PDA

View Full Version : manual safety vs no manual safety


chadk7
May 21, 2011, 03:32 PM
A thread in the semi auto forum got me thinking about this.

Many people think that a gun used for self defense shouldn't have a manual safety. I can see that it is one more thing to think about when drawing your weapon. If you forget to flip it off you are screwed if the fact that you have a gun doesn't deter the criminal.

Others believe that the added time of having to flip the safety off is an unnecessary risk to take when you are in a self defense situation.

I think that the first example(forgetting to flip the safety off) can be avoided with practice unholstering your gun and immediately flipping the safety switch off. You can train in this manner until it is second nature and you don't even have to think about it.

The second example is the one that gets me. I don't know that the time it takes to flip the safety off is going to make a big difference if you train and are proficient doing so. I think that if something is going to go down so fast that you don't have time to disengage the safety, you aren't going to have time to even unholster your gun.

All my guns have manual safeties but I can carry them without having the safety on if I choose to. I was just wondering what everyone thinks on this subject or if anyone has firsthand experience where a manual safety worked against your favor.

AK103K
May 21, 2011, 03:43 PM
I carried and shot 1911's for years, and while I no longer carry one, I still sweep the safety off as I draw the gun, even though my Glock doesnt have one.

Whatever you choose, you have to put in the time and effort to learn its quirks. It doesnt matter if it has a safety or not, and one is no worse than the other as long as youre familiar with it.

Single Six
May 21, 2011, 04:02 PM
It is simply a matter of training. If your semi auto has a manual safety, and if you have trained yourself to flip the safety off as you prepare to fire, there should be no issues. From my standpoint [full-time LE], I WANT my issue weapon to have a manual safety. There are scores of documented incidents of the BG getting the officer's gun away from him and trying to murder him with it..only to fail because the safety was engaged and said BG didn't know how to "turn the gun on". This is one reason I despise my issue weapon [Sig P220ST], because it has no manual safety. If I could, I'd carry my Ruger P-90 on duty, because it's MUCH more reliable than the dept.-issued Sig...and it has a manual safety.

Nitesites
May 21, 2011, 04:16 PM
I prefer my handguns with frame mounted manual safeties. Became part of my grip as I've come to ride the safety with my thumb. Works for me. No time involved concerning it's operation. Just dry run everyday. Practice, practice, practice the draw in order to forge it into muscle memory.

Apologize for the rather short, incomplete input. Keyboard issue.

Frank Ettin
May 21, 2011, 08:36 PM
I've trained with a 1911 for years. In fact, I just completed the Intermediate Handgun class (350) at Gunsite using a 1911. I had no trouble sweeping off the manual safety on my 1911. It also takes no extra time to disengage the safety because it is done before the gun is on target anyway.

MadHatter1
May 22, 2011, 05:46 PM
No issues with manual safties for me either- but then I've been a 1911 guy since I was 6 years old. Very little training is required to make manipulating a saftey mucle memory. I've taken new soldiers, fresh from basic and AIT, and had them disengaging the safety ONLY to shoot, and then immediatly re-engaging it. It took about 6 training hours.
One caveat: The safety lever must be where it can be manipulated without altering the firing grip. The above training was conducted with the M4. I have yet to meet anyone who can work an M9 safety from a firing grip

armsmaster270
May 22, 2011, 05:49 PM
Manual safety's and even Magazine Safety's Have saved a lot of officers that have had the misfortune to be disarmed by a bad guy and given them just enough time to pull their backup.

a7mmnut
May 22, 2011, 06:39 PM
The last person I need to be around is one that can't think about the safety of a loaded handgun. I say put levers back on all of them!

-7-

k4swb
May 22, 2011, 06:50 PM
I just wish they all worked alike. I have some that down is off and others that down is on. All of mine stay off because of this.

JohnKSa
May 22, 2011, 06:54 PM
All my guns have manual safeties but I can carry them without having the safety on if I choose to.No matter how you choose to carry them, you still need to make it a habit to sweep it off (even if it's already off) every time you draw. Safeties can be turned on accidentally, it's happened to me at the range more than once, particularly with slide mounted safeties which can occasionally be flipped to the safe position during a quick slide rack.All of mine stay off because of this.Same deal. That works until the first time the safety gets turned on accidentally and you can't figure out what's wrong or which way to flip the lever.

raimius
May 22, 2011, 07:08 PM
particularly with slide mounted safeties which can occasionally be flipped to the safe position during a quick slide rack.
That's why I hate slide-mounted safeties! As a 1911 guy trying to get used to the M9, it drives me nuts.

Nnobby45
May 22, 2011, 07:40 PM
All my guns have manual safeties but I can carry them without having the safety on if I choose to. I was just wondering what everyone thinks on this subject or if anyone has firsthand experience where a manual safety worked against your favor.

You can't just discuss manual safeties as if they were all the same. Some, such as on the 1911, are moved to the OFF position before the gun comes on target and there is no time factor involved. The safety is very ergomically friendly.

On the other hand, a frame mounted safety is also a decocker. The proceedure is DOWNUP. That simple. Down to decock and immediately UP to enable the gun to fire. This is a safe mode of carry because the first shot is trigger cocking (dbl action).

Some LE departments mandate pistols with safety/decockers be carried in the safe position. The safety must be enabled to up position while the gun is still in the holster--before the draw. Once the gun is in the hand, it's very awkward to release the secure grip on the gun, thumb the safety up, then re-establish the shooting grip.

The requirement for such carry isn't because the gun isn't safe to carry with the safey in the off position. It's because if an officer looses his/her gun, the criminal can't just point and shoot. Officers' lives have been saved because of this type of carry. Mas Ayoob has discussed the issue a number of times, and, the last I heard, no officers' lives have been lost because they didn't remember to off safe their guns. And a number of officers' lives have been saved after a gun grab.

NOTE: I know that officers required to carry in that mode enable their guns while in the holster when arriving on many calls so they can just draw and shoot if necessary.

LASTLEY: If you carry a gun with manual safety on, then you have to practice until releasing the safety is second nature. With 1911's, it's easy. With the safety/decocker, it takes MUCH more practice.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Nnobby45
May 22, 2011, 07:48 PM
Many of us have seen the video of the jewelry store armed robbery (a number of years ago) where the armed robber entered the place and approached the owner (who knew something was up). Bubba then turned away to hide his draw as he reached for his gun in his waist band.

The shop owner saw it coming and drew his gun from his back pocket (not the best way to carry), easily beating him to the draw.

Unfortunately, the good guy forgot to off safe his gun and it worked perfectly as designed---it didn't fire with the safety still on.

The good guy was then forced to the back room and shot a number of times execution style.

He survived with permanent debilitating injuries.

He then blamed his unfortunate experience on the gun manufacturer and, if memory serves (at my age it sometimes doesn't:D), sued.

Is that a condemnation of the gun's design?

Or of the incompetence of it's user?

Does that mean we shouldn't carry guns with manual safeties on (mandatory with the 1911)?

That seems to be what the thread is basically about. :cool:

chadk7
May 22, 2011, 08:47 PM
Thank you for all the replies. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't carry a gun with the manual safety off. I carry my guns everyday with the safety on. It just seems that a lot of people think that a gun carried for self defense should not have a manual safety because it is one more thing to think about if you ever have to use it.

Like I said all my guns have manual safeties and I wouldn't have it any other way. This thread was started because I wanted to get other peoples inputs on the topic. I wanted some others to share what their thoughts were about what they believe the pros and cons are to having a manual safety on a defensive pistol. I thought it might make a good discussion.

JohnKSa
May 22, 2011, 09:04 PM
My main goal when I first got into shooting was fun. As a result I shoot a variety of different pistols because I buy what I like and what I like has pretty much nothing to do with the type of safety it has.

The result is that I have a lot of different style pistols. DAO style, SA/DA with manual safety, SA/DA with decockers only, SAO, revolvers, etc.

I have guns with safeties, guns without safeties, guns where the safeties are on when the lever is up, guns where the safeties are on when the lever is down.

I have no problems figuring out how to operate these guns at the range, but I don't believe the range is a very good model for a self-defense encounter. Because I use so many different kinds of guns on a fairly regular basis and don't practice enough with any particular type of pistol to become well-accustomed to any particular kind of safety, I lean heavily towards pistols without manual safeties of any kind for self-defense applications.

If you stick to one particular style/model of pistol or one particular manual of arms for all your pistols then it really doesn't matter much for you what kind of pistol it is or what kind of safety it is. If you practice with it properly and sufficiently then you will be able to manipulate the safety as necessary because that's how you've trained to operate.

