Safety or no safety?

[Varminterror]

It does indicate the manual safety isn't slowing down those competitors that are using it.

And like I said to @Old Dog - this is a straw man argument made by folks who are seeking (inapplicable) evidence to support their belief a manual safety model is safer.

Folks like yourself and old dog point at the fact people can be fast with a manual safety as evidence there is no speed penalty for carrying it. Conveniently ignoring those statistics which show regular mis-operation of manual safeties (like old dog’s own self contradicting comments above where he says there is no evidence people experience mis-operations, then immediately retorts that there ARE evidence of mis-operations in the hands of criminals which save officers lives with some documented regularity).

Proving a manual safety model can be deployed quickly isn’f evidence supporting the claim a manual safety model is actually safer. And as mentioned above, often the very evidence used is actually self-damning, as it proves manual safeties are more dangerous to be carried.

Can’t have it both ways, and neither case proves the belief they’re actually more safe and should be favored.

 

[Old Dog]

Folks like yourself and old dog point at the fact people can be fast with a manual safety as evidence there is no speed penalty for carrying it. Conveniently ignoring those statistics which show regular mis-operation of manual safeties (like old dog’s own self contradicting comments above where he says there is no evidence people experience mis-operations, then immediately retorts that there ARE evidence of mis-operations in the hands of criminals which save officers lives with some documented regularity).

Context is important! One would have presumed that you understood I was speaking of people who have trained with their chosen firearms not experiencing "mis-operations."

"Conveniently ignoring those statistics which show regular mis-operation of manual safeties"

Still waiting on those statistics.

You can only prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. Thus far, zero.

 

[JTQ]

And like I said to @Old Dog - this is a straw man argument made by folks who are seeking (inapplicable) evidence to support their belief a manual safety model is safer.

In my point above, I'm not making the argument that having a safety on the gun is safer, I'm making the argument that having a safety on your gun won't "get you killed on the street."

Having a safety on your gun will generally provide a greater degree of safety during administrative handling of the gun. Other than in a competition setting, nearly everybody administratively handles their gun more frequently than they actually pull the trigger. Holstering a gun with the safety engaged is safer than holstering a gun without a manual safety.

 

[DeepSouth]

The trigger safety is the grip safety moved to a better location. A grip safety is deactivate when the pistol is gripped. The trigger safety isn't deactivated until the finger is on the trigger.

To be perfectly honest, mainly the grip safety makes me “feel” better, the trigger safety’s do not, I already view the trigger as a safety- don’t move it, want fire.

I will say, I know of kid that lives about a mile from me that this past summer sat in a car seat and something poked him in his lower back, unbeknownst to him a handgun was stuck between the seat bottom and the seat back. Not knowing what it was he went to grab it and a finger tip hit a trigger, the bullet hit his lower spine and he is currently paralyzed below the waist, terrible situation especially for a 19 year old.

A rare and freak accident no doubt, but a grip safety MAY have prevented that, a trigger safety definitely would not.

 

[Varminterror]

Having a safety on your gun will generally provide a greater degree of safety during administrative handling of the gun.

You’re making the claim again - a manual safety model is safer. Is it?

Stats don’t support that they are.

In some cases, the safety has to be defeated for administrative load or unload, and I think most folks would agree a heavy, long travel striker trigger is more difficult to activate than a light, short travel 1911 safety with the safety deactivated...

We all want to FEEL safer when someone says we have control over a manual safety. But in ~20 years as an instructor and looking for definitive evidence which proves, once and for all, that manual safeties are safer, so I can tell the hundreds of people over those years which ask, “yes, here’s proof.” But as I said in my first, I’ve yet to find any evidence which actually proves that manual safety models are actually safer. Plenty of evidence which proves they’re not slower (typically anecdotal and only loosely applicable, but valid nonetheless), AND there is evidence, as referenced above, that anecdotally at least, officers lives are saved by the mis-operation of a manual safety by a criminal (again, this proves a higher likelihood of user error, not actually proving improved safety). But I’ve challenged threads like this dozens of times and had this conversation year after year - SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE MANUAL SAFETY MODELS ARE SAFER - instead of just saying they are...

 

[JTQ]

But I’ve challenged threads like this dozens of times and had this conversation year after year - SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE MANUAL SAFETY MODELS ARE SAFER - instead of just saying they are...

Mas Ayoob did quite a bit of research back in the day that strongly indicated manual safeties on law enforcement pistols could be credited with saving officers' lives -- when the bad guy was attempting to, or had, taken control of officers' pistols.

There was also quite a bit of research (and I believe Ayoob participated in that as well) a while back which could find zero evidence that a law-abiding citizen OR law enforcement officer had ever been killed due to the extra step of having to ready a pistol with a manual safety for firing.

Previously provided and ignored.

