JR47
Member
Read what I was addressing. I was specifically addressing the comment about comparison to S&W 3rd Gen in law enforcement.
Below is your original statement.
That may not be the case with SR series. Agency price for Glock may be cheaper than what you might pay for an SR series
Sir, I simply followed what you wrote. THAT is what you posted. Again, you and I cannot compare the "agency price" of a Glock to the "consumer price" of an SR series for any meaningful reason. You specifically used the SR, and NOT a "third-generation S&W".
No. Unless SR series have a DA/SA trigger, which it does not.
"Older S&W guns" also did not have a frame mounted lever, which common doctrine of use is nothing even remotely close to slide mounted levers.
Again, the question was one of the use of a safety, and a magazine disconnect. Not of DA/SA triggers, trigger pulls, or whether it was mounted on the frame, or the slide. "Common doctrine of use" is NOT a nationally defined term. In this case, it's apparently whatever you are familiar with.
During the time frame referenced, several large agencies issued, and/or permitted the use of the 1911A1 platform. SWAT, the Texas Rangers, and several State Police agencies in the Mid-West WERE "major" agencies. To them, the training associated with the 1911A1 WAS their common doctrine of use.
Plenty of people have shot themselves with guns with an additional thumb lever stuck on them too.
Yet, the claim advanced here (not necessarily by you in particular) is that the use of a safety will somehow PREVENT the gun from coming into play because the safety was overlooked. With the safety available, and in use, as taught by those departments requiring them, failure to use it, and having an ND is reduced. All that prevents a gun with other types of safety from firing (in the case of the Glock, especially) is a finger on the trigger, or anything on that trigger. Like a strap, or a part of the holster.
If the thumb lever type manual firing inhibitor only has benefits, I am pretty sure every plastic frame striker pistols would come with one, since manufacturing cost of sticking one on it is insignificant, and every agencies would be ordering pistols with it.
Glock refused to add safety levers to their product when asked to do so. The guns were designed, and accepted, for use by the Austrian military, and several other European services. You bought what he made, or went to another manufacturer, at a higher price. Note that it took until the FOURTH generation for Glock to add the back-strap option. I believe that this was to bolster sagging sales to America PDs.
Apparently, S&W, with their M&P, thinks enough of safeties to make them an option. Despite the additional cost incurred.
Did I claim any of that?
No, you didn't. However, other than that which was quoted, I wasn't specifically answering you. This is a conversation, and I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the matter.