If you're using lots of different kinds of pistols with different manuals of arms or if you aren't getting enough (or think you won't get enough) practice to insure that you can properly operate a manual safety in a high-stress situation then a double-action revolver or a semi-auto without a manual safety is probably the best choice.

Deaf Smith
May 22, 2011, 09:09 PM
I grew up on Colt 'O' and Smith 'K' frames so I'm familiar with both ways.

Shot IDPA, IPSC, and action shooting with P-35, 1911, Glocks, Smith M15, and my Speed Six. So again, I'm familiar with both ways.

I've also used Sigs in competition and used a 229 in LFI-1.

But I use a 'point-n-click' Glock 26/27 and Smith J as my carry pieces so I don't have to fiddle with any safety. I believe in simplicity when it comes to self defense.

Deaf

gearhounds
May 22, 2011, 11:25 PM
I carry a P220 on duty and am perfectly happy with no safety, other than what keeps the gun from going boom when it's not supposed to. I rely on a triple retention holster, situational awareness, and keeping my hands centered just above the belt at all possible times. This allows my right elbow to just make contact with the top snap of my holster for both added security and weapon indexing. I don't begrudge others having manual safeties though; I think presentation practice can make bringing a safety'd gun to bear just as fast as one without.

Nnobby45
May 23, 2011, 03:26 AM
I think presentation practice can make bringing a safety'd gun to bear just as fast as one without.


Not to criticize, but this thread continues to address "guns with safeties" as though one were the same as another. I think some of us are referring to one type and some the other type judging from the pros and cons.

I think we need to make a distinction.

The 1911 safety type, found on other single action pistols as well, is ergonomiclly located so it can be off safed easily before the gun is brought to bear on target. There's no option ( I would hope) to carry the gun any other way but ON SAFE.

On the other hand, the SAFETY/DECOCKER system located on the slide of many pistols is a completely different consideration. It's clumsy and not easy to off safe when the gun is in a shooting grip.

With the latter type safety, one get get killed fumbling around with the safety for lack of practice under stress.

With the former-- off safing the gun is easy, but one could still get killed if he forgot to do so, but for experienced 1911 users (or BHP, etc.) offing the safety is second nature.



Chadk7 has mentioned that he carryies his pistols on safe.

Maybe he could enlighten us as to WHAT KIND of pistols he carries.;)

Now, if I've missed it somewhere because I didn't read thoroughly enough, then I'll opolgize in advance.

Just my opinion, but when it comes to offing the safety on the 1911, I believe there's some "stored" memory. When the gun is gripped while in the holster, I know from the feel that it has a safety (which I can feel right under my thumb) and automatically perform the off safe function immediately after I establish the two handed grip. I could carry a SIG one day and a 1911 the next without getting confused and forgetting about the safety. :cool:

BlueTrain
May 23, 2011, 07:01 AM
Obviously, a 1911 type pistol can be carried in other ways besides with a safety engaged. However, only the more recent, larger safeties are easy to use. Same with a Browning Hi-Power. Older safeties are on the small size, presumably to help prevent them being moved accidentally. Some owners of 1911 and similiar pistols even put extra large and extended safeties on their pistols to make them easier to use, which is a good idea, I guess.

I also agree that is should be possible for a person of average intelligence and skill to use two different pistols without becoming confused, which is not to say they won't. After all, you can fumble a draw with a revolver. But otherwise, different handguns generally have enough of a difference to let you know what you have. But how many people switch off from day to day anyway? A true gun enthusiast might.

Simplicity is usually a good thing but it can be approached in more than one way. But you should not assume that the way that you have worked out for yourself is the only true way or that it will work for others.

Ryder
May 23, 2011, 08:04 AM
Only had on bad experience with safeties. The gun had a dual safey mechanism. I generally only used one when in carry mode (hunting) but decided to be extra safe while breaking for lunch. Needless to say it always happens when you least expect it. A nice 6 point came running out of the brush straight at me. I jacked out 3 good cartridges onto the ground before I realized the gun wasn't firing because I only released the usual safety. The critter got away and I sold the gun.

threegun
May 23, 2011, 09:10 AM
Nnobby, The incident you are describing is a perfect example of both pro and con arguments regarding manual safeties. The shop owner indeed forgot to off his safety and was shot 5 times as a result. However the bad guy then took the shop owners Walther PPK and placed it to his head and pulled the trigger. The safety still on the gun didn't fire and the shop owners life was spared.

The moral of the story is PRACTICE.

My preferences are for the most simple platform to keep with the K.I.S.S. mantra. Not because I don't practice or cannot learn to sweep a safety but for other reasons namely accidental engagement. I understand however that should my gun be taken from me, before I have emptied it, that it will likely be used against me.

Situational Awareness should keep you out of trouble. You should be proficient in your presentation should unavoidable trouble arrive. You should be proficient in gun retention should the bad guy make it in to close. If all that fails....well I guess, like Luke Skywalker, it was your destiny.

MLeake
May 23, 2011, 09:43 AM
When I carry a DA/SA gun, with a slide mounted safety, I only use the safety as a decocker and then put it back off safe.

A long, 10lb pull is plenty of insurance against a revolver discharge, so why would I think any differently about the pull on a Beretta? Note: it also has a firing pin block, so it won't fire if the trigger is not fully pulled.

(Unless one is working for an agency that requires a gun to be carried on safe, why do people safe their DA guns? I never got that... Then again, I am neither pessimistic enough to expect my gun to be turned on me, nor optimistic enough to think that if it happens, the BG can't figure out how to take off the safety.)

Mudinyeri
May 23, 2011, 09:51 AM
It's easy to respond with "practice, practice, practice" but the simple fact is most people don't have access to a range, or any other place, where they can repeatedly deploy their weapon from their holster and fire. Many ranges forbid drawing from a holster. Many people don't have access to private land where they can practice and shoot as they please.

Sure, you can dry-fire practice but it's not the same.

Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties?

threegun
May 23, 2011, 11:17 AM
It's easy to respond with "practice, practice, practice" but the simple fact is most people don't have access to a range, or any other place, where they can repeatedly deploy their weapon from their holster and fire. Many ranges forbid drawing from a holster. Many people don't have access to private land where they can practice and shoot as they please.



For years I was in the same position as you. Guess what, dry presentations work very well. When I finally was able to draw from leather and actually drop the hammer on a live round it was smooth and accurate. After all you are doing everything except getting recoil.To make my practice more effective I wouldn't drop the hammer until I had found my front sight on the target.

So yes it is easy to say simply because it works.

Mudinyeri
May 23, 2011, 02:08 PM
So yes it is easy to say simply because it works.

My primary questions remains:

Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties?

threegun
May 23, 2011, 04:42 PM
Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties?

I don't have a logical answer except to say that some folks are fearful of a gun without one, others adopt platforms that have them,still others are issued gun with them.

Personally I don't care for manual safeties. Its one reason I have stayed with the Glock platform. Keep it simple stupid.......K.I.S.S.

chadk7
May 23, 2011, 08:12 PM
I carry my guns on safe because it is how I have always done it. I don't think either way is right or wrong. it is a preference.
oh Nnobby45...I usually carry an m&p .45. I have 3 other guns that have the same type of safety that I will carry every once in awhile just because I feel like it. it is nice to switch it up once in awhile.

I also recently got a 3rd gen. smith & wesson. obviously this gun has a safety/decocker and yes I know to use the safety to decock the gun and then flip it back up to the off position.

I'm sorry I didn't make my original post more clear that I just wanted pros and cons to a manual safety. And personal experiences that backed up some peoples claims that manual safeties aren't good for pistols used for personal protection.

thank you to everyone who gave a reply to my original post.

HK Jake
May 23, 2011, 08:44 PM
My only complaint pertaining to manual safeties is that they require lots and lots of practice. Sure, you can be at the range and never forget to flip it off when you draw and fire. However, when your heart rate is over 150, 160, 170, etc., (condition black or red depending on what you call them) you can forget to do a lot of things you were supposed to have done or thought you were supposed to do.

In a real self defense situation, aka combat, you experience things you may have never experienced before: an adrenaline dump, instinctual movement/thought, loss of fine motor control, etc. This is why I prefer to make things as simple as possible; all I have to do is (1) pull the gun out of my holster, (2) aim/point it at the hostile(s), and (3) pull the trigger.

