|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 6, 2022, 12:05 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,538
|
Quote:
|
|
September 6, 2022, 12:31 PM | #27 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,327
|
Quote:
I would own a Glock with a manual safety. Period. I sold one because I could never get comfortable carrying it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
September 6, 2022, 12:51 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 13, 2002
Posts: 1,053
|
Quote:
The next generation of striker fired guns started that way. With an option to have a safety, or not. Except special orders to Thailand, Portugal (I think) and the US Military trials, Glock has never offered a manual safety to the public. I think it would damage their “Safe Action” reputation. If someone shoots themselves in the leg with a non manual safety Sig P365, Sig can say “You should have bought the one with a safety.” Never been an option for a Glock. Their lawyers argue it’s your fault (somewhat legitimately) and say, you knew what it was when you bought it. Here’s a million. Go away. |
|
September 6, 2022, 01:02 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,215
|
Quote:
On the marketing side, Glock has spent literal decades convincing people that their current pistol is safe. Adding a manual safety option could be seen as making that marketing sort of suspect. If the pistol is safe, then why did you add a manual safety? I also know Glock fans that would actually be annoyed at Glock doing that, because they believe in the marketing and have been parroting it for years (again I don’t think Glocks are unsafe, but my attachment isn’t as strong as some others). On the company culture side I read the book, “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun”, a number of years ago. Contentious titles aside, I got the impression that for Gaston Glock the whole “Perfection” slogan is less about marketing and more how he views his product. My guess is modifying the design irks him to some degree. Now granted this is all my perception from second hand accounts in a book, but if that’s true being forced to modify your “perfect” design can’t be too appealing. Now obviously there are large enough contracts for which Glock will suck up its pride, such as the MHS contract. This article has pictures of the pistol. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...23-mhs-photos/. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
September 6, 2022, 01:44 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,215
|
Quote:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
September 6, 2022, 03:39 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2001
Location: Deep South Texas
Posts: 1,668
|
All of my striker fired pistols have a manual safety, both new and old. Currently my oldest striker fired pistols were made in 1913 so until 'Perfection' the manufacturers put on safeties. I did own one striker fired pistol, my HS2000 that had a grip safety as well as the trigger silliness but no manual safety. I never felt truly comfortable with that for going WalkAbout so it spent a couple decades relegated to the occasional range session.
__________________
To be vintage it's gotta be older than me! |
September 6, 2022, 05:12 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 15,248
|
Quote:
Now, you ask how we can eliminate ND through training? You can't. As long as us hairless monkeys are handling things, we figure out all the wrong ways to do things because we are curious. As a gunsmith, I can't tell how many firearms are damaged because people start poking around and wonder what will happen IF. Same for NDs. Even 1911s (with redundant safeties) get used in NDs. Personal opinion, NDs happen becasue you ignore basic safety rules. Same as a lot of car accidents, home accidents, sports accidents, etc. No matter how many safeties you put on things (firearms, cars, home appliances, etc), they still injure people, and usually because they are used in a manner other than how they were designed to be used. You are asking the age-old question of why do bad things happen to good people. As far as how to avoid NDs, there are a few options: training, training and training. You have to train yourself to act in a given way each and every time. I know, you're an American citizen and you have an inalienable right to own a firearm, so they can't make you go to training. Right? Yeah. And that's part of the problem. Every guy who has watched a cowboy movie or an action movie, or some other heroic BS movie thinks that because they saw some actor on screen do something, that they automatically know how to do that cool stuff, and you can't tell them any different (not even going to address the fact that what you see on screen is fake). I can't tell you how much money I won in shooting matches because just about every new gun owner that takes his new rifle to the range and hits the 200 yds gong suddenly thinks he is Carlos Hathcock. Of course, I was taught how to shoot long after I started shooting as a kid. Before I was taught, I thought I was pretty good. After I was taught, other people thought I was pretty good. So, training. That's the answer.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services |
|
September 6, 2022, 05:50 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
|
Quote:
|
|
September 6, 2022, 08:20 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,819
|
Quote:
