Why are popular striker-fired pistols safe?

[JTQ]

Then you shouldn't even have the responsibility of a firearm.

It took a lot of training, that still continues, to not squeeze on a safetied trigger when I go to a SIG P938 or 1911.

Shooting your own kid is a target acquisition problem. Why would you put my finger on the trigger - if you weren't prepared to destroy the target?

Safeties - are for loose carry and carelessness - not for immediate action - unless you are currently trained specifically for it.




GR

That's always the argument that makes me chuckle in these debates.

Folks are so well trained that they will never trigger check, yet they are never trained well enough to operate a manual safety.

 

[Garandimal]

"We have an inveterate dislike of the profusion of safety devices with which all automatic pistols are regularly equipped. We bclievoe them to be the cause of more accidents than anything else. There are too many instances on record of men being shot by accident either because tho safety-catch was in tho firing position when it ought not to have been or because it was in safe position when that was the last thing to be desired. It is better, we think, to make the pistol permanently “ un-safe “ and then to device such methods of handling it that there will be no accidents. One of the essentials of the instruction courses which follow is that tho pistols used shall have their side safety-catches permanently pinned down in the firing or “ unsafe “ position." -- from Shooting to Live

Safeties earned inveterate dislike from Fairbairn and Sykes, and the dislike was promulgated widely due to their tremendous influence. However, let's consider the two modes of failure mentioned:

1st - the safety was unintentionally off. It is easy enough to forsee ND's happening because of a neglected safety. While we may be determined within ourselves to prevent this, if you're the boss of 1200 officers, someone is going to screw it up.

2nd - the safety was on when the gun was needed to fire. That would be a bad situation and I think there's a number of examples of video evidence of just this happening. Still, I would posit two things: 1st, I can't imagine a cowboy drawing his single action revolver and not being considerate of the need to cock the hammer. He'd rather have to be trained not to cock it should he ever be given a double-action. It seems unreasonable to think a person can't be trained in the need to cock or manually clear a safety. 2nd, Fairbairn and Sykes actually recommended condition 3 carry after disabling the safeties. While I believe they would have preferred DA/SA autos or modern striker-style actions, none existed in their day. They chose condition 3 carry over a double-action revolver because they obviously believed the training to rack the slide when unholstering and then to eject the magazine and rack the slide to clear the gun and then re-insert the magazine was more easily accomplished than training to use a double-action trigger (revolver), and to perform fast revolver reloads.

These guys were not stupid. They accumulated more experience than almost any other individuals in the 20th century, and their conclusions have been repeated again and again. They prioritized the speed of reloads. They understood that high round counts were the norm. They didn't have high-capacity double-stack magazines available to them in their day, but they did write, "Throughout this book we have done our best to emphasise the vital need for extreme rapidity of fire. For ourselves, we can accomplish this...most easily with an automatic. The more closely our own pistols resemble machine-guns the better we like it."

I'll repeat that they emphasized the rapidity and volume of fire, and that's why they totally dismissed the single-action revolver, which would have met their preference for a trigger that is easy to shoot with. The difficulty for recruits to learn a double-action revolver trigger, and their lower volume of fire resulted in the overwhelming preference for the automatic.

They wrote in their 1942 book, "To attain the first requirement [stopping power] we should choose a cartridge that represents what we consider a safe middle-course, i.e. with a bullet of reasonably large calibre [greater than .32] and weight, driven at a very high velocity. As regards the second requirement... we have a preference for firing in “ bursts “ of two or more shots. We think that lack of stopping power inherent in the cartridge is compensated for in some degree by the added shock of two or more shots in very rapid succession.... Obviously, this belief of ours implies the necessity for a large volume of fire, quite apart from the desirability on other grounds of having as many rounds as possible at one's disposal without having to reload."

So what do we have today? "Intermediate cartridges" like the 9mm and .40 S&W (and in rifles the 5.56), high-capacity magazines, and high rates of fire. Triggers that are easy to learn, and no manual safety levers to forget and cause an ND. The lack of a safety to remember before firing was mentioned by them, but their alternate manual of arms (condition 3) suggests that was the least of their priorities.