Is having a manual safety bad? No, definitely not. It does add a step, but if you have trained religiously with it in simulated self defense situations (heart rate above 150, 160, 170...) you shouldn't have a problem when it comes down to it.

danez71
May 23, 2011, 08:45 PM
Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties?


By that thinking, why complicate your escape from a burning car by wearing a seat belt?

Or is it that there isnt any other fine motor skills involved in SD other than flipping off a thumb safety?

Or is it that the thumb is not as smart as the index finger?

Or is it that for some un-made-up-yet reason that a handgun shouldnt have one but that evil black rifle should have one?

Or is it that removing a thumb safety is the answer to a problem that really never existed for those that actually practiced?

Stevie-Ray
May 23, 2011, 09:30 PM
I generally carry a 1911, and it's safety is so easy to remember and wipe off, it's second nature. On the other hand, I have never tried to wipe off the safety on my Glocks, but of course, this is only at the range and not under stress. Since there isn't one, I would hope under stress, I would quickly remember that I am carrying a Glock, much as I seem to at the range. The feel of the 2 guns is so dissimilar, I personally don't think there ever will be a problem. Since I prefer 1911s, I guess I prefer safeties. But then again I don't find myself wishing my Glocks had them.

BlueTrain
May 24, 2011, 05:41 AM
Some, just a few, military rifles had no safeties. Unfortunately, it seemed to be compensated for by having a very heavy trigger pull. The Martini, which is going back a few years I realize, had no safety but they felt it needed to have a cocking indicator. Other military rifles had a safety that was so difficult to use that I suspect it was rarely used.

Not all safeties on handguns work the same way. Some block the hammer; others blocked only the trigger (and I'm not referring to Glocks and the like). I believe that a firing pin safety is a relatively recent thing. Not a bad thing either but it makes it that much harder to disassemble. However, it goes without saying that the first thing a safety must do is simply keep the gun from going off when it is applied. I know that no one else ever drops their pistol or revolver but I have once or twice within living memory. They weren't loaded and I don't think they would have gone off anyway, only on one of those rare occasions, it landed right smack on the hammer. That's the jelly-side-down sort of thing that always seems to happen. But at least nothing broke. Other handguns are not so well made and some, especially if they are older and have been used a lot, may not be as safe as all that even with a safety. That mostly applies to older guns, though, and I doubt any of you use antiques.

I will admit however, reluctantly, that on some pistols there is a little overkill when it comes to safeties. On the other hand, you might get the impression from reading the manuals, at least the American editions, that handguns are so dangerous that they probably shouldn't even be manufactured. So I generally skip over that part and just read whatever's written on the side of the gun, if it's in English.

The new Ruger LC9 is a case in point. I think it has a decent true double-action only trigger system. I even think it is very appropriate for that kind of weapon, although the small grip will make it more difficult for some to use but others that work the same way are even smaller. It isn't the sort of gun you would expect to be used on something 25-yards away anyhow.

It has a manual safety.

Although I have examined one in person, in the hand, I don't own one (yet), so all my opinions on the matter are tentative. Mostly I need to own something for a year or two before I really make up my mind. Only when I sell it will I really know what I think about it but that's another story. Anyhow, you aren't required to use the safety, which you know, but if you do, you probably ought to use it all the time. The big problem there to overcome is that the trigger seems to work like the safety is not "on" until the last fraction of the trigger movement--when it stops. I expect that would induce panic under some circumstances and is the sort of thing I have had nightmares about. Trying to shoot something and the gun won't fire.

A minor point but the safety lever pivots at the front of the lever instead of at the back. But not much movement is required and it is very positive, something that I cannot say about all pistols I've tried out.

brickeyee
May 24, 2011, 08:09 AM
Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties?

Like trigger control?

Just yank the gun out and start blasting.

If you are close enough you may actually hit your intended target.:barf:


I have practiced and used 1911s for so long I need to slow down and THINK when drawing to NOT flip off the safety.

Dry fire practice works just fine for a number of things, and drawing and presenting is one.

Just avoid the mirror routine.

Have someone else watch or record yourself for playback.

threegun
May 24, 2011, 09:32 AM
Or is it that removing a thumb safety is the answer to a problem that really never existed for those that actually practiced?

Or is it that a safety may become accidentally reengaged during a firefight?

threegun
May 24, 2011, 09:40 AM
Like trigger control?



I'm not trying to speak for Mudinyeri but I think he was thinking more on the lines of complicating fine motor skills while under life or death pressure. This pressure as been known to interfere with the very trigger control you mentioned. Even competitive pressure can cause a disruption in perfected fine motor skills. Try shooting a match, I bet you find it harder to shoot like you do during practice.

For me competition makes things feel like I'm going very slow. If I try to speed up I make mistakes. If I stay the course I feel like molasses. I can definitely see the possibilities involving an external safety. I'm very happy without one.

peacefulgary
May 24, 2011, 10:08 AM
If one practices enough with one specific type of handgun then the manual safety should not be a problem.

But if you routinely shoot and practice with several handguns, all with different types of manual safeties (say a Beretta M9, a 1911, and BHP), then you might be setting yourself up for failure should a real life self defense event occur.

For range time I like all kinds of handguns.
But for self defense give me a handgun with no manual safety.

BlueTrain
May 24, 2011, 10:16 AM
There was a fad for a while to pin down the grip safety. Would you do that?

At least one large police department equipped with Colt automatic pistols pinned down the safety lever so that it could not be engaged. Would you do that?

Many police departments in this country at one time carried handguns with no safeties. They were revolvers, of course. Would you carry one?

Some new automatics introduced in Germany several years ago had no safety levers, only a hammer drop. Would you carry such a thing?

Naturally all of the above cases involved police departments where the administrators and training officials had to concern themselves with sometimes hundreds of officers and with all the liability concerned. Civilians have none of the same concerns, mostly.

doofus47
May 24, 2011, 10:25 AM
Personally, I'm a fan of a manual safety, but oddly most of my pistols don't have one. I do have one on my Makarov, my ccw pistol.

If you practice pulling/de-safetying (is that a real word?) on a regular basis, you will get better at it. If whatever happens happens so quickly that you can't get your pistol out at all, you're probably not going to choose to be reaching for it initially anyhow.

TailGator
May 24, 2011, 10:36 AM
is it that removing a thumb safety is the answer to a problem that really never existed for those that actually practiced?

Aw, come on. Revolvers never had safeties. When a semi has a trigger similar to a revolver, why should it need one? A thumb safety is a good "solution" to a "problem" of a light single-action trigger like we see on a 1911, but "removing" something that was never there because it was never needed should not be offensive. It is gratuitous to attribute that design feature to a lack of practice or dedication on anyone's part.

brickeyee
May 24, 2011, 12:57 PM
I think he was thinking more on the lines of complicating fine motor skills while under life or death pressure.

The whole fine motor skill thing is so overrated it has become an excuse for inadequate training and practice.

You will perform fine under stress if you have enough practice.

I have to think HARD to NOT flip off a 1911 safety when drawing the weapon.

With enough repetition and practice it will be so second nature that you will wipe it off every time.

MLeake
May 24, 2011, 01:03 PM
brickeyee, I shoot several hundred rounds every week when I'm home.

I practice from the holster, I practice rapid fire.

I used to routinely carry a CBOB as my CCW. However, I found that every so often, at the range, I would unconsciously re-apply the safety.

I also found, via IDPA, that I'm faster using a DA setup, and not dealing with safeties.

So, if you want to carry cocked and locked, train a lot, and you will probably be just fine.

In my case, while I do carry cocked and locked if carrying a 1911, I have been gravitating more toward revolvers and DA autos lately. And that's definitely NOT due to a lack of practice.

threegun
May 24, 2011, 03:17 PM
The whole fine motor skill thing is so overrated it has become an excuse for inadequate training and practice.



You may be an exception but I have experienced the effects of intense stress while trying to use a gun. I did react as I trained but I certainly felt the effects which included tunnel vision, hearing loss, and slow motion feeling. My draw arm felt as if it was being held down or heavy.

BlueTrain
May 24, 2011, 03:31 PM
That's probably a normal reaction, no matter what the stressful situation is. Most of us will probably experience a very stressful situation when we're behind the wheel, for instance. But it sounds to me like the reactions are all good reactions, except perhaps for the perceived inability to lift your gun. This feeling of time slowing down somehow seems to give you more time to do something precisely. That is an awkward and probably totally inaccurate way to put it but that's how I would describe it.

