Will Striker Fired Pistols w/ Short and Light Triggers Cause More Acc Discharges ?

[X-Rap]

Because the safety is taken off concurrently with other things happening during the draw stroke, it does not add a single microsecond of time. Zero. ZERO.

And this has been my objection to the use of 1911 style pistols for self defense all along. When the gun is drawn and safety removed as part of that function you end up covering someone who may or may not deserve shooting with a gun that is essentially the same as the striker fired with the exception of a fraction of trigger take up and weight.
I'll give the debate to the safety equipped gun when reholstering but in the heat of the moment the striker and it's longer trigger pull will be safer to the majority.

 

[ATLDave]

When the gun is drawn and safety removed as part of that function you end up covering someone who may or may not deserve shooting with a gun that is essentially the same as the striker fired with the exception of a fraction of trigger take up and weight.

I'm not sure I understand. You're talking about drawing and "covering" (pointing a gun at?) someone who does not "deserve" shooting? So your objection is not to the safety, but to a lightweight/short trigger? That's a different discussion. One can certainly have guns with manual safeties and whatever kind of trigger you want.

 

[X-Rap]

I'm actually trying to stay on point with what the OP asked about.

I am refering to striker fired pistols without thumb safeties, ones like the H & K VP9, Walther PPQ, Sig P320, Ruger LC9s Pro and other similar semi autos. These guns are getting excellent reviews but it got me to thinking maybe there's a downside to them.

I know the idea of having a thumb safety on any gun is a sin to some of you, but think about it. Some of these guns have less than 1/2" travel in the trigger combined with a light pull. It just seems to me that without the extra protection a manual safety offers they are potentially an accidental discharge just waiting to happen. And the trigger blade safeties they do have seem like a joke compared to what a manual thumb safety provides.

Yes I know one should keep their finger off the trigger until ready to fire, and you should keep the gun holstered as well, but in a high stress environment in the middle of a dark night I could envision an accidental discharge happening rather easily with bad results.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[ATLDave]

Hey, fair point (regarding being on-topic).

But the fact remains that you can get a gun with an external safety and a non-hair-trigger. You can get an M&P with a safety. A CZ75b (non-decocker) certainly qualifies. Heck, 1911's don't have to have great triggers!

 

[X-Rap]

I'm aware of the options, it just seems that in the typical discussion the two ends of the spectrum are the 1911 & Glock.

 

[herrwalther]

I'll give the debate to the safety equipped gun when reholstering but in the heat of the moment the striker and it's longer trigger pull will be safer to the majority.

Rather silly argument against the 1911 in my opinion. A safety doesn't add any additional time to disengage on the draw. With a little practice of course. Same thing with an AR. The safety doesn't add any time to bring it up to shoot at a target than not having it on Safe, it is a training curve.

ND/AD will happen. Fact of life. We, as gun owners, take precautions to limit the risk of accidents with our firearms. For some that is a manual safety, that added blanket. Investing in a better holster. Dry practicing with a firearm for wardrobe conflicts such as coat strings getting in the trigger guard etc. Training classes by reputable teachers and a dozen other precautions. The risk never goes away or reaches zero.

 

[X-Rap]

Nothing in that statement speaks of speed in fact in an earlier post I pointed out how many disengage the 1911 safety as part of the draw, myself included.
The point is, at that time both guns are without safety and one has, at that point a safer trigger IMO. Same would be said to those who draw and cock a DA revolver.
So to be clear my argument against the 1911 is that, all things being equal, once the gun is drawn and on target the striker takes more effort to discharge than the SA. When holstering the gun with the safety has a clear advantage and more attention must be paid to the non safety equipped gun.

 

[ATLDave]

X-rap, that makes sense to me.

 

[1911 guy]

All of this dances around the fact that a pistol is a machine. When the trigger is pulled, it will fire. Finger, jacket drawstring, bathroom stall coat hook (don't laugh, it's happened) it doesn't matter. It is up to YOU to keep crap out of the trigger guard until you decide to fire. If the decision has not been made to fire, your finger should be indexed along the slide. Period.

