pistol safety discussion/argument

[JHeath]

So what's up with pistol safeties? I have a Tokarev, and there's a Glock discussion on another thread, and an argument about Hi Powers.

IIRC a 1911 relies on the sear tip in a tiny notch to hold the hammer. The safeties block the sear. If the sear tip shears, it goes off. If dropped on the muzzle the firing pin has enough mass to discharge. Tests indicate the 1911 stands a significant chance of an AD in a muzzle drop.
http://www.drakesgunworks.com/Drop_Testing.html

I think the Browning HP is about the same re the hammer.

Glocks are protected from ADs if dropped, but not if the trigger is accidentally pushed/pulled. DA revolvers are similar to Glocks.

The Tokarev has only the half-cock safety, engaged when the hammer is at a small fraction of its arc (not halfway). So the hammer is barely retracted and the sear tip is buried in a deep notch. If dropped on its hammer, it looks like the sear/notch angle will compress the sear lengthwise. It does not appear to cross-load the sear, so I think the sear tip is not the failure point (no data, just mechanical examination). If enough force is applied, the failure point might be the sear/disconnector pin, which looks like it would resist a lot. The arrangement looks to me at least as positive as a cocked/locked 1911.

Dropping a Tokarev on the muzzle supposedly causes an AD from firing pin inertia, probably more than the 1911. If on concrete, the bullet might stop there, but dropped hard on a wood floor the bullet could penetrate to the room below. Either way, the half-cock locks the slide via the disconnector, so the now-bouncing pistol would presumably not cycle and fire again if it landed on the (half-cocked) hammer.

A half-cocked Tok is safe from an accidental trigger push/pull. It has that advantage over a Glock or revolver, which have no protection from that.

(The Tok firing pin is non-inertial, so hammer-down on loaded chamber is a really bad idea.)

So it looks to me like each design has its advantages, and the half-cock on the Tok is no different. It may be better in some scenarios.

Cocked, the Tok has no AD prevention at all, but I am concerned about the safety of carry, not dropping it in a fight. It's like a cocked revolver. Also if you fire a Tok but do not empty it, you have to lower the hammer to half-cock safely but that's manageable. Again, like a cocked revolver.

I see a lot of talk about safe carry, not backed up by anything but decibels. And the conventional wisdom changes. When I was young, the assumption in favor of 1911 cocked/locked was not unanimous at all.

I have carried 1911s cocked/locked but consider it more precarious than others believe. But in my work I have to estimate and live with considerable risk to myself and others, and no set answers.

I sometimes carry a Remington 51. The grip safety blocks the sear, and the thumb safety blocks the grip safety. Remington considered them safe for carry with only the grip safety.

With a Tokarev there are no intermediary parts, the sear engagement is deep, and it's not cocked. It is more "at rest" mechanically than many other pistols. I can cock it when drawing about as easily as a 1911 or HP safety. Bob Munden could probably do better.

Am I missing something? Conventional knowledge is that anything called a half-cock on a pistol cannot even be considered (but is okay on a lever rifle for some reason). Conventional knowledge is often wrong. Galileo, Copernicus, Clark Magnuson . . . the list of brave seekers of truth chastised by the "experts" is long.

On the other hand, nobody wants to be the lone genius who jumps off the Eiffel Tower wearing home-made bird wings, so I'm asking around.

[MtGun44]

If a 1911 falls muzzle first on concrete, it can have an inertial firing. The part that most
folks forget about is that under that circumstance the boolit will be totally fragmented and
will NOT be able to produce a serious wound - only eye injury is possible under those
conditions - and small fragments which will typically not penetrate even jeans.

If the muzzle is angled enough to get a intact or nearly intact boolit out of the muzzle it will
not inertially fire, if it inertially fires, the boolit is shattered. Not much of a risk, IMO.

LOTS of Glock ADs in every PD in the country - reholstering with finger in the trigger guard. LOL -
there is even a video of a cop in a classroom doing it and shooting himself in the leg and trying
to ignore the wound and go on with his stupid lecture on gun safety. I am not much impressed
with the real world safety (or lack thereof) for Glocks.