In my own experiences, such as they have been, these sensations are not necessarily split second things. They same things can seem to occur over the course of several minutes, perhaps even longer, when you are doing something very intensely, especially if there is risk involved and probably just as much when there's no risk involved at all, like doing some sort of public performance. And just like an actor or singer doing their lines, you can still blow it. But obviously, you have to rehearse.

Break a leg!

markj
May 24, 2011, 03:38 PM
Hunter safety class will instruct you how to safely handle a gun, I suggest you take one. Safeties are important for your own safety mostly.

But they make a lot of guns have no safety for thse dont want one, also many come wit ha safety for those of us want one. Buy the gun you want and let it go.

I cant understand why everyone thinks they know what is good for everyone else, is this a liberal forum or what?

danez71
May 24, 2011, 08:28 PM
Or is it that a safety may become accidentally reengaged during a firefight?

Lets have a contest. Lets find as many documented cases of glock leg etc as possible and then do the same for the safety accidentally engaging during a firefight and we'll see which happens more often.


Aw, come on. Revolvers never had safeties. When a semi has a trigger similar to a revolver, why should it need one? A thumb safety is a good "solution" to a "problem" of a light single-action trigger like we see on a 1911, but "removing" something that was never there because it was never needed should not be offensive. It is gratuitous to attribute that design feature to a lack of practice or dedication on anyone's part.

I'll generally agree HOWEVER... youre not reading it in the right context so your reply doesnt really fit (I'm not trying to be offesive).

He said: "Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties? "

His statement didnt have anything to do with type/feel of the trigger. He was simply stating/asking 'why complicate things by adding 1 more step'.

With enough repetition and practice it will be so second nature that you will wipe it off every time.

Exactly.


I contend that if you cant control your thumb in a stressful situation.... then you aren't going to be able to control your index finger very well either.

Heck... having an an opposable thumb is one of the big differences us humans have over other primates. We've had it for a looooong time and I think we've become pretty good at using it too.


On a side note.... I'm not promoting thumb safties. I'm all for buy what you want and like. I just dont fall into the camp of "I wont be able to control my thumb but eveything else will be fine".

Deaf Smith
May 24, 2011, 09:17 PM
Lets have a contest. Lets find as many documented cases of glock leg etc as possible and then do the same for the safety accidentally engaging during a firefight and we'll see which happens more often.

No the contest would be to find how many AD/NDs there are with Glocks, Sigs, Smiths, Colts, Rugers, H&Ks, etc....

Should not be hard to find examples of each.

In fact the NYPD had accidents with DA revolvers to, even after they turned them all to DAO actions.

You find more Glock AD/NDs cause Glocks have taken a huge share of the LEO market. And no matter what weapon they used some would have accidents.

If you want to look for stats among TRAINED shooters, just see how many IDPA and IPSC shooters have AD/NDs (but I suspect you will find very few, with any weapon.)

Now as for which is better, well some view the safety as both a way to stop a AD/ND and also to help thwart a gun snatch. That IS a good thing. Others prefer the simplicity of the snatch-n-shoot of a DAO.

I prefer the Glock and DA revolver BUT I've used 1911s and P-35s in competition alot and they will do fine to IF TRAINED WELL.)

To each his own. Both have good points and bad.

Deaf

danez71
May 24, 2011, 09:42 PM
No the contest would be to find how many AD/NDs there are with Glocks, Sigs, Smiths, Colts, Rugers, H&Ks, etc....


No. You're missing the point. I didnt intend to only single out glocks. Glock leg is just a common term.

The contest is to compare how many times simply flicking the safety ON would have staved off a AD/ND vs how many times a a thumb safety accidently got fipped ON during a firefight.

This isnt a brand or model issue.

The most clear cut example would be the shot in the leg while holstering.

There was a thread a couple weeks ago that was a perfect example.

I dont remember ever seeing a thread about a safety getting flipped on during a firefight.

Nnobby45
May 24, 2011, 10:25 PM
My primary questions remains:


Quote:
Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties?


Who said off safing a 1911 is a fine motor skill? The thumb is on top of the safety from the draw and only a downward movement of the thumb is required. Extended safeties are common and very easy to use.

If that's a fine motor skill, then so is pulling the trigger.:cool:

An example of a fine motor skill would be thumb release of the slide stop on a Glock, as well as some other pistols.

HOWEVER: If the skill and training required to reliably take the safety off a pistol while under stress is too challenging, then one shouldn't undertake the task of learning the process. Hat's off to those who understand their limitations.

Now I'm not referring to those who simply prefer guns without manual safeties. Just those who find it too complicated and don't want to learn.:cool:

BlueTrain
May 25, 2011, 05:51 AM
Well, actually all primates have opposable thumbs and from what I've seen, so do a few other animals. But we digress.

There is a problem already mentioned of how making safeties and slide releases increases the possibility of their being switched to the other position when you don't want it. That shouldn't be a problem with the slide release because it only used briefly and the same function can be done by pulling back the slide and releasing it, which is actually the way the manual says to do it for some pistols. In fact it's called the slide stop, not the slide release. Either way, it is a trade-off between ease of use for the safety and resistance to accidental switching.

Ruger, for their part, approached the problem on a P345, which has a slide mounted safety and hammer drop, by making the safety lever very flat but checkered. You can't carry it cocked with the safety on, so I kind of think they expected most people not to leave the safety on. Some of their older automatics just had a de-cocker, no safety, but maybe something caused them to think a little differently. More than likely it was to satisify some legal safety requirement somewhere.

Rarely is the safety the only difference between two different automatics.

9-ball
May 25, 2011, 06:32 AM
Ah common, why does this have to be so difficult?

IMHO it's just a matter of how you like to carry. If you carry a SA or DA/SA cocked and loaded, of course you gonna need a safety.

If you carry a pistol decocked but without firing pin safety or hammer block safety in DA/SA, you need a safety.

If you carry a DA/SA in decocked and it has hammer block or firing pin safeties, I don't see no need for a safety, but decockers could come in handy. Same with DAO and semi-cocked Glocks.

Ralgha
May 25, 2011, 09:21 AM
I carry an HK LEM with one in the chamber and no manual safety. I was trained on it, am perfectly comfortable with it, and honestly don't really want a manual safety.

It's not going to go off by itself. Have a proper holster and proper handling techniques and there shouldn't be any issues.

Mudinyeri
May 25, 2011, 11:28 AM
threegun, you hit the nail on the head. Why add another, IMO unnecessary, fine motor skill to your defense?

The two-way range and even competition, have a way of decreasing one's ability to perform fine motor skill tasks. It's been proven time and again.

On the other hand, if you don't feel that you can't safely carry your weapon and keep it from firing without a manual safety ... better (manual) safe(ty) than sorry I guess. :D

Frank Ettin
May 25, 2011, 12:13 PM
Well, some of us prefer the 1911, and for those of us who do, a manual safety goes with the territory. And so we train and practice. In any case, sweeping off a 1911 safety is hardly a fine motor action.

markj
May 25, 2011, 03:21 PM
Why complicate your defense with fine motor skill manual safeties?

Cause I want to. It hasnt complicated anything so far, never been in a shoot out unlike 90% of you all :( way more than the omaha police force all together.......

BlueTrain
May 25, 2011, 03:39 PM
Whether or not flicking off the safety on a 1911 is or is not a fine motor skill is an arguable point. Remember, some folks like really big ones so to make it easier. And then there's the matter of what else you have to do at the same time. With a thumb-snap type holster or one of the more advanced security holster, you already have to do something with your thumb, and then, if you have to flick off the safety, you almost have to change gears, sort of. But all the same (and I'm trying not to contradict myself), it isn't all that difficult a task to accomplish, even under stress. How fast you can do it is another matter and that point becomes how fast you have to do it. At least on a 1911 it works in the right direction.

threegun
May 25, 2011, 03:51 PM
Lets have a contest. Lets find as many documented cases of glock leg etc as possible and then do the same for the safety accidentally engaging during a firefight and we'll see which happens more often.



First of all if you need a safety to stop you from getting "Glock" leg, sell your firearm immediately as you have no business owning one.

Secondly it really doesn't matter which one happens more often. The one I concern myself with is the one that could cost me my life at the hands of a ruffian.

Lastly please compare apples to apples in the future. Like perhaps comparing guns with external safeties vs gun without.

BTW gunfights are rare Glock owners are not.

threegun
May 25, 2011, 04:09 PM
Now I'm not referring to those who simply prefer guns without manual safeties. Just those who find it too complicated and don't want to learn.

