Why so few with manual safety?

[Sylvan-Forge]

Everything I carry is carried in the condition-0 state.
Most all DA or DAO stuff is too far of a reach for me and most safety levers are not ergonomic for me either. Plus, I like things simple when it gets hectic.
I have very small hands, so that is just the way it has to be.

"Booger hook off the bangswitch!"
Finger off the trigger when drawing.
Finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
Finger off the trigger when finished firing.
Clear path to holster.
Finger off the trigger when holstering.

I've been doing this for a long time without a ND.

I also make sure that the action mechanicals will provide for safety if dropped from a height of at least three feet.

 

[Soybomb]

I don't really want any of my defensive firearms to have a manual safety, I want them to fire when I pull the trigger. I would probably make an exception for a 1911 since turning that safety off can be more of a funciton of taking a firing grip than some of the smaller slide mounted safeties.

 

[1911 guy]

Ye gads, I'm gonna get flamed, but...

So many pistols are made now without basic controls because the accepted level of training is so low. These handguns themselves are perfectly serviceable and useful, but they are designed to fill a need for operation by generally firearm ignorant people. The fact that savy folks use them, too, is inconsequential to the design.

I agree with the statement made about concious control over the trigger, but I disagree with the conclusion made. The proper conclusion (IMHO) is that trigger disclipline must be made habit and muscle memory.

As for the aforementioned supposed musician, we are now using thugs and "bling" wearing goons as role models for our gun handling aspirations? Yikes.

 

[outofbattery]

There are far too many people with a fantasy view of handguns.Those that think cops and soldiers of old slept with a 1911 in their cradle,used it to hunt and plink crows off fenceposts from 100 yards on their way to school and in general were such good pistoleros that the Army and police agencies reckoned the only way to give the bad guys a fighting chance was to make them carry their .45 with an empty chamber or a .38 revolver.The reality of the single action auto as used in military and law enforcement and the myth are a long trip apart.Likewise,you'd think in the old days the bad guys were made of tougher stuff but to show the cops' admiration,they only winged em in the shoulder with their .38's.



Modern pistol designs simply do not need a manual safety.The luddites that decry the lack of a safety are a half step ahead of those that exclaim " OH MY GOD- you carry a _loaded_ pistol? Won't it _JUST GO OFF?".No,my Glock or SIG is not going to " just go off" any more than a cocked and locked 1911 or Barney's S&W with no rounds in the cylinder.I don't carry them because I'm not willing to train or can't be trained,it's because they are exceptionally reliable,accurate and easy to use firearms that do not need any external safeties.

 

[Sundles]

I did not read all the posts, so if I repeat some one, I apologize.

The only safety that matters is the one between your ears. Extra safety gadgets will NOT make any tool any safer. Disengage your brain and you'll have problems, no matter how many safetys you have on how many tools.

 

[RNB65]

Gun makers make what consumers want and most gun buyers prefer semi-auto's without a manual thumb safety. If Glock or Sig thought that a thumb safety would increase their sales, they would offer models with a thumb safety.

 

[Jenrick]

To piggyback on RNB65's post, Gunmakers make what they make money on. The civilian market is a large segement, but gov't (be it fed/state/local) tends to drive firearm design for a few reasons. One the major ones is the volume of potential sales for large agency (FBI, Military, etc).

From there the civilian world see's, hmm the Marshall's are carrying X I want one now. Very rarely does it go the other direction.

The biggest influence on most large agency/gov't purchases is liability. Fortuneately most agencies have at least halfway decent testing procedures to weed out the really unsuitable choices, but most of the time the choice is made by someone with little understanding of firearms. Even if they do know firearms they have to choose for the lowest denominator in their agency, because a firearm is usually cheaper then the training it would take to bring people up to a certain level.

If agencies were able to train all their personel to a certain level then I think most agencies would allow a much broader selection of weapons, rather then mandating one platform.

Manufactures continue to produce and design to get these lucrative contracts and the press that goes with them.