I'm not going to convince you, and I'm not trying to. You seem to be adamant against a manual safety and are unwilling to see any instance where one could provide an additional layer of safety. My goal is merely to provide accurate information to members who may be weighing their options and considering all available options.

 

[Varminterror]

Previously provided and ignored.

Ignored because neither claim you offered actually proves that manual safety models are actually safer. You have an anecdotal claim of manual safeties being more dangerous because they can be mis-operated (the user - the criminals in this case - failed to be able to effectively employ the firearm BECAUSE it had a manual safety), and then you have a claim the that same failure has never happened to a civilian or LEO - which is not evidence a manual safety firearm is safer, it’s simply evidence nobody except the criminals in your first point experienced a failure to which civilians and LEO’s are mysteriously immune... This second point COULD be used as evidence to claim manual safety models are no more dangerous in the context of a mis-operation, but it is NOT evidence that they’re actually safer than a passive safety model.

Neither of these claims actually support any increase in safety for a firearm owner and law-abiding citizen using a manual safety.

Some folks just want to feel safe, so they tell themselves something which says “safe” on the side must actually be so... even if they are willingly buying into a proven illusion.

And I’m not actually against manual safety pistols. I choose not to carry a manual safety model 1) because statistically, we do have evidence they can be mis-operated in a way which passive safety models cannot, 2) because I do not pretend to be infallible, 3) because I carry multiple firearms which do not all have the same safety position, or a safety at all, so I have unified around one manual of arms, and 4) because we have no evidence provided - ever - which proves a manual safety pistol is statistically safer nor a passive safety pistol less safe. I have carried 1911’s, 938’s, 238’s, LC9’s with safeties, etc, but I no longer choose a manual safety model for those 4 reasons. I use them, and enjoy shooting them, but I choose to not carry them. If you can provide actual evidence to disprove the above 4 hypotheses, not just straw man arguments adjacent to these actual 4, I’d gladly concede. But claiming it’s safer because I feel safer with it because it says it’s safe isn’t real.

 

[George P]

You know, it really doesn’t bother me either way. If the gun has a safety I use it but most of the guns I carry have no manual safety and it doesn’t bother me in the least. I guess preference would be to have a grip safety but I currently don’t own a pistol with a grip safety, though I have in the past. Obviously it doesn’t matter much to me.

Now keeping the trigger covered, that’s a really, really big deal to me.
I guess one could say the safety to me is making sure the trigger doesn’t get pulled.

Do my HK P7 "squeezecockers" count as grip safeties?

 

[MistWolf]

PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE MANUAL SAFETY MODELS ARE SAFER

Cut to the chase- There is none. A manual safety is nothing more than the last layer of defense against tragedy when all else failed. It is a mechanical device and many have little tiny parts that can become misaligned, worn, clogged with debris or have any number of failures and cannot be relied on. When the shooter does something negligent and the trigger is pressed unexpectedly, the best that can hoped for is that the safety is engaged and that it does not fail. Therefore, a firearm with a manual safety is not safer than one without. We have to be cognizant of this anytime we are around firearms.

Let's put this to the test. You and your squad mates are gearing up prior to an operation. The squad leader inserts a mag into his Beretta, chambers a round and sets the safety. He then points it at you and says "Take point." He then points it at someone else. "Cover our rear."

Is it safer for the squad leader to point a pistol at their people because the pistol has a safety?

I would rather have a pistol in a good holster that covered the trigger than a manual safety. My pistol stays in it's holster whether it's on the belt, in the glove box or on the nightstand. In fact, I would not place a pistol in my belt, glovebox or nightstand loaded unless it was in a good, secure holster. To do otherwise is negligent.

 

[Varminterror]

SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE MANUAL SAFETY MODELS ARE SAFER

Cut to the chase- There is none.

Which was my contention a page ago...

I’ve never been able to find, despite searching, data which supports a manual safety does anything to improve safety of a firearm.

 

[MistWolf]

Which was my contention a page ago...

Yes. I was playing devil's advocate in an off-handed way in my earlier post. If I had given your point the consideration it deserved, I wouldn't have

 

[Varminterror]

Reassertion for agreement, not contention. No worries!

 

[MistWolf]

Reassertion for agreement, not contention. No worries!

I know I felt like I owed ya

 

[Old Dog]

1) because statistically, we do have evidence they can be mis-operated in a way which passive safety models cannot,

Where? Burden of proof is still on you.

 

[Old Dog]

4) because we have no evidence provided - ever - which proves a manual safety pistol is statistically safer nor a passive safety pistol less safe.

There's been plenty of anecdotal evidence over the years.

 

[Boarhunter]

Four pages of "expert" debate has not changed my mind, nor I bet the minds of many (any) others....

I personally carry a 1911, in one form or fashion, with a round chambered, cocked, and locked. I have for a long, long time, and I am happy with the arrangement.