I don't think folks can't or don't want to learn it. I think they fear not being able to do so while someone is trying to kill them.

I have been close to a shootout and although I reacted as trained, I felt the effects of the intense pressure instantly. I was riddled with tunnel vision and lost my hearing a bit. Everything felt labored and slow. My mind racing with thoughts. I can see it causing difficulties especially for those with slide mounted safeties.

It was this experience that galvanized my position on external safeties.

threegun
May 25, 2011, 05:05 PM
That shouldn't be a problem with the slide release because it only used briefly and the same function can be done by pulling back the slide and releasing it, which is actually the way the manual says to do it for some pistols. In fact it's called the slide stop, not the slide release.

Blue Train, I have customers who I had to help them change their grip because they would engage the slide stop during fast firing causing the gun to lock open even though rounds were still in the magazine.


Cause I want to. It hasnt complicated anything so far, never been in a shoot out unlike 90% of you all way more than the omaha police force all together.......

Markj, Come on dude. You don't have to be sarcastic. Of course its your choice your life. BTW it hasn't complicated things so far for you and thats good. Unfortunately the complications we are talking about happen while in a gun fight. Thats a terrible place to find that you were wrong isn't it?

HK Jake
May 25, 2011, 05:19 PM
Now I'm not referring to those who simply prefer guns without manual safeties. Just those who find it too complicated and don't want to learn.

Too complicated...? :confused:

I don't want to learn to use a manual safety because I feel they are worthless for most applications. That has nothing to do with it being complicated.

Complicated is adding an extra step in a situation which wipes the mind of all but the most instinctual of human instincts: fight or flight!

threegun
May 25, 2011, 05:56 PM
I don't want to learn to use a manual safety because I feel they are worthless for most applications. That has nothing to do with it being complicated.



Well said.

oboe
May 25, 2011, 06:26 PM
This discussion has come about at a fortuitous time for me. I am debating - with myself - as to whether I should buy the S&W M&P9 full size with or without the thumb safety. In the store, it's do-able, but the placement of the safety is not really very ergonomic for me. Maybe it is for someone else.

I've posted this elsewhere, but this seems like a great opportunity to put my thinking in front of experienced people for their insight and reactions. Here it is:

For something over twenty-five years, I hunted North American Woodcock and Ruffed Grouse in the woods and thickets of Vermont. My over/under had a safety on the tang - very convenient and, for me, very ergonomic. After a time, it was all part of one movement - when a bird flushed, I'd raise the gun [built to fit me like a glove], slide off the safety, mount the gun, and BAM! In the woods and thickets, I thought that the safety performed an important function - branches could snag the trigger when I least expected it, and there were those unannounced slip-and-fall affairs - those woods gave plenty of opportunity for that! Old barbed wire covered with leaves, pot holes fill in with leaves, and the famous slippery slope. I learned instinctively how to manage those falls and was always very pleased that the safety was engaged. And at all those times, the gun was not in or protected by any sort of holster.

Now for the pistol. As I've said, that thumb safety - however I might practice with it, the placement of the safety makes life difficult. But the circumstances also are different! The pistol is either (a) in the holster where it isn't about to do anything bad or (b) in my hand when the law allows me to draw and shoot. No safety is needed for actually shooting, obviously, and no safety is need when the gun is holstered. Under these circumstances, what are the physical circumstances in which the thumb safety would perform - COULD perform - a very desirable service?

In addition, I am an older guy just short of seventy years. The gun would be carried in a form fitting holster, most times IWB and either tucked or covered by the shirt. Yes, I'll like to practice - but hey! I'm not a cop and I don't play one on TV! When my life or the life of an innocent person is in jeopardy, I'm gonna be one huge bag of adrenalin! All I want to do is rip the gun out and shoot the threat!

So, those are my thoughts. May I have your reactions and insight with regard to them?

threegun
May 25, 2011, 07:29 PM
Under these circumstances, what are the physical circumstances in which the thumb safety would perform - COULD perform - a very desirable service?



Perhaps when you are holstering and thats it. If the gun gets taken from you (different circumstance) the safety may save you.

Draw backs.........failing to disengage for whatever reason. Reengaging while firing especially from improvised positions.

danez71
May 25, 2011, 07:59 PM
threegun, you hit the nail on the head. Why add another, IMO unnecessary, fine motor skill to your defense?


I, for one, dont feel that I'm inadequate with training to fail at this. I also use the gun for more than strictly 'defense'. Theres a couple reasons.


First of all if you need a safety to stop you from getting "Glock" leg, sell your firearm immediately as you have no business owning one.

Secondly it really doesn't matter which one happens more often. The one I concern myself with is the one that could cost me my life at the hands of a ruffian.

Lastly please compare apples to apples in the future. Like perhaps comparing guns with external safeties vs gun without.


First of all, if you have trouble operating a thumb safety, sell all your guns cause you wont be much better operating the trigger either.

Secondly, You should be concerned with controlling all of you digits on your hand... and not obsess over the control of one digit.

Lastly, thats what the challage was. Now that thats clear.... feel free to participate and show all the documented cases.


Perhaps when you are holstering and thats it. If the gun gets taken from you (different circumstance) the safety may save you.



Ahhh... so you acknowledge that the thumb safety can be a benefit in the EXACT scenario I described (holstering gun/glock leg).

orionengnr
May 25, 2011, 08:08 PM
I don't select my carry gun based on what someone may/may not be able to do with it should he be able to wrest it from me.

I select my carry gun based on what I can do with it.

I shoot a 1911 better than anything else. I train with it, I shoot competition with it, I carry it. I am totally comfortable with it and my abilities with it.

oboe
May 25, 2011, 08:24 PM
Please bear in mind that for me, at least, the thumb safety on the M&P9 full size is less than ideal ergonomically. If it were at all easy, when standing calmly in the gun store, to flick it off - that would be one thing. It isn't

I suppose I could train to use it, but the placement would always have me at less than optimum.

danez71
May 25, 2011, 09:02 PM
I don't think folks can't or don't want to learn it. I think they fear not being able to do so while someone is trying to kill them.

I have been close to a shootout and although I reacted as trained, I felt the effects of the intense pressure instantly. I was riddled with tunnel vision and lost my hearing a bit. Everything felt labored and slow. My mind racing with thoughts. I can see it causing difficulties especially for those with slide mounted safeties.

It was this experience that galvanized my position on external safeties.

Even though you "reacted as trained"..... you still fear the potential downside to the manual safety.

And because of this.... you feel confident enough to determine whats best for everyone. :(

raimius
May 25, 2011, 09:48 PM
Well, how about this? If you can consistently get the safety where you want it (off), when you want it (draw stroke), without conscious effort, you are probably good to go. If not, practice more or select a pistol without that kind of safety.

For me, I sweep the safety off at a particular part of my draw with a 1911. I don't have the grip I like without pressing down on the safety at some point. So, if I draw, the safety comes off (unless I make the effort to keep it on). I'm not worried about forgetting to take the safety off with my 1911.

BlueTrain
May 26, 2011, 05:34 AM
Wow, it's about time we started over on this thread.

First of all, to those who suggest that if you can't work a thumb safety, you can't work the trigger. Well, maybe not, if we have to use our thumbs. Ever hear the expression, "All thumbs?" I would suggest that most of us do things better with our fingers, especially our trigger finger, than with our thumbs. Or thumb, if we actually shoot with one hand.

Second, there seems to be more than one line of thinking here. It isn't manual safety versus no safety. It is a 1911-style thumb safety versus a frame mounted safety versus no safety. You might even throw in guns with safeties that are really optional for use, referring to double action guns that are (we believe) safe to carry without the safety applied. The fact that not all safeties are the same complicates the discussion but cannot be avoided.

Also, we tend to assume away too many problems. Guns do get dropped, for instance. Accidents happen and a safety may prevent serious consequences. I know that a Glock claims that nothing will make it go off without the trigger being pulled and it probably won't. As far as that goes, it is a safe pistol. All you need is something to prevent the trigger from being pulled accidentally, as when being holstered. Seems like a grip safety would have been a better solution than that little lever in the face of the trigger. Incredibly enough, both methods have been around about the same time.

I'm afraid nothing will prevent someone pulling the trigger (just to make sure it's still there and still works) when they shouldn't. Maybe carrying chamber empty has advantages after all.

And by the way, I understand that accidents with long guns are more frequent than accidents with handguns.

MLeake
May 26, 2011, 06:52 AM
danez71, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit.