We often hear people debating "how many rounds are fired in self defense incidents," with no clear answer except that most people are skeptical that they often take multiple high-capacity mag dumps. But Fairbairn and Sykes weren't writing for self-defenders. They were writing primarily from a law enforcement background. And if video evidence is indicative, it seems that multiple high-capacity mag dumps are common in law enforcement today. I regularly see officers reloading in video of shootouts, and reported round counts in incidents are often over 100. Examples that come to mind immediately are the shootout with the armed robber on the city bus where the officer's body cam captures him emptying both a shotgun and his duty auto and then most of the second magazine. Another one is the Vegas officer shooting through his own windshield and reloading and firing a second magazine.

If the FBI's frequently cited report that over 80 percent of officer's shots miss the target, it seems reasonable to have and to shoot 15 or 20 rounds or more. The DoD concluded at some point that the side who fires the most rounds tends to prevail, and that was part of their justification for the M-16.

Having written as much, I will also mention that I have some skepticism whether this doctrine is relevant to self-defense for non-antagonists. The popularity of guns like the Ruger LCP and J-frame vs. concealed-carry submachine guns suggests other people also see the needs of the self-defender who doesn't go looking for trouble as different, but others will carry high-capacity plus spares and that's fine with me. I think we can see how prevention of ND's and ease of use are things that apply to anyone.

1. S/A requires that you cock the hammer for every shot - manual safeties on automatic pistols do not. I fact you don't even have to engage them at all.

2. Immediate Action - self-defense shooting is generally reflex, you fight like you are trained. And if you shoot/train on different platforms, that can be a problem.




GR

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Folks are so well trained that they will never trigger check

I don't even know what "trigger check" means.

 

[drband]

Depress the trigger far enough to feel the “break point.” Basically take up all the free travel.

 

[JTQ]

I don't even know what "trigger check" means.

Your finger goes inside the trigger guard - and usually on the trigger - even though you don't have an intention to shoot.

You're basically checking to make sure the trigger is still there. It is a common reflex action and mostly sub-consciously done. The propensity increases under stress. Trained and experienced law enforcement officers have been filmed during simulation trainers trigger checking throughout a simulation and were not aware they were doing it until shown the post simulation video.

 

[drband]

Your finger goes inside the trigger guard - and usually on the trigger - even though you don't have an intention to shoot.

You're basically checking to make sure the trigger is still there. It is a common reflex action and mostly sub-consciously done. The propensity increases under stress. Trained and experienced law enforcement officers have been filmed during simulation trainers trigger checking throughout a simulation and were not aware they were doing it until shown the post simulation video.

Thanks for the correct version! I was not exactly sure...

 

[Riomouse911]

You are missing the point. None of us is perfect try as we might. The safeties are there to catch our mistakes. If you don’t make mistakes, you don’t need a safety.

Sadly, far too many “ mistakes” are made by people relying on a “safety” to catch their fall. No “safety” will ever take the place of good firearm handling practices, with 99% of them covered by the first four rules. Every mechanical device has a potential for failure and too much faith or reliance on a fallible system to rectify poor handling is a recipe for disaster.

I was a S&Wguy for a while and relied on a safety - decocker lever. I went to SIG Sauer with no manual safety but a decocker lever. I then went to a Glock, with the manual trigger blade safety. At no time have I had any sort of firearm discharge, intentional or not, without my pulling a trigger.

If a gun is unfamiliar, learn it thoroughly before you handle it... and most importantly before you load and shoot it... and your comfort and proficiency will increase dramatically.

Stay safe!

 

[ATLDave]

More people get injured by losing gunfights because of a neglected manual safety than without one because of a ND.

What in the world is the basis for this claim? I am particularly interested in the evidence for the former.

