Why pistols without redundant safety mechanisms…..

[Jim Watson]

I also think the lawyers said. Nope. You start adding safeties now, people will start asking why they weren’t on there originally.

But many of the successor striker fired plastic pistols are available with and without manual safety. What did the lawyer say about that?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Sgt127

I think there would be a sizable demand for a Glock with a manual safety.

Good post. Lots to unpack here.

I would own a Glock with a manual safety. Period. I sold one because I could never get comfortable carrying it.

I also think the lawyers said. Nope. You start adding safeties now, people will start asking why they weren’t on there originally.

Maybe. I hope not.

The Glock is really not the worst in my opinion. Experiments I’ve done lead me to believe the Glock has just enough stored energy to fire most of the time, without adding extra weight to the trigger IF all the internal safeguards failed. At the same time. A highly unlikely event. But, one I consider in choosing a gun I’ll point at my femoral artery, carrying appendix.

Others, the P365 and M&P are virtually fully cocked. The sear is just a shelf.

I agree. There is a real difference there. It the Glock sear crumble instantly to dust, I believe the primer will not fire. It may get a dent like an AR15 cycling.

Even with a manual safety, I won’t carry a gun with enough energy to fire, pointed at my body.

I agree. I think many of those pointed at your body references might be a bit off. I don’t know everyone’s carry mode, but my Appendix rig slides down my leg, thus never pointing at my parts. Many use a block to do a similar thing.

[Sgt127]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

But many of the successor striker fired plastic pistols are available with and without manual safety. What did the lawyer say about that?

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.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Sgt127

I also think the lawyers said. Nope. You start adding safeties now, people will start asking why they weren’t on there originally.

I think that’s part of it, but I actually think it has more to do with marketing and company culture.

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

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Sgt127

The next generation of striker fired guns started that way. With an option to have a safety, or not.

A number of them have offered it from the beginning, but for some of those I always felt like it was something added after the original design. My issue with that is an ergonomic one. There are a number of striker fired pistols with safeties. As I said before, I’m not entirely opposed to that. What I am opposed to is a safety that isn’t “easy” to activate or deactivate, the 1911 being an example of a safety that works well for me. I have the problem of stubby fingers. There are some designs (the S&W M&P isn’t bad for me, nor is the P320) that incorporate decent manual safeties. Others are such that absent a very specific grip on the draw I cannot reliably deactivate the safety. At the point when the safety feature stops me from using the pistol when I want to then my interest goes to zero. I acknowledge this a problem that is in part unique to me, but it goes to earlier points about why a person wouldn’t want a safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jar]

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.

[Scorch]

The argument for why this basic pistol type is prolific is because plastic manufacturing cost is lower and Glock has not been sued out of existence.

Glocks do have a physical safety, the trigger lock. As far as redundant safeties, even molded plastic pistols can be designed to have action-locking or action-blocking safeties. Look at a S&W M&P, SIG P320, SIG P365, SA XD series, etc. And as far as Glock being sued out of existence, there needs to be evidence showing negligence on their part before they can be sued out of existence.

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.

[Rob228]

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.

Spot on. It is the right answer and it's also the hard answer for exactly the reasons you laid out. A lot of firearms enthusiasts can't let training get in the way of their ego and polite suggestions regarding training are taken as an insult. Training builds confidence but it also builds humility. You 100% need to feel confident with your equipment which training will do, but if you lack the humility to believe that you can STILL make a mistake, you're going to go ahead and make a mistake.

[44 AMP]

Glocks do have a physical safety, the trigger lock.

Pardon my ignorance, but are you talking about the little tab that stick out of the trigger (that I think of as a trigger activation switch) or something else??

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....

[JJ45]

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.

[Cosmodragoon]

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.

[44 AMP]

The real issue with having multiple or superfluous safety mechanisms is when they have to be operated as an extra step.

I agree that having to operate a safety as an extra step can be an issue, but, can you give an example of when it would not be a training issue?

also, "superfluous" is an opinion, and should be stated as such, rather than as an established fact.

The extra step of a separate manual safety introduces an extra step for failure.

An extra(?) step, allowing for the possibility of failure, perhaps.

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.

[Sgt127]

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.

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by Sgt127

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.

Good point, losing your pistol to a bad guy is possible and has happened.

[44 AMP]

While the bad guy was trying to figure out why it wouldn’t shoot, the Detective put 5 .38 Specials in him.

There are more than just a couple recorded instances and who can say how many that never got documented, about times when a bad guy got a cop's gun, tried to shoot him and couldn't because the safety was on and the bad guy didn't figure out how to get it off before the cop regained control of the situation (often by shooting the bad guy with his back-up gun).

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.

[Sgt127]

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.

My only point I’d add. If you carry a gun. With a manual safety. Make it habit to sweep the safety off every time you draw and shoot. Wether you choose to use it or not. If it’s already off, no loss.

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.