On the one hand, you think anybody who doubts their fine motor control with regard to the safety should just hang up their guns.

On the other hand, you think the safety can prevent a Glock-leg scenario, implying that you doubt your own fine motor control with regard to keeping your finger out of the trigger guard area.

Which is it?

BTW, I don't think many people on here are saying what everybody else should do with regard to their equipment; I think most are offering reasons why they chose what they did for themselves.

danez71
May 26, 2011, 08:21 AM
danez71, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit.

On the one hand, you think anybody who doubts their fine motor control with regard to the safety should just hang up their guns.

On the other hand, you think the safety can prevent a Glock-leg scenario, implying that you doubt your own fine motor control with regard to keeping your finger out of the trigger guard area.



Neither. Youre twsting things a bit.

I worded the 1st statement that way to show the hypocrosy and ridiculousness of his statement of (paraphrasing) if you cant keep your finger off the trigger you should sell your guns. By that logic, if he cant operate the safety, he shoudl sell his guns because he's not likely going to be able to operate the trigger. Read the whole statement... its all there.

I dont really doubt my motor skills as Ive said before. And, again as stated above, there was just a thread a couple weeks ago showing the holster snagging the trigger and blew off part of his butt check. NOTHING to do with finger in trigger guard. There are several threads similar to it. I already gave the example. Youre selective reading or interpretive reading.


BTW, I don't think many people on here are saying what everybody else should do with regard to their equipment; I think most are offering reasons why they chose what they did for themselves.

Not 'many'.... and I never said that. They way a couple posters are replying, they are wording it that manual safeties are a poor choice due to XYZ and they are failing to realize that XYZ doesnt affect other people or that having a manual safety can be a benefit.


Take the example above I pointed out. He disputes my post that it can be of benefit while holstering (just 1 example) and then just a mere few posts later he says it can be a benefit while holstering.

He basically disputed my example to show his knowledge and then uses my example as a benefit to show his knowledge. He contradicted himself and I called it out.

He's arguing to be right rather than arguing the pros and cons..







And I'll say it again.... buy what you want. I'm all for it. Its just that the reasoning often doesnt hold water and is more of a catchy phrase or streatched rationalization.

MLeake
May 26, 2011, 08:51 AM
danez71, I remember that thread. The holster in question was badly worn, and collapsing inward toward the trigger. Improper maintenance of support equipment, as I recall.

That wouldn't have happened with a good quality leather or kydex holster. I believe the OP of the post even conceded he really should have replaced the holster prior to the incident.

So, while it wasn't akin to a finger in the trigger guard, it would have been akin to sticking a J-frame into a pocket that also held keys, etc.

Going back to safeties, I personally have carried autos cocked and locked (1911, CZ75B); safety on, hammer down (M9 on active duty, safety on was a requirement); safety off, hammer down (92FS Centurion on my own time; PX4 recently); decocked, no safety (various SIGs); DAK (SIG P239); and striker (Kahr PM9).

While I'm comfortable with any of the above, lately I've been trending more and more toward either K-frame revolvers, J-frame revolvers, or my new PX4s with safety off, hammer down. After years and years of practicing DA, I'm pretty quick and pretty accurate with a DA pull, and I just don't like worrying about the safety.

Although I've noted the problem I have to overcome with 1911, CZ75, etc isn't taking the safety off for the initial shot - it's the tendency to reapply the safety reflexively after a double-tap or string. I would not like to discover I'd unconsciously done that after a BG suddenly continues or resumes his threat behavior.

Nitesites
May 26, 2011, 10:15 AM
Hope you will not take offense to this but...

That wouldn't have happened with a good quality leather or kydex holster. I believe the OP of the post even conceded he really should have replaced the holster prior to the incident.

This is but only one case in point why many choose a actual safety beyond just a heavy trigger or action safeties. As well as single action triggers being less forgiving to mishandling.

Nitesites
May 26, 2011, 10:23 AM
I would also say that Glocks, KelTecs, etc are damn fine firearms. I own and carried the examples I own at times with full confidence. I have just come full circle and returned to my 1911s...for now and maybe here on out. Who knows?

Microgunner
May 26, 2011, 12:47 PM
I've solved all these questions. I carry a HK P7 PSP. Manual safety yet requires no additional steps to employ, cannot be accidentally engaged or disengaged, is absolutely ambidextrous.
HK got this one right.

markj
May 26, 2011, 01:38 PM
Thats a terrible place to find that you were wrong isn't it?

Well I train for speed in the draw, part of it is the safety. My friends and I are competitive, we try to out draw each other and shoot the target. I have used the 1911 for this for awhile now and it like my hunting shotgun is a no brain thing. A pheas flushes I put the gun up and flick safety off in one fluid motion same as drawing the 1911 getting on target and run the mag dry.

Glad you mentiond a gun fight, I have been shot before by a un friendly person. I dont wish to be shot again. I carry what I can shoot, I carry the tool I can work. It dont take any thought at all to draw unsafe and fire.

They do make guns without a safety and if that is your thing then go and buy them. I wont, and do not wish to be schooled. I offered my comments and then things went the way they usually go on this forum. To each his own, now why dont most folks follow that these days? Why must others attempt to convince me the way Ido things isnt right? or could get me killed? My Uncle Don wasa sheriff for 30 years he taught me well. Uncles were Marines taught me well. Classes Itook in the early 80s also taught me well.

When the guy shot me, a friend of mine was standing next to me, he ran off and left me there bleeding. He was that scared of being shot.

Now dont say iwoulda done this or done that till you been there. I dont fault the friend, he ran for his life as MOST WILL DO. and that is OK too.

Mudinyeri
May 26, 2011, 04:30 PM
By all means, I suggest everyone carry the tool with which they are the most proficient. If you don't feel safe without a safety, please carry a weapon with a safety ... and use it appropriately.

On the other hand, if you have demonstrated competence in carrying a weapon without a manual safety, feel free to carry such a weapon.

As I recall (and it's difficult now, without going back to Page 1), the OP asked for opinions. As riled up as some people get about other people's opinions - in the Internet, no less - perhaps it would be best if you didn't carry a weapon at all.

As for me, my opinion - based upon tens of thousands of rounds fired and thousands of draws and re-holsters - is that I do not need or want a manual safety on my self-defense weapon. (FWIW, I was not given a choice by Uncle Sam. Many of those tens of thousands of rounds fired were fired through a Beretta M9 with a manual safety.)

If you - based upon similar or greater experience - need or want a manual safety on your self-defense weapon ... it's a free country. Personally, I'm not going to try to "convert" you if you're not interested in converting.

AK103K
May 26, 2011, 06:13 PM
That wouldn't have happened with a good quality leather or kydex holster.
I agree here, and it doesnt matter what gun you carry. The SA's with safeties can actually be a lot scarier in this respect too.

I keep hearing all the pro safety people going on about just how safe they are, and have to wonder just how much they actually really carry one. I carried a 1911 more than any other gun up until about 10 years ago now, and I found my thumb safety off on a regular basis at the end of the day, and no matter what the holster I was using was. I also had a few out of the box with non functioning grip safeties. All of you who carry one did and continually do check them, right?

I see a lot of people putting faith in a mechanical gizmo, and preaching to others that their choice is unsafe because it lacks one. The gizmo has nothing to do with safety, thats the thing between your ears. Everything else is just gingerbread and feel good.

Regardless what you carry, you have to spend the time and effort to be proficient with it. If you feel the need for a safety, then get a gun that has one and practice with it until there is no thought to working it. If the gun you choose doesnt have one, do the same thing.


For the most part, this is all just foolishness, and people arguing over silly stuff. Ive been told by more people, and people who obviously had no experience with the gun I carry (other than having heard scary stories), tell me its unsafe because it doesnt have a manual safety. If you feel that way, rather than just pass on scary stories and your insecurities, why not get one of what scares you, put some quality time in with it, and prove me wrong. I have a pretty good feeling that the with actual experience, things will be a little different afterwards.

I've solved all these questions. I carry a HK P7 PSP. Manual safety yet requires no additional steps to employ, cannot be accidentally engaged or disengaged, is absolutely ambidextrous.
HK got this one right.
If there was one gun that was more meant for someone with some experience, its the P7. While they are great guns, they basically need dedication if you choose to carry them, and switching back and forth is not really a good idea.

While its as safe as anything else, it does have some quirks that need your attention.

Comon sense as they may seem, Ive already personally seen people have their finger on the trigger and squeeze cock the gun. It worked like its supposed to.