BOARHUNTER

 

[WestKentucky]

Every gun gets a safety, some are just in the way the gun works. If the gun has a single action option, it gets a mechanical safety, period, or it does not get bought. That really hurts me to say as a revolver guy, and a fan of contender pistols. The point being that I want a gun to be positively safe in an instant. I really don’t like lowering hammers by thumbing them down. I have done such and shot a hole in my boot but missed my foot. I got lucky once and I’m not pressing my luck. I prefer a hammer block, but will accept a cross bolt or other safety as long as it’s reliable. Lots of guys moan and groan about how they look, or how they are not traditional, I don’t give a rats rear about that. I want to glance at my gun and know it’s safe. If I glance at the gun my daughters have in their hands I would like to know if it is safe or not. It’s function before form when it comes to safety.

 

[obiwan1]

I haven't read all posts so forgive me if I'm repeating a previous post. For many years I carried guns with safeties. For the past 25 years my carried guns have no manual safeties. Both of my issued (LEO) guns had no safeties and my personal carry (and carried) guns have no manual safeties.
If you choose to carry a manual safety equipped auto, you MUST train yourself that the act of thumbing off the safety when the sights are coming on target is automatic - no thought required. The same with coming off target - safety automatically gets engaged. Instinctively and automatically. I've trained with guys who have occasionally forgotten to disengage their manual safeties during light stress training exercises. OK for then, but NOT for a real life high pucker self defense situation. Even though I trained extensively with manual safeties in the past, I won't depend on old muscle memory in a high stress situation. Therefore it's no manual safety for me.

 

[Kleanbore]

I've trained with guys who have occasionally forgotten to disengage their manual safeties during light stress training exercises.

I'm almost one of 'em, bu tit wasn't a matter of forgetting.

I simply fumbled.

Grip safety or none, now.

 

[Varminterror]

1) because statistically, we do have evidence they can be mis-operated in a way which passive safety models cannot,

Where? Burden of proof is still on you.

I trust you will believe your own evidence you pointed to within this very thread:

Mas Ayoob did quite a bit of research back in the day that strongly indicated manual safeties on law enforcement pistols could be credited with saving officers' lives -- when the bad guy was attempting to, or had, taken control of officers' pistols.

A passive safety pistol is not vulnerable to the user’s mis-operation its manual safety, since it does not have one. Your assertion is evidence that these users - criminals trying to shoot disarmed officers in this case - indeed DID experience a mis-operation of a manual safety which could not have happened to a passive safety model.

That is, unless you refuse to believe your own evidence because you no longer like what it proves...

 

[Old Dog]

A passive safety pistol is not vulnerable to the user’s mis-operation its manual safety, since it does not have one. Your assertion is evidence that these users - criminals trying to shoot disarmed officers in this case - indeed DID experience a mis-operation of a manual safety which could not have happened to a passive safety model.

Here's what I said in post # 77

Context is important! One would have presumed that you understood I was speaking of people who have trained with their chosen firearms not experiencing "mis-operations."

Basically, I asserted in an earlier post that a highly respected firearms authority, trainer, competitor, law enforcement officer, scholar and author, had done research that showed lives had been saved (police and citizens) by safeties on pistols. You seem to be attempting to say this proves something else.

 

[Varminterror]

@Old Dog - you’re moving the goalpost with a straw man still...

You’ve posed evidence that criminals trying to use a manual safety pistol stolen from an officer have mis-operated the manual safety and failed to kill the officer.

This does not prove the hypothesis that manual safety models are safer than passive safety models. It DOES however prove:

they can be mis-operated in a way which passive safety models cannot

And further that this evidence proves it has - in fact - happened on multiple occasions, as evidenced by your citation of research done by a “highly respected firearms authority, trainer, competitor, law enforcement officer, scholar and author.” Nobody is disputing the fact manual safeties can be mis-operated with negative consequences to the person holding the firearm, and your reference to Mas’s work does support that point.

Plainly - that evidence does not prove that manual safety models are safer choices for carry than passive safety models. It proves that they are less safe because they are vulnerable to a mis-operation which cannot happen to a passive safety model.

 

[OneFreeTexan]

I bet this could hit 200 posts before everyone gets tired.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I bet this could hit 200 posts before everyone gets tired.

And be resurrected as a new thread in a month or two

 

[Howland937]

Curious...and if it's stretching the boundaries of being on topic, I get it. Of the people here arguing one way or the other, do any of you hunt? If so, how do you carry your rifle/shotgun on a stalk or in the field after rabbits or pheasants? Granted, hunting isn't as serious as self preservation...but the concept of a safety being overly challenging to disengage while bringing a gun into firing position had never occurred to me. Whether it's a shotgun or handgun, if you've used it enough to become proficient, hitting the safety should be instinctive.