I agree that it is "training" being the primary factor on the human side when operating any machinery. However "training" is a trap, because the word covers so much. In root cause analysis, "Training" is the category header that covers everything people do and don't do. ALL accidents involving some human action or lack of action are "training" issues, somewhere or sometimes everywhere in the sequence of events. Additionally, the word "training" covers all learning, it is not, and should not be thought of as only formal instruction. And further complicating the mix, "training" is the term most often used to describe how well an individual learns, and most importantly, PERFORMS an action. And unless the speaker gives a specific frame of reference when people hear "training" different people think of different things. There is also more than a bit of an elitist attitude about training. A great many people (and organizations) make it a matter of policy that if you do not have formal documented training that meets their requirements, then you cannot possibly know what you are doing, OR be competent enough to do the job. In simple terms, if you didn't graduate from the right schools don't have a certain kind of paper to hang on the wall then you are ignorant and need not be listened to....or hired.... And yet another side of the oddly shaped coin is that in many fields training is only temporary. Doesn't matter if you know how to do it, doesn't matter if you've been doing it (and correctly) for decades, doesn't even matter if nothing about the training or the equipment has changed, if you training isn't current, you're not allowed to do the job. You know, like driver's licenses and pistol permits and some other things, once that license expires you are no longer considered competent (and in some cases, legal) to do that job. There are so many things covered by "training" that when someone says "more training is the answer" or "lack of training is the cause" that unless they get more specific, I can't be sure what they are talking about, or if they even know what they are talking about, because, well, I was never trained to read minds....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
September 7, 2022, 04:49 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 8, 2015
Posts: 908
|
Training and experience are crucial to the employment of any firearm safety or no safety.
I favor auto pistols with thumb safeties but only in double action form carried safety off or 1911 SAs cocked and locked. But I wouldn't carry a single action pistol in condition one if it wasn't equipped with a grip safety. My carry pistols are DA with the safety off and I practice first shot double action at close range. After all, revolvers are carried in this condition sans safety. Better yet IMO are de-cock only pistols and I have only one, a Ruger P97. Jeff Cooper opined that a safety is superfluous if you follow the 4 rules but I would say, given the propensity for human error, a safety is absolutely necessary on a single action pistol. |
September 7, 2022, 02:26 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2013
Location: Northeastern US
Posts: 1,869
|
I carry double action or DA/SA without a manual safety. The operating control is all in the trigger. This combines the inherent safety of a slightly increased pull weight with the ease and simplicity of a single control.
The real issue with having multiple or superfluous safety mechanisms is when they have to be operated as an extra step. The reality is that defensive encounters can be quick, messy, unexpected, and may take place under all sorts of difficult or challenging circumstances including but not limited to slippery or injured hands. The extra step of a separate manual safety introduces an extra step for failure. We know that such failure can happen and evidence of it happening can be seen in video of real defensive encounters on the Active Self Protection channel. |
September 7, 2022, 05:16 PM | #37 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,819
|
Quote:
also, "superfluous" is an opinion, and should be stated as such, rather than as an established fact. Quote:
However having a manual safety engaged has also saved lives and there are documented accounts of it. Since there are examples of when a safety has been a good thing, and when it has not, I call it a wash. What is important in this is, that it is a personal risk assessment matter, something different for each one of us.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
September 7, 2022, 05:27 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 13, 2002
Posts: 1,053
|
I know a detective in a neighboring agency that lost his Browning HP in a fight. While the bad guy was trying to figure out why it wouldn’t shoot, the Detective put 5 .38 Specials in him.
|
September 7, 2022, 06:20 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 8, 2015
Posts: 908
|
|
September 7, 2022, 09:43 PM | #40 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,819
|
Quote:
Since it has actually happened (and more than just once) it is something about a pistol with a manual safety that should not be 100% discounted or dismissed. Does it matter, in the big picture, overall? Probably not much, but that one time, to that guy facing his own pistol, it mattered a hell of a lot. There's no free lunch, to get something you have to give up something. Its up to each of us to decide, for ourselves, where the greatest value for us lies. I like options, even if I don't use them, I like having them. I like adjustable sights, even if I never adjust them (and I rarely do) I like having the option should I wish to use it. I see lots of good reasons for having a manual safety on a semi auto pistol. I like having one, so I get to choose to use it, or not. IF you don't think there's any reason to use the safety, simply don't use it. ALL the responsibility is yours, and yours alone.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
September 7, 2022, 10:15 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 13, 2002
Posts: 1,053
|
Quote:
If, for some reason, it gets flipped on in the holster. That one time you flipped it on and forgot to flip it off. One could look silly pulling the trigger in a gunfight and not knowing why your gun is being very quiet. The OODA loop would be very chaotic. |
|
|
|