If you think the Glock is a problem in "trained" hands, ask the NJSP how they made out when they first started issuing them.

The other big issue is guaranteeing to yourself that the gun is cocked each and every time its in your hand, and stays that way until reholstered or put down.

danez71
May 26, 2011, 07:45 PM
danez71, I remember that thread. The holster in question was badly worn, and collapsing inward toward the trigger. Improper maintenance of support equipment, as I recall.


I agree. But all that doesnt matter. Its still a good example of how a thumb safety could have prevented that.

A lot of things could have prevented that.... but its still a good example.

Hey... for the 3-4th time... buy what ever you want. Its all good. Just a lot of the reasons and dismisive comments against thumbe safeties dont hold up.



There is only one right answer here folks. The correct one is the one that YOU are proficient with.

AK103K
May 26, 2011, 08:04 PM
I agree. But all that doesnt matter. Its still a good example of how a thumb safety could have prevented that.
While it "may" help, theres no guarantee that it will. In that case, if it were a 1911 that the safety had come off, and the gun had rode up, like they tend to do with that type holster, the grip safety would have been disengaged when the gun was pushed back down, and the lighter SA trigger would now make things even worse. "Faith" in the gizmo, isnt the answer, and can often be a problem.

A lot of things could have prevented that.... but its still a good example.
Yup, dont be cheap, and buy a proper holster. In cases like those, sometimes no holster at all is actually the better choice.

Just a lot of the reasons and dismisive comments against thumbe safeties dont hold up.
This works both ways, and in either case, unless its defective, the gun isnt the problem.

threegun
May 27, 2011, 06:23 AM
Ahhh... so you acknowledge that the thumb safety can be a benefit in the EXACT scenario I described (holstering gun/glock leg).

Yes for those lacking in proper gun handling skills it could prevent it and thus be a benefit. BTW I never said it couldn't be a benefit.

Whats sad is that you refuse to believe that it can also be a liability.

threegun
May 27, 2011, 06:28 AM
Even though you "reacted as trained"..... you still fear the potential downside to the manual safety.

And because of this.... you feel confident enough to determine whats best for everyone.

Yes. I train alot and I still got several symptoms associated with intense stress. I did ok but have enough sense to understand that what I felt could cause those less trained trouble. More stress may have caused me trouble. It definitely sucked.

I feel confident to share my experience with others. I could care less who uses it and who poo poo's it.

threegun
May 27, 2011, 06:36 AM
Hey... for the 3-4th time... buy what ever you want. Its all good. Just a lot of the reasons and dismisive comments against thumbe safeties dont hold up.




So are you saying that it isn't possible to forget to remove the safety?
So are you saying that it isn't possible to accidentally reapply the safety during intense stress gun handling?

These are viable concerns. Concerns backed by fellow members who have had it happen. Concerns aggrivated by intense stress which is usually unavailable during practice.

No sir I think these concerns are real and hold up quite well with gunfight realities.

danez71
May 27, 2011, 08:04 AM
So are you saying that it isn't possible to forget to remove the safety?
So are you saying that it isn't possible to accidentally reapply the safety during intense stress gun handling?

....

No sir I think these concerns are real and hold up quite well with gunfight realities.

Almost anything is possible.

The reality is that no has shown an example except me.


Whats sad is that you refuse to believe that it can also be a liability.

I said no such thing and in fact acknowledged numerous posts ago.

Whats funny is that you said they wernt a benefit and then used my example of how it can be.

Whats sad is that you're now resorting to making things up that I said.

BlueTrain
May 27, 2011, 10:03 AM
I think that attitudes and habits with safeties have changed as the technical characteristics of handguns have changed. Sometimes disadvantages are introduced as well as advantages, in that a larger safety on a 1911-style pistol makes it easier to switch off, easier to switch off accidentally and presumably easier to accidentally switch back to safe. Yet some newer safety features are routinely derided as unsafe, like firing pin safeties.

In the same way, sights are rather better than they used to be, so it is expected that they will be used more than they were in the past.

threegun
May 27, 2011, 01:00 PM
Whats funny is that you said they wernt a benefit and then used my example of how it can be.



Can you quote were I said this? I never said that they had no benefit. So I'm afraid it is you who is making things up.

threegun
May 27, 2011, 01:20 PM
The reality is that no has shown an example except me.




Johnksa said that it has happened to him more than once. It has also happened to friends of mine while competitive shooting.


Safeties can be turned on accidentally, it's happened to me at the range more than once, particularly with slide mounted safeties which can occasionally be flipped to the safe position during a quick slide rack.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said no such thing and in fact acknowledged numerous posts ago.

Whats funny is that you said they wernt a benefit and then used my example of how it can be.

Whats sad is that you're now resorting to making things up that I said.

Again I never said that they were useless and if you are gonna talk about the post I quoted HK Jake read what he said "worthless for MOST applications".

BTW "almost anything is possible" is hardly an acknowledgment.

threegun
May 27, 2011, 01:41 PM
Danez71,
First of all, if you have trouble operating a thumb safety, sell all your guns cause you wont be much better operating the trigger either.

Secondly, You should be concerned with controlling all of you digits on your hand... and not obsess over the control of one digit.



Wow you just refuse to seperate gun handling with extreme stress and without it.

You have a fast smooth draw? Try facing off or racing with someone of equal speed and smoothness. Let me know if you are as fast and smooth. Try competing and let me know if you shoot as good as in practice. Now add the possibility of death to that stress and it quadruples the problems with dexterity and thinking.

Your vast gun fight experience may prove me wrong and if so I stand corrected. However until I have first hand experience that doesn't push me to believe it is a very real concern, I will continue to recommend and advocate guns without an external safety. I will continue to do so using my own personal actual experience rather than others beliefs.

There is only one right answer here folks. The correct one is the one that YOU are proficient with.

There is no right and wrong in your selection only different risks.

danez71
May 27, 2011, 05:42 PM
Wow you just refuse to seperate gun handling with extreme stress and without it.

Ummmm ... No.

You have a fast smooth draw? Try facing off or racing with someone of equal speed and smoothness. Let me know if you are as fast and smooth. Try competing and let me know if you shoot as good as in practice. Now add the possibility of death to that stress and it quadruples the problems with dexterity and thinking.

Do want want me to web cam it for you too?

Your vast gun fight experience may prove me wrong and if so I stand corrected.

Never said I did... why stick words in my my AGAIN?

However until I have first hand experience that doesn't push me to believe it is a very real concern, I will continue to recommend and advocate guns without an external safety. I will continue to do so using my own personal actual experience rather than others beliefs.

Makes sense.... but I think the operator's preference should be a large consideration and that might not be what you think is right based on your experience. The operators experience may be different than yours.

There is no right and wrong in your selection only different risks.

Which is also pretty much what Ive been saying and seems neutral in terms of one being better than the other. But the quote before that seems to me more of "do it my why because this is my experience".

IMO, those two quotes dont entirely go together. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.


So I'll just leave this with your quote that I can agree with.

There is no right and wrong in your selection only different risks.

Garycw
May 27, 2011, 06:24 PM
I just purchased my 2nd pocket auto pistol and the first has a manual safety which I'm comfortable with. Down is off and easy & natural to dissengage. It's easy for me to remember position, down for "put'em down" up for "lock it up" Luckily I've never had to use it. The 738TCP just purchased has no manual safety. I'd like to have one in chamber with this gun, but that fact makes me uncomfortable. Even with the long trigger pull. Anyone ever have one go off accidently?

threegun
May 28, 2011, 08:50 AM
But the quote before that seems to me more of "do it my why because this is my experience".


Really?? My sharing of a rare experience, which is relevant to this issue, yet goes underestimated by most, myself included, caused you to feel I was forcing it on you?

Look to clearify buy and carry what you want. However I am here to offer my opinion and experiences also.

In my experience external safeties could present a problem and at the worst possible time. I have felt the symptoms described by others who have survived gun fights. They are very real. So real are they that I won't trust my life to a firearm with one ever again unless I have no choice.

I train harder than most to maintain a smooth fast draw and to be able to perform different tactics, reloads, and malf drills. I believe that this should help me perform while under extreme pressure. However since I have the ability to eliminate some concerns I have through my platform selection before an event happens, I have choosen to do so.

Others may feel the need to protect themselves from their own unsafe gun handling. Still others may hope an external safety saves them after a gun takeaway. These are very low on my list.

One thing is undebatable for most of us. Gunfight stress is real and its issues should be addressed for those striving to optimised self defense IMO.