Just because my gun of choice, the 1911, has both a manual thumb safety and a passive grip safety, this does not give me the right to ignore or violate basic safety measures and rely on them as my sole means of preventing negligent discharges. My primary means is awareness of keeping the trigger guard clear of both foreign objects and my finger until I am actively in the process of sending a round downrange.

If you place your finger in the guard during the drawstroke, you are wrong.

If you place your finger in the guard when the handgun is merely pointed in the general direction of the target, you are wrong.

If you place your finger in the guard while the pistol is aimed at the target but you have not yet made the decision to fire, you are wrong.

Putting bullet holes in random items and possibly people around us is not acceptable. Reliance on any mechanical device to abdicate your personal responsibility for safe use of a firearm is idiotic at best, criminal at worst.

When we strive to make something idiot proof, Mother Nature builds a better idiot.

 

[Homerboy]

I always laugh when the Chairborne Rangers repeat the same old hokey phrases to prove they are "operators". Wiggling their finger and saying "this is my safety", from the movie Black Hawk Down, or "my safety is between my ears", and of course the ever popular "keep your booger hook off the bang switch".

These are people who began shooting after Gaston agoock graced the world with his product, and bought his absurd "Perfection" claim. To some people, the word Glock is synonymous with "gun".

These are people who keep repeating "it's not an accidental discharge, it's negligent". Do you get into a car negligent? The term negligent in the legal sense is a more deliberate act than allowing a jacket strap to get into a trigger guard.

I carry a Ruger LC9-S and my home gun is a Ruger SR9. Both have manual safeties and even mag disconnects.

And I have seen FAR too many people with awful gun handling practices. And they're usually carrying a Glock or some other striker fired gun.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

When we strive to make something idiot proof, Mother Nature builds a better idiot.

Love that comment! And it seems to apply to all areas of human endeavor.

 

[mooosie]

Why does anyone think
It is good to have a gun that is difficult to fire when you need it!

 

[Hangingrock]

Homerboy:

These are people who keep repeating "it's not an accidental discharge, it's negligent". Do you get into a car negligent? The term negligent in the legal sense is a more deliberate act than allowing a jacket strap to get into a trigger guard.

Accident excuses are like Rear Ends everyone has one! I use the term negligence because that is what it is. Allowing a jacket strap to get into a trigger guard is no accident that's negligence.

My handgun (1911A1) experience started in 1964 at Parris Island (The Land OF No Excuses). That said I'm not new to the subject.

 

[Homerboy]

Why does anyone think
It is good to have a gun that is difficult to fire when you need it!]

Because we don't view disengaging a safety as "difficult". Is it difficult to step on the brake before shifting into gear? Do you have to stop and think about it? How about opening up a child proof pill bottle? Do you have to talk yourself through the steps. There is zero thought to me drawing and taking my weapon off safe. As a matter of fact, when I shoot other people's guns, my thumb automatically does it, even though the safety is not there.

For many years people carried guns with safeties. Then Glock comes along and gives free guns to police departments, and the rest of the country thinks they're the best because the cops use them!

I've asked this a million times and never gotten a response. Show me ONE time a safety caused an injury or death. For every one you can find (documented, not "my friend did this") I'll find you 50 that a safety prevented a death or injury.

 

[Homerboy]

Accident excuses are like Rear Ends everyone has one! I use the term negligence because that is what it is. Allowing a jacket strap to get into a trigger guard is no accident that's negligence.

My handgun (1911A1) experience started in 1964 at Parris Island (The Land OF No Excuses). That said I'm not new to the subject.

So you've never made a mistake? Never banged your thumb with a hammer? Never had a fender bender? People are human. We (and you) make mistakes. Believing you are exempt from making one with a gun is pretty arrogant.

And thanks for your service, but being a Marine doesn't make you an expert. There was another debate on another forum where a guy took two "advanced pistol classes", taught by a Marine, who told a student learning to shoot with his Beretta PX4, that not only would the safety on the Beretta get him killed, but that he should carry the weapon with a round chambered and the hammer back in single action mode, since "it's no different than a Glock".