 

[ATLDave]

"We have an inveterate dislike of the profusion of safety devices with which all automatic pistols are regularly equipped. We bclievoe them to be the cause of more accidents than anything else. There are too many instances on record of men being shot by accident either because tho safety-catch was in tho firing position when it ought not to have been or because it was in safe position when that was the last thing to be desired. It is better, we think, to make the pistol permanently “ un-safe “ and then to device such methods of handling it that there will be no accidents. One of the essentials of the instruction courses which follow is that tho pistols used shall have their side safety-catches permanently pinned down in the firing or “ unsafe “ position." -- from Shooting to Live

Skykes and Fairbairn's views need to be understood relative to their time. They published Shooting to Live in 1942. In 1942, techniques for shooting pistols were still pretty much based in the old art of dueling pistols, with one-handed operation being standard. The U.S. Army's WWII-era training film regarding pistols - specifically 1911's - is instructive:



If you watch carefully, particularly when the video is giving instruction on how to grip the gun, you will note that the instructors are gripping the gun with their thumb below the safety. Do that today in front of an instructor who is competent with 1911's or their derivatives and you will be firmly corrected. That kind of grip does require some affirmative decision to take the safety off - a separate move - which does allow the possibility of a failure to have the gun ready to fire when necessary.

But more modern techniques developed in the post-war period totally and completely solved that issue by teaching shooters to "ride the safety" with their thumb. Not only does the prevent the safety from being bumped on during firing, it also eliminates any conscious decision-making regarding switching it off... it occurs during the draw as the grip is built. As long as you grip the gun properly - not something that is difficult to do, though it requires a little practice time to get the reps in - then you are no more likely to "forget" to take off the safety than you are to "forget" to pull the trigger.

If someone is talking about some other safety configuration, then this approach is not necessarily as effective or reliable. But for a sensible frame-mounted, down-to-fire safety, the bugaboo of "forgetting" to take the safety off is simply a non-factor for someone with even a modicum of training or experience.

 

[Garandimal]

That's always the argument that makes me chuckle in these debates.

Folks are so well trained that they will never trigger check, yet they are never trained well enough to operate a manual safety.

Unless you are well trained - manual safeties interfere with the operation of the firearm.

On the other hand, IF there is no manual safety, then the trigger finger is the safety, and does not go onto the trigger until you are ready to destroy the target.

Manual safety - lots of continuous training.

Trigger-finger discipline - basic training.




GR

 

[Garandimal]

Skykes and Fairbairn's views need to be understood relative to their time. They published Shooting to Live in 1942. In 1942, techniques for shooting pistols were still pretty much based in the old art of dueling pistols, with one-handed operation being standard. The U.S. Army's WWII-era training film regarding pistols - specifically 1911's - is instructive:



If you watch carefully, particularly when the video is giving instruction on how to grip the gun, you will note that the instructors are gripping the gun with their thumb below the safety. Do that today in front of an instructor who is competent with 1911's or their derivatives and you will be firmly corrected. That kind of grip does require some affirmative decision to take the safety off - a separate move - which does allow the possibility of a failure to have the gun ready to fire when necessary.

But more modern techniques developed in the post-war period totally and completely solved that issue by teaching shooters to "ride the safety" with their thumb. Not only does the prevent the safety from being bumped on during firing, it also eliminates any conscious decision-making regarding switching it off... it occurs during the draw as the grip is built. As long as you grip the gun properly - not something that is difficult to do, though it requires a little practice time to get the reps in - then you are no more likely to "forget" to take off the safety than you are to "forget" to pull the trigger.

If someone is talking about some other safety configuration, then this approach is not necessarily as effective or reliable. But for a sensible frame-mounted, down-to-fire safety, the bugaboo of "forgetting" to take the safety off is simply a non-factor for someone with even a modicum of training or experience.

Very few pistols have safeties that allow gripping the pistol on top of them.

My Springfield MIL-SPEC 1911-A1 won't, nor will my Sig P938.




GR

 

[cheygriz]

I have noticed in the past that trained Military Police can draw, rack the slide, and fire a 1911 about 99 percent as fast as a shooter with a cocked and locked weapon.