Nitesites
May 28, 2011, 02:33 PM
Others may feel the need to protect themselves from their own unsafe gun handling

Speaking for myself, this is not the case. It is simply a layer of precaution.

ranburr
May 28, 2011, 06:13 PM
Short of an actual gunfight, FOF training is really the only way to tell if sweeping the safety off under stress is going to be an issue for you. For some it is, for others it isn't. As for me, I am slower on target with my XDs and Glocks because I find myself trying to swipe off a safety that isn't there. Lots of yrs shooting 1911s, Hi Powers, and CZ 75s.

BlueTrain
May 29, 2011, 07:40 AM
Apparently safeties make some of you nervous and the rest, the last of a safety makes you nervous. But wait, there's more.

I did a rare thing the other day, I bought a new gun. A Walther P99. I had been obsessing over it for a few months and now it's out of my system and in my holster. Let's talk about it for a moment. It is the "AS" model.

A Walther P99 AS has no safety but it does have a decocker. Other models work differently. The way it works is, you load the chamber and then press the decocker, which is a flush mounted lever on top of the slide, about an inch long and 1/4-inch wide. It must be depressed with some force. When you decock the pistol there is a (relatively) loud snap, louder than snapping the gun when dry firing.

If safeties make you nervous, you should try this decocker. You know the firing pin, officially known as a striker, is heading towards the primer at fifty miles an hour, let's say, then is stopped by the firing pin safety. Unlike hammer fired pistols with decockers, which work in various ways, you can't ease the hammer down as you decock the pistol. Absolute faith is required in this instance. So I can easily understand anyone's reluctance to put their faith in mechanical safeties. It even says that in most manuals.

danez71
May 29, 2011, 08:03 AM
Really?? My sharing of a rare experience, which is relevant to this issue, yet goes underestimated by most, myself included, caused you to feel I was forcing it on you?


Forcing it on me...? No.


Others may feel the need to protect themselves from their own unsafe gun handling.

I'm not reading that wrong. Thats a little snarky.

You're framing it as to dismiss the value of the thumb safety to no more than that of a 'feel' good feature and something to cover up poor training. Neither of which are anywhere close to 100% true.


Statements like that are derogatory by 1) being dismissive of other benefits of the thumb safety and 2) pesonal towards the person that makes the decision to have one.


Look to clearify buy and carry what you want. However I am here to offer my opinion and experiences also.

And thats great. Seriously. But you dont have to be dismissive and derogatory towards opposing thoughts in the process.

You can make your points with out sling'n mud.

threegun
May 29, 2011, 12:52 PM
By that thinking, why complicate your escape from a burning car by wearing a seat belt?

Or is it that there isnt any other fine motor skills involved in SD other than flipping off a thumb safety?

Or is it that the thumb is not as smart as the index finger?

Or is it that for some un-made-up-yet reason that a handgun shouldnt have one but that evil black rifle should have one?

Or is it that removing a thumb safety is the answer to a problem that really never existed for those that actually practiced?

Heck... having an an opposable thumb is one of the big differences us humans have over other primates. We've had it for a looooong time and I think we've become pretty good at using it too.



Even though you "reacted as trained"..... you still fear the potential downside to the manual safety.

And because of this.... you feel confident enough to determine whats best for everyone.

No "snarkiness" in your posts right LOL.

You keep saying that I have been contradictory in this thread. I asked you to quote the post that I said external safeties have NO benefit. Further you say that I'm using this contradiction to enhance my position and minimize your position. This of course is ridiculous since you were wrong in your initial premise as I never said they were useless.

I never said its my way or its wrong either but you probably know this already and are just reading your own interpretation into my words. I understand why you felt it necessary as my position was well explained and difficult to rebut. It also tends to agree with the 1000's of well documented cases in which gun fight stress caused reductions in dexterity and a host of other issues including hearing loss, tunnel vision, and the time slowing effect.

My point is simple and based on these facts. How will you react and or perform under these conditions? Unless you have the misfortune to be involved in a gunfight you simply don't know. My situation was as real as it gets without having to fire. I felt the symptoms. It changed my position from basically your thinking to my thinking over night. It was that powerful.

Snarky side says since I can handle a firearm with utter safety sans an external safety, it becomes nothing more than a liability for me as long as my firearm remains with me.

This you disagree with and thats perfectly fine as we can simply agree to disagree.

Slamfire
May 29, 2011, 02:37 PM
I got one of these because I do not want a M1911 safety to bump off while carrying. I also don’t want a M1911 safety to bump on while shooting. Both of these events have happened to me.

I don’t like M1911 grip safeties that don’t activate if not held properly, something that has not happened to me, but has happened to others.

I don’t like striker fired pistols like Glocks, too many reports of negligent discharges when the light trigger was pulled.

This pistol has a long first pull, or I can thumb the hammer back. A decocker and no safeties.

This operating system is the end of automatic pistol evolution. All other variants since are mutants on the path to extinction.

Well, maybe. :rolleyes:

To each his own. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Pistols%20various/SigP220.jpg

Frank Ettin
May 29, 2011, 02:45 PM
...This operating system is the end of automatic pistol evolution. All other variants since are mutants on the path to extinction...Except your SIG P220 is pretty much completely useless for some folks like me with fairly small hands and a short trigger reach.

There are many of us who can manage some striker fired pistols (like Kahrs; Glocks, M&Ps or a few others in 9mm or .40 S&W; Browning Hi-Powers, H&K P7s or 1911s (especially with a short trigger fitted)). I favor 1911s and the H&K P7M8.

threegun
May 29, 2011, 05:45 PM
I don’t like striker fired pistols like Glocks, too many reports of negligent discharges when the light trigger was pulled.



Sounds like the gun worked perfectly. Trigger was pulled gun went bang.

Do you have a habit of pulling the trigger on guns without wanting the gun to fire? If ND's are not the fault of the gun, and they are not hence the term Negligent discharge, then how does the gun bear the blame?

I got one of these because I do not want a M1911 safety to bump off while carrying. I also don’t want a M1911 safety to bump on while shooting. Both of these events have happened to me.

I don’t like M1911 grip safeties that don’t activate if not held properly, something that has not happened to me, but has happened to others.



I quoted this especially for Danez71 LOL.

It reminded me of a grip safety equipped XD that locked on me momentarily as I changed hands and fired swiftly.

danez71
June 3, 2011, 08:40 AM
I never said its my way or its wrong either but you probably know this already and are just reading your own interpretation into my words.

No, you didnt. Instead you make condescending remarks like this below that are intended to put down others views and prop up yours.

Others may feel the need to protect themselves from their own unsafe gun handling.


Thats not me reading words into yours. Thats me calling out your thinly veiled attempts to justify your opinion as being superior by trying to chop down someone elses gun handling that you have no experience with those that dont share your opinion. Stick to what you know and that isnt others peoples ability.


Do you have a habit of pulling the trigger on guns without wanting the gun to fire?

Oh.. yes... theres another example of the condescending tone and attempt to put down others.

Yep.. that should work to justify your stance with logic and reason.

How about just trying make your case with out the low road tone?

.....then how does the gun bear the blame?


Whoa... talk about reading interpretation into something... Where did he blame the gun? Again, your trying to discredit other to make your arguement look stronger than it is.

He simply stated there where too many reported cases in his opinion. If anything, he supporting me in that I said there are way more DOCUMENTED glock legs than 'safties being actived DURING a GUN FIGHT'. Of which, No. No one has privided examples of it happening DURING an GUN FIGHT as you stressed. The post you mentioned do not support your claim of during a gun fight.



I'm sure you'll try to attack my knowledge or ability to try to strengthen your position and thats fine. Peoople can see it for themselves.

I'm not advocating thumb safties or not. I'm not questioning peoples ability or knowledge while discussing.

You, claim that people should buy what they want but disparage the posters with condescending comments, as noted above, that attempt to discredit the person rather than you justifying your case.


I quoted this especially for Danez71 LOL.
It reminded me of a grip safety equipped XD that locked on me momentarily as I changed hands and fired swiftly.


LOL.... sounds like user error. Gun was working... you switced hands... didnt have a proper grip... gun didnt work.

Yep... great example of how the guns safety covered up your mishadling. The gun requires a proper grip and its design tries to insure the operator or someone else doesnt get hurt when negligent gun handling techniques are used.

Capt Charlie
June 3, 2011, 11:58 AM
Time to end this one, and I think the reasons are obvious :mad:.

Closed.