pick it up, the safety is released.
Frankly, many striker guns (the M18 excepted) have a small enough safety, that wiping it off, in a hurry, can be difficult.
Moon

 

[Lo-Profile]

My EDC has a manual safety.

I have more guns with manual safeties than I have without them.