Carry a locked and cocked 1911 every day, and have fired several hundred thousand rounds thru 1911s.
Your "sear shattered" theory is pretty much a fantasy. The parts are quite robust. I have multiple
1911s that I have put 2 to 3 lb trigger pulls on and have had them hold perfectly for at least 40-50K
rounds - no change in pull whatsoever when done properly. Sear and hammer are NOT brittle will
not shatter, hard and ductile.

Bill

[Outpost75]

Some years ago I worked as a consultant for German police organizations wanting to standardize on a 9mm pistol after the Munich Olympics terrorist attack in which the Israeli athletes were murdered. The recommendation was for a pistol which could be carried safely with the chamber loaded, and which could be fired immediately by a trigger press only, without requiring any manipulation of an external safety lever.

That is still a good basic concept spec. Walther P5, SIG P6 and HKP7 met those requirements.

[birch]

I had one of the most unbelievable eye opening experiences of my life with a Tokarev!

I shot a hole through my bedroom floor with my wife in the next room. I ordered mine from Southern Ohio gun when they first started shipping selling them. I think I paid 150 for the gun and it was brand new.

I was so happy when I got it home, I loaded up three in the mag and racked one in the chamber. Well, I decided to run the mag empty by hand and the hammer followed through and sent one of those loud SOB's right through the floor. There was even a ring of smoke where it burnt my carpet on the way through-just like you see in the movies. My wife didnt know what to think and I was so embarrased that I didnt even know what to do. I just sat there like a deer in headlights.

Ever since then, I realized that there is a reason why the russians regard the nagant revolver with such high regards. The Tokarev was an unsafe pistol. There were many reports of sludge in the removable trigger group that would not allow the safety notch to engage the sear. I would not in a million years suggest anyone carry a Tokarev unless they know what it sounds, feels and smells like having one go off accidentaly in the home.

I will never sell my Tokarev. Partly because I love it, partly because I respect it, and mostly because I don't trust anyone to believe me that they are the most unsafe pistol I have ever owned or seen. I would not sleep at night knowing that I sold someone a pistol that needs respect to own.

[JHeath]

I mentioned the sear tip breaking scenario only because when discussing the Tok at half-cock, the knee-jerk response is that the sear might break.

I don't have a "sear shatter theory" about the 1911. I respect and admire 1911s. Some of my best friends are 1911s. But if you put a cocked 1911 hammer under a 500-ton hydraulic press, something will break. I think it will be the sear tip but that's a guess.

If you do the same with a Tok at half-cock, my guess is that the sear/disconnector pin will fail first.

"Weak link" analysis does not mean you're calling something weak. It means finding the component that will fail first, to analyze the function of the system when overloaded. The drive train of a Caterpillar D-9 has a "weak link" but that don't make it weak.

BTW Bill you must type really fast, your reply was instantaneous. Remind me not to get in a quick-draw contest with you.

[Outpost75]

I have recreated in the lab NDs which occurred with the M1911 and similar pistols and no do NOT own or carry one. I do not care for the Glock and similar striker fired pistols either. I am a dinosaur..... And I still have all fingers and toes and have not accidentally shot anyone. Unlike some deceased gun writers who should have known better.

Enough said.......

[MtGun44]

Mom told me to take touch-typing in the 10th grade and I have been writing engineering
reports for decades at the keyboard. I have been accused of typing quickly before. :bigsmyl2:


Mom was right, it is a very useful skill.

Bill

[220swiftfn]

Ok, I'll play.....

As to the 1911 sear shearing hypothesis, it would be more likely the hammer hooks letting go (outside edges of the sear), and the half cock would still catch the hammer (center of sear).

If an inertial firing is THAT much of a concern, there's the Series 80 firing pin safety (or the Schwartz), which would ALSO cover the "disintigrating parts" scenario.

The problem with carrying the Tokarev with a live round in the chamber and hammer at half-cock is the inherent danger of discharge when lowering the hammer (remember, you're pulling the trigger....). Yes, the same danger exists with a lever action, but usually this is a moot point (lever action in the field while hunting, there's an awful lot of "safe background" to put at half-cock ie; right in front of your feet.)