There is much to like about condition three. I would be reluctant to tell the Military Police or the Israelis that they're wrong.

 

[ATLDave]

Manual safety - lots of continuous training.

Trigger-finger discipline - basic training.

1. See my post above. Once someone understands how to grip a gun with a frame-mounted-down-to-fire safety, no "continuous training" is required. Whatever training is sufficient to maintain basic marksmanship skills is more than sufficient to stay up on this issue. There's nothing to "remember" or even actively "do." It's just a matter of gripping the gun properly.
2. Many, many, many negligent or accidental discharges for both cops and CC'ers come from instances in which the finger did not touch the trigger. Holstering is a common source of AD/ND's, and often something besides the finger applies force to the trigger. Sometimes it is the edge of a holster, sometimes it is a shirt tail, sometimes it's a key on a belt lanyard, sometimes it's a drawstring on a jacket or sweatshirt... examples abound and are well-documented. Unlike the notion that civilians are routinely dying in gunfights because they cannot get the safety off.

Given that most CC'ers will holster somewhere between 1,000 times and literally-infinity times more often than they will be in a gunfight, some additional ability to render the gun inert during holstering a carry may be of more actual (as opposed to perceived) value to many people.

 

[JTQ]

Very few pistols have safeties that allow gripping the pistol on top of them.

My Springfield MIL-SPEC 1911-A1 won't, nor will my Sig P938.


GR

Thumb on the safety is how one is taught to operate a 1911. Perhaps your inability to do this, which I'll admit seems odd, may be the root of your dislike for manual safeties.

Note where Doug Koenig puts his right hand thumb.



Note when Ed Head gets on his thumb safety beginning at about the :40 mark.

 

[ATLDave]

Very few pistols have safeties that allow gripping the pistol on top of them.

My Springfield MIL-SPEC 1911-A1 won't, nor will my Sig P938.

If your 1911A1 doesn't allow you to grip atop the safety, then you need to fix your grip. Getting the thumb up higher (irrespective of the safety) will improve your recoil control by making more room for your left hand.

And I've shot a 938. Safety was perfectly ridable. I've shot a lot of CZ and CZ-ish guns. Those are all ridable safeties. Same with Browning Buckmarks.

 

[shoobe01]

When Glock came out with their Trigger Dingus® (we'll use that name from now on) decades ago, I recall they had solid justifications for the mechanism of accidental trigger pulls while holstering, snagged clothing, etc.

Logically, it makes sense. And knockoffs like the second version Sigma, don't really do that.

I also have heard that trigger mass is absolutely designed in many handguns to avoid inertia firing as well.

 

[JTQ]

Given that most CC'ers will holster somewhere between 1,000 times and literally-infinity times more often than they will be in a gunfight, some additional ability to render the gun inert during holstering a carry may be of more actual (as opposed to perceived) value to many people.

This really is the key point to be considered in most of these discussions.

 

[ATLDave]

Thumb on the safety is how one is taught to operate a 1911.

If you don't ride the safety on a 1911, the problem isn't the safety. The problem is one's grip! People who have low grips often don't realize how much benefit there is to being higher on the gun. My shooting was greatly improved when I switched to guns with frame-mounted safeties... riding them properly forced my right hand higher, and then gave my left had a lot more room to get high on the grip. I simply had no idea how ineffectual I was making my left hand by basically blocking it from contact with my low right thumb.

It's like a built-in grip trainer, sort of similar to those old golf trainer grips that had finger-positions molded into them... they forced a correct grip.

ETA: Go look a pictures of high-level shooters who favor the Glock - such as Bob Vogel or Shane Coley. It's not hard to see that their right thumb is high enough that, if the Glock had a safety in the same spot as a 1911, they'd be riding it.

 

[ATLDave]

When Glock came out with their Trigger Dingus® (we'll use that name from now on) decades ago, I recall they had solid justifications for the mechanism of accidental trigger pulls while holstering, snagged clothing, etc.