 

[Straight Shooters]

Because we don't view disengaging a safety as "difficult". Is it difficult to step on the brake before shifting into gear? Do you have to stop and think about it? How about opening up a child proof pill bottle? Do you have to talk yourself through the steps. There is zero thought to me drawing and taking my weapon off safe. As a matter of fact, when I shoot other people's guns, my thumb automatically does it, even though the safety is not there.

For many years people carried guns with safeties. Then Glock comes along and gives free guns to police departments, and the rest of the country thinks they're the best because the cops use them!

I've asked this a million times and never gotten a response. Show me ONE time a safety caused an injury or death. For every one you can find (documented, not "my friend did this") I'll find you 50 that a safety prevented a death or injury.

Outstanding, couldn't of said it any better myself. It almost seems like the "don't EVER interfere with ANY of my gun rights" zealots think if they don't oppose even the most common sense safety measures then the next step will be somebody coming to take away all their guns.

 

[Hangingrock]

Homerboy

So you've never made a mistake? Never banged your thumb with a hammer? Never had a fender bender? People are human. We (and you) make mistakes. Believing you are exempt from making one with a gun is pretty arrogant.

Taking responsibility for your actions is not being arrogant but honest with yourself instead of using the common excuse of it was an accident.

 

[Hangingrock]

Outstanding, couldn't of said it any better myself. It almost seems like the "don't EVER interfere with ANY of my gun rights" zealots think if they don't oppose even the most common sense safety measures then the next step will be somebody coming to take away all their guns.

Common sense now that's a slippery slope! I can't tell you the number of times I've been in meetings that start with "We are going to take a common sense approach to solving this problem".

 

[X-Rap]

Inevitably the discussion degrades to gross generalizations and mis-characterizations like those in post 110.
I suppose he would have a safety on a revolver as well.
I still claim there are two very different circumstances in which the ND/AD happens.
1. Trigger is engaged by either the finger or foreign object and is tripped by the force of
insertion into the holster.

2. Trigger is tripped under high stress inadvertently due to poor discipline, poor training
or lack of both.

The first situation can result in great pain, embarrassment, and rarely death. It is probably the most preventable of all firearms accidents since aside from following a high stress shooting or similar activity it is done under complete control and there is no reason for it to be rushed and can be infinitely practiced and perfected.

The second has much greater consequences and happens during high stress adrenaline filled conditions that may involve life and death or in a hunting scenario that is highly emotional or exciting. It often involves a loaded gun cond. 0 either pointed at a human or being carried in proximity of them. Watch real footage of gunfights and similar actions and you will see trigger and muzzle discipline that is far from what you'll learn in you basic gun safety class. I hope those who have trained hundreds in realistic FOF and live fire shoot houses will speak up on their observations but personally I believe the majority will say that those rules hammered in training are subject to failure in real life simply due to us being humans much like surgeons make mistakes, pilots crash planes, and captains run ships aground.
When trigger discipline fails a start, slip or trip can end tragically and that is the crux of the discussion IMO. The lighter and shorter the trigger stroke the more susceptible the gun is to fire under those conditions.

 

[Homerboy]

HangingRock, I never said getting a jacket strap caught in the trigger guard and having an ND isn't the fault of the operator. It is. But it's a mistake, and we are all capable of having them. Even cops, soldiers, or professional shooters. The striker fired no manual safety weapons have a higher probability of that happening.

And X-Rap, I wouldn't really care if my many revolvers had a safety. I'd train myself to disengage them as I have my semi auto pistols. But it's a bit of a stretch to compare a double action 10 pound trigger pull with a turning cylinder to a 4 pound partially cocked striker. If you wanna compare a cocked revolver to a Glock, that's a better comparison.

As for holstering in calm controlled environments, that's not always the case, especially with cops. Felony car stops, after a foot pursuit, in the middle of a struggle. These are ALL situations where holstering must be done quickly and efficiently, and when your adrenaline is still up. Not to mention after firing your weapon. You're gonna be in shock and quite possibly trembling. Which is why I believe they are horrible choices for cops. Civilian carriers shouldn't be unholstering and re holstering several times a day. Cops do it all the time. Responding to calls. Transporting prisoners into booking. Psych patients into hospitals. All times the gun is being handled. I must have taken my gun out 4-5 times a tour, minimum. I worked in the ghetto and gun runs were pretty common.