Dan

[mrvmax]

I used to carry a 5" 1911 for EDC but have recently gone to a smaller pistol. I always carry it cocked and locked and never had an issue. I have since gone to an XDS and I prefer self defense handguns with no safeties since it is one less thing to deal with if I ever need to use my handgun in self defense.

[Larry Gibson]

a 1911 relies on the sear tip in a tiny notch to hold the hammer.

That ("half cock notch" if that' is what is meant) was never intended to be a "safety" on the M1911. It is a safety feature only intended to catch the hammer if it gets knocked or bounces off the full cock notch. Thus if cocked (what I think is meant) and dropped and the sear breaks or is dislodged the hammer will catch on the half cock notch and will not go off. However, if on half cock and that notch breaks the M1911 can fire. That's why that mode of carry is not recommended. The disconnecter is also a safety feature and not a "safety".

The M1911 has 2 "safeties"; the thumb safety and the grip safety.

Larry Gibson

[w5pv]

Larry, also the safety that is supposed to be between the ears,to me the most important one.

[Tazman1602]

What Bill and Larry said. Thought I'd throw my .02 in since I've been working on series 80 and series 70 1911's the last couple of weeks. The majority of my experience lies with the series 70 and I've just had my first series 80 apart to do some hammer/sear/safety work. I also just bought the new Kuhnhausen book on 1911's, have had his original for 25 years and it is a great resource.

I can't find the passage right now, but the firing pin safety block in the series 80 along with all the little levers that go with it were engineered -- most likely by attorneys because of the extremely remote possibility of an inertial fire if a series 70 is dropped on it's nose. All those pieces parts do is to complicate the action, make it more susceptible to dirt, and make it more idiot proof.

All thing considered, the series 70 is an extremely safe pistol IF someone hasn't "bubba'd" the blasted thing. We need to remember when talking about the 1911 that it was engineered and produced as a combat pistol that would fire regardless of dirt, maintenance, or climate.

I have carried 1911's for years and never had any issues but have also carried Bill Rugers extremely fine model P90 .45ACP which is the only other .45 I've ever owned. Only recently I purchased a Springfield XDs in .45 as a carry gun only to have to send it back to the factory for the recall in October and am still waiting for it back. This will be my first foray into a striker fired pistol -- still not sure how I feel about the lack of a physical safety but I don't have ANY experience with the striker fired pistols anyway so it should be interesting.

All in all I'd have to say there's a reason that the 1911 has been around and as popular as it's remained for over 100 years.

.45ACP, because shooting twice is just plain silly.....................

Art

[JHeath]

Okay. All good thoughts.

I am not concerned about lowering the Tok hammer safely, it's the same as a revolver.

And the Tok is actually safer than the Glock from ADs due to accidental trigger pull. But the Glock is very well protected from ADs if dropped.

So for dropping accidents, I am using the 1911 as a reasonable standard.

The test I linked indicates the 1911 has a surprising chance of AD if dropped on the muzzle. The Tok is probably even more likely to AD that way, but it's a matter of degree. Neither is protected.

So my main question is how does a half-cocked Tok compare to a 1911 if dropped on the hammer?

Can anybody point to drop tests on the 1911 that establish the failure mode when dropped on the hammer?

220Swiftfn's answer (sounds like a reasonable guess) is that the hammer hooks fail and the sear survives, catches in the half-cock notch (which is why it exists) and prevents an AD. I looked at different brand hammers and they vary in the amount of steel supporting the hooks. I suspect 220Swift's answer may be right with some/most but maybe not all brands.

Looking at the Tok, I think the failure point would be the sear/disconnector pin, and the force would have to be pretty high to break it.

So far I am concluding that carrying a Tok on half-cock is:
* as safe as a revolver in terms of lowering the hammer over a loaded chamber.
* safer than a Glock in terms of protection from accidental trigger pull
* roughly comparable to a 1911 if dropped on their muzzles
* appears roughly comparable to a 1911 if dropped on the hammer, but nobody seems to know for sure the amount of force need to cause a failure of either pistol, or which parts fail first.