The dingus is good for the inertia-pull issue. Lots of video evidence of it being defeated by snagged items. The dingus doesn't have a fingerprint sensor on it! Anything far enough into the trigger guard to depress the dingus can fire the gun.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Unless you are well trained - manual safeties interfere with the operation of the firearm.

On the other hand, IF there is no manual safety, then the trigger finger is the safety, and does not go onto the trigger until you are ready to destroy the target.

Manual safety - lots of continuous training.

Trigger-finger discipline - basic training.




GR

It isn’t supposed to be either-or. It is supposed to be both.

 

[Garandimal]

Thumb on the safety is how one is taught to operate a 1911. Perhaps your inability to do this, which I'll admit seems odd, may be the root of your dislike for manual safeties.

Note where Doug Koenig puts his right hand thumb.



Note when Ed Head gets on his thumb safety beginning at about the :40 mark.

If your 1911A1 doesn't allow you to grip atop the safety, then you need to fix your grip. Getting the thumb up higher (irrespective of the safety) will improve your recoil control by making more room for your left hand.

And I've shot a 938. Safety was perfectly ridable. I've shot a lot of CZ and CZ-ish guns. Those are all ridable safeties. Same with Browning Buckmarks.

My grip is fine - the safeties are the problem.

And you pull the trigger on a P938 riding the safety...?

You better have a field-dressing handy, for that chunk of your thumb the slide is going to remove.




GR

 

[labnoti]

Right... you can ride the safety and use grip technique to ensure it is off when you're ready to fire. I also contend that racking the slide from condition 3, although it must be more conscious and deliberate, is not harder to learn than cocking a single action revolver. I cannot imagine anyone making a legitimate argument that single-action revolvers were ineffective due to the need to remember to cock them. Their deficit was primarily the rate of fire, though plenty of CAS pistoleros could cause you to doubt. But it would just be stupid to say that gunslingers of the past were plagued with the annoyance of continual training to ensure they remembered to cock their gun.

On the other hand, riding the safety of a 1911 doesn't do anything to ensure it's engaged when you holster it.

 

[Garandimal]

It isn’t supposed to be either-or. It is supposed to be both.

Not all pistols have safeties, but all have triggers.

In a grab, the hand won't tell the difference.

So you either have to be a dedicated manual safety pistol shooter, or you have to train your way through the problem.




GR

 

[rpenmanparker]

There is no only one correct way to grip a gun any more than there is only one proper shooting stance. Thumb above the 1911 safety is fine if your thumb reaches that far with the trigger finger on the trigger. Mine and many others’ don’t. The shooter has to be comfortable and capable of reaching the trigger.

Thumb underneath the safety works just fine, thank you very much. And I can operate the safety from below just as well as anyone else can from above. When the safety is being lowered under duress while the gun is coming out of the holster, it is before the thumb has even been placed below the safety so that is not a problem. And when the safety is being raised, the thumb can’t be in a better place than underneath it. Win-win. Thumb on top of the safety FOR EVERYONE is BS.

In fairness regarding control of the gun, the higher grip is a benefit for sure, but quite excellent results can be obtained with the hand lower. Why does everything about guns always have to be only one way for everyone? WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

 

[Garandimal]

Right... you can ride the safety and use grip technique to ensure it is off when you're ready to fire. I also contend that racking the slide from condition 3, although it must be more conscious and deliberate, is not harder to learn than cocking a single action revolver. I cannot imagine anyone making a legitimate argument that single-action revolvers were ineffective due to the need to remember to cock them. Their deficit was primarily the rate of fire, though plenty of CAS pistoleros could cause you to doubt. But it would just be stupid to say that gunslingers of the past were plagued with the annoyance of continual training to ensure they remembered to cock their gun.

On the other hand, riding the safety of a 1911 doesn't do anything to ensure it's engaged when you holster it.

Again,

S/A revolvers - have to be cocked Every Time, for every shot. Automatic pistols do not.

Riding the safety - only works on pistols with extended safeties designed specifically for that purpose.




GR