And as somebody else pointed out so perfectly earlier in this thread, the reason these light triggered striker fired guns are being sold in so great a number is because newer shooters don't have much of a choice. 90% of the guns on dealer shelves are polymer striker fired, and the ones that are being sold for concealed carry are gonna be light and small. I can't even think of a currently manufactured slim and light, hammer fired weapon with a safety. The S&W CS9 is the last one. Those micro 1911's are still over 25 ounces unloaded. Ask a new shooter to even be able to tell you what double or single action even is and they'll look at you like you're speaking Klingon. I can't even count the times I have heard "I want a Glock. The cops carry them so they're the best". Not to mention gun shop employees actively pushing Glocks.

 

[X-Rap]

But it's a bit of a stretch to compare a double action 10 pound trigger pull with a turning cylinder to a 4 pound partially cocked striker. If you wanna compare a cocked revolver to a Glock, that's a better comparison.

I am comparing the revolver in SA mode cocked as might happen in a defensive action much like a SA pistol with similar trigger characteristics.
No question IMO that the DAO without a safety is probably the safest all around defensive gun but I don't care for the accuracy limitations so the striker works for me.
Were it not for capacity limitations I'd be more than happy with a DAO revolver for every day carry.

 

[jrdolall]

I have a couple of revolvers with thumb safeties.

 

[Homerboy]

Can't imagine ever cocking a hammer for a defensive situation. Can't think of one trainer who would advocate it. Or are you imagining some hostage standoff where you coolly cocked the hammer and shoot the bad guy holding the gun to the hostage?

That only happens in movies.

 

[X-Rap]

What I'm imagining is a condition just like you'd have with a SA pistol that had the safety off.
Additionally there are multiple members here who advocate SA revolver carry for defense' which I wouldn't do but I could imagine a time I had only a SA revolver and might need to use it defensively or while hunting.

By your own admission you remove the safety with "zero thought" like many others which puts a SA pistol in exactly the same condition as a cocked revolver.

You can continue with the silly cliches but it makes it hard to take your views serious.

There is zero thought to me drawing and taking my weapon off safe. As a matter of fact, when I shoot other people's guns, my thumb automatically does it, even though the safety is not there.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Words, Words, Words...

We're having a big debate over the meaning of the words "accidental" and "negilgent." That's a bit like arguing how to pronounce TOMATO... You know: "you say To-MOT-o, I say say To-MAY-to"

Black's legal dictionary defines an accident as "an unforeseeable and unexpected turn of events that causes loss in value, injury, and increased liabilities. The event is not deliberate."

Negligence (from other legal sources) is defined as "doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances."

Two key themes can be seen within these definitions: with regard to accidents, they are 1) unforeseeable, unexpected, and not deliberate; with regard to negligence, 2) reasonably prudent people aren't negligent.

These (simplified) definitions -- which are ones our legal system recognize -- suggest that many of the things being addressed in this discussion are not deliberately done, and some of them are done by otherwise reasonably prudent people.

Watching for an object that might have fallen into a holster (that could lead to an unintended discharge) is arguably not something that has been incorporated into most gun safety/training courses. It may be mentioned by the instructor, but I doubt the instructor repeatedly focuses on it before, during, or after live fire exercises.) Should he?

• Some of these problems are happening because the training we've received isn't adequate and the potential issues associated with certain types of handgun "actions" aren't understood.
  
• To further complicate matters, I also don't know how often these types of accident/negligent behaviors REALLY happens. While one negligent discharge is too many, the problem with ND due to stuff in a holster might be more hype than issue. (Just because we've heard on the internet that it (and other "safe-action" trigger issues) are a problem, do we KNOW it's really a problem?)
  
• Personally, I've seen far more negligent discharges with standard pistols than with "safe-action" pistols. I've had two, myself -- both because my hand and my brain seemingly weren't connected. (In my case, nobody was harmed, the gun was in a safe direction at the range, but I didn't mean for the gun to fire, but I fired it.)

Our goal is to avoid unintended discharges -- and how we do that is more important than describing the NATURE of the things that cause them. So... how do we do that?