[JHeath]

What Bill and Larry said. Thought I'd throw my .02 in since I've been working on series 80 and series 70 1911's the last couple of weeks.
Art

I did not include the Series 80, since we know that the participation of lawyers in any mechanical design guarantees that nothing bad can happen, other than the product not serving its intended purpose.

Even with engineers, I often find it necessary to tell them a reasonable answer, and let them figure out why it will work. One firm said within my boss's hearing that they engineer for us assuming aluminum, then specify it be built in steel. They never got another contract after that.

[brtelec]

I am not sure what an accidental trigger pull is. You have either pointed your firearm at your intended target and then moved your finger to the trigger or you have violated the rules of safe firearms handling. Period. You can not create a safety device that can overcome negligence nor stupidity.

[KYCaster]

To prevent the 1911 from firing when dropped on the muzzle, just add an extra power firing pin spring.

The series 80 firing pin block will fail at the most inopportune time.

Jerry

Edit to add.....The firing pin block safeties were added to comply with California's "drop test". Since I don't live in CA and I think the chances of that particular failure occurring are extremely remote, I choose not to own a gun with a series 80 or a Swartz safety installed.

[brtelec]

Or don't drop your pistol.

[9.3X62AL]

Re-post of my text from another thread.......there are no such things as foolproof firearms, so fools should LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE.

Ahem......heard a story some time ago concerning safeties on handguns, specific to the Colt/Browning 1911 series. Source was an FBI lead range instructor of high repute within the southern half of CA. At the time the U.S. using services were involved in upgrading the 38 Long Colt/1892 Colt service revolver to a 45 caliber self-loading pistol, John Browning submitted a design lacking ANY safeties in what was to become the 45 ACP. The Ordnance Board loved the cartridge's performance, admired the pistol's function, but questioned the lack of safety catches, stating that in its as-submitted condition the tool was "dangerous".

Mr. Browning was an abrupt and direct individual. His response was something along the line of 'Yes, it is dangerous--it is a weapon, and is designed to kill enemies, therefor it has dangerous tendencies that can be addressed through training.'

The Ordnance Board sent the pistol back, saying that a safety catch would be required in order to gain contract acceptance. Some element of this exchange apparently pissed John Browning off to a fare-thee-well, and Mr. Browning set about designing a pistol that would simultaneously address the Army's concerns in GREAT depth, and illustrate how ridiculous Browning thought their concerns were. Browning cobbled up a pistol with grip safety--sear disconnector safety--thumb safety--and a magazine disconnector safety, and re-submitted this design for consideration, safe in the knowledge that his engineered sarcasm would anger the Army and tell them off sharply.

Shortly thereafter, the Army responded--asking that the magazine disconnect be deleted, and that such a design would be acceptable. John Browning was thunderstruck, shook his head at the irony, but complied--and the result is the 1911 pistol we have today, counting its post-WWI A1 upgrade.

[prs]

I appreciate thee "Ruger" solution to the 1911 drop test. Not original thinking, perhaps, but even Mr. Browning could agree with the simplicity in keeping with the original structure by choosing a different material and different spring. Still, "best defense is no be there"; don't drop your weapon.

prs

[brtelec]

Re-post of my text from another thread.......there are no such things as foolproof firearms, so fools should LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE.

I could not agree more. If you are selecting a firearm for personal defense based on how well it is going to cover you for a lack of safe handling, negligence or ignorance, you should rethink carrying at all. The officer that shoots himself in the leg holstering with a finger on the trigger got what he deserves. If the first thing you learn is not basic trigger safety, there is nothing anyone can do to protect you from yourself. I select a firearm based on suitability for intended use, reliability, durability, ergonomics, and accuracy. If that happens to be a single action semi-auto or a safe action or a revolver it should make no difference. If you are following the basic rules of firearms handling the safety system is irrelevant. Training and common sense make you safe, not some latch, button, switch or lever. Nor the lack thereof.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, also the safety that is supposed to be between the ears,to me the most important one.

I concur but that "safety" is not part of the weapons under discussion. Now if that "safety" were to get "drop tested" on it's head when trigger finger is on trigger when it's not supposed to be then that "safety" would probably be more reliable:2gunsfiring_v1:

Larry Gibson