-Jenrick

 

[Soybomb]

So many pistols are made now without basic controls because the accepted level of training is so low.

Or is weapons training better than ever and people no longer need the crutch of a "make the gun nonfunctional" switch and are actually capable of responsible gun handling without them?

Seriously though, I can't imagine law enforcement has ever been better trained and more skilled with firearms than they are today. They may want/need even more trianing but when in the past have they received more or better training?

 

[51Cards]

Wish you get a pistol with a "removeable" safety. Strip it, flip a "thingy," slide the safety out if you want. Or leave it in.

After 1911-land, it took awhile to get used to non-safety-land. Probaly feel more comfortable with an XD chambered than my Sig 229 --- only because the 229 needs the extra de-cock action to get it tame.

I guess the real key is to think about the darned thing every time you think about it. Brain safety.

 

[PPGMD]

I believe that you can do that to a USP. I believe it requires a gun smith though.

 

[Boats]

I have and had handguns with and without manual safeties.

The only handguns I have ever owned that "need" a manual safety are C&L SAs, be they 1911A1s or CZ-75s.

I perpetually find the Glocksters amusing. "IT" (being a negligent discharge) CAN'T HAPPEN TO ME. It's just a variation on the dumbass DEA agent who shot himself on film proclaiming his own professionalism ahead of the unexpected BANG. Of course there is no phenomenon called "Revolver Leg" or "Sig Leg," only "Glock Leg."

The common denominator in handguns without "active manual safeties" is that they have something else that mitigates against an unintentional pull on a short trigger travel. Only the Glock series defies this convention wholly, hence "Glock Leg," and Glock's "NY Trigger." Hmmm. NYC has a hardware solution for a problem that doesn't exist? Maybe, but in this case, training has not proven adequate over the past twenty years to shake the Glock of its ND waiting to happen image.

A Sig-Sauer traditionally has a long first trigger pull, usually in double digit poundage. More recently, they and other manual safety-less makers have gone to a "constant pull" solution that is lighter than the old DA pull, but still has a relatively long travel compared to the old SA mode, which no longer exists in CA or DAO weapons.

Of course, revolvers did and still rely on a much longer and, in stock form, a heavier trigger pull than does a partially cocked Glock. Finger off of the trigger is great, but if the finger, or the unwanted finger of a BG, or foreign object, is on the trigger, about 5.5 pounds or less coupled with a short trigger travel hasn't proven itself to be much margin for safety. People get complacent, so I begin to wonder if, as designed for the military, the Glock too wasn't intended to be carried in Condition 3, just like Uncle Sam's dangerous 1911A1 was to be carried outside of imminent action.

There is nothing "luddite" about that. I scarcely doubt many would volunteer to carry a C&L Series 80 1911A1 with the grip safety pinned and the thumb safety off. Well, why not, if you keep your finger off the trigger? My feeling is that no one could be long comfortable being millimeters from an instant BANG with such a rig, even with a firing pin safety. Yet the Glock just gives one some more millimeters of trigger travel as a margin before the striker engages the primer.

A Glock reminds me of strapping on a fixed blade knife with only a frog as its carry method. Yes, if careful, the blade wouldn't slice you, but the moment you brainfart, or get complacent, it's time for a trip to the ER for stitches because you one day may find the naked tip penetrating deep into your leg.

The XD gets around the problem with a passive grip safety. No "XD leg" yet I have heard of, though I suppose it is still entirely possible given that reholstering could trip the grip safety.

Most pistols without manually activated safeties don't need them. Revolvers don't need them. Glocks arguably do, for the masses. If that weren't at least plausibly true, the Cominolli safety wouldn't be a factory approved Glock modification.

 

[thebaldguy]

I prefer semi-autos with a manual safety. It's just my preference. Sorry.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I take the opposite side really.

I believe that manual safeties were to make up for a lack in design.

The revolver was always "better" but now, as some have mentioned, the auto has caught up with passive safeties making it as safe as a revolver but without the need for a manual device.

It's about time....