Understanding Safeties

[Petrol & Powder]

The topic of safeties came up in another thread and it is worth a closer look.

There is a fair amount of misunderstanding concerning safeties and not all safeties function in the same manner.

Let's look at the human factor first. A manual safety (if engaged) does not prevent a person from firing a gun, it simply adds another step before the gun will fire. The act of disengaging a manual safety doesn't necessarily prevent an unintentional discharge. The action of disengaging a manual safety can become so ingrained that it simply becomes part of the process that proceeds pulling the trigger.
To illustrate this point, lets look at a car with an automatic transmission. Years ago, any car equipped with an automatic transmission could be shifted out of park simply by moving the shift lever. Then, most manufacturers placed a shift interlock into the system that requires the driver depress the brake pedal before the shifter can be moved out of the park position. Despite this additional step (safety) required to take the transmission out of park, the action becomes so ingrained that drivers never think about it.
So a manual safety may prevent the trigger from releasing the sear but it does not prevent the operator from simply releasing the safety and pulling the trigger anyway. That's the human factor and no mechanical device will overcome the actions of a human.

Passive safeties take much of the human factor out of the system. A passive firing pin block (common in many current pistols) or a passive hammer block (as found on most modern double action revolvers) will prevent the gun from being fired unless the trigger is depressed. There's still a human factor (we can never completely remove that factor) but the passive safety will do its job regardless of the human operator. A passive safety will not stop some idiot from pulling the trigger but it may prevent a discharge if the gun is dropped or struck.

Then there's the mechanical aspect of a safety. Not all safeties are created equal. Some will simply block the trigger. Some will disengage the trigger. Some will lock the sear. Some will block the hammer, Some will preform more than one function.

Some safeties do very little to prevent the gun from firing. Other safeties make it nearly impossible for the gun to fire if the safety is engaged. For example, the manual safety on a Beretta 92F disconnects the trigger bar from the sear, rotates the back half of the two piece firing pin so that the hammer cannot contact it and drops the hammer. Those functions working in conjunction with the passive firing pin block on the front portion of the two piece firing pin; make discharging the pistol with the safety engaged, nearly impossible.

The design of some guns require a manual safety. A 1911 is an example of a gun that needs a manual safety. The safety on a 1911 is well designed and performs more than one function (it locks the sear and blocks the hammer).
Some guns rely entirely on passive safeties. A Glock is an example of a design that relies on passive safeties. The partially loaded striker and firing pin block make that design impossible to fire without the trigger being fully depressed.
Most modern DA revolvers also rely on passive safeties and they cannot fire unless the trigger is depressed.

We never take the human element completely out of the equation but we can learn how mechanical safeties (both manual and passive) work.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Very good. Very true. Well written. In the end, the critical safety is between a shooter's ears.*


*Like mechanical safeties, some are defective.

[Petrol & Powder]

Very good. Very true. Well written. In the end, the critical safety is between a shooter's ears.*


*Like mechanical safeties, some are defective.

/\ I could not agree with that more /\

A few years ago I was showing an engine to a friend. It was an old car and the engine was running. He started to reach in and I yelled for him to stop (there was no fan shroud). He's a bright dude but not a real mechanical guy. When he realized he could have lost some fingers, He said, "isn't that dangerous"? I said, "YES - That's why you don't put your hand in there when it's running " !

[tazman]

Impulsive actions are always the most dangerous since they have not been thought out in advance and the dangers and consequences considered.

[charlie b]

.....He's a bright dude but not a real mechanical guy. When he realized he could have lost some fingers, He said, "isn't that dangerous"? I said, "YES - That's why you don't put your hand in there when it's running " !

And that is why there are thousands (millions?) of lawyers making a ton of money with lawsuits and warning labels.

Experience is the best teacher, unfortunately it is also the most unforgiving.

[BNE]

When I teach new shooters I intentionally do not talk about the safety on the gun in use.

When they ask about the safety, I tell them that safeties are designed by Engineers. And Engineers make mistakes. (I’m an Engineer by training, I now consider myself a recovering Engineer.)

They have a place, but the brain is more important!

BNE.

[Petrol & Powder]

When I teach new shooters I intentionally do not talk about the safety on the gun in use.

When they ask about the safety, I tell them that safeties are designed by Engineers. And Engineers make mistakes. (I’m an Engineer by training, I now consider myself a recovering Engineer.)

They have a place, but the brain is more important!

BNE.

I come from an entire family of engineers and I know exactly what you speak of.
And when I teach new shooters I do the same thing in regards to the manual safety (if there is one). Safety is derived from the operator, not the device.

[Petrol & Powder]

And that is why there are thousands (millions?) of lawyers making a ton of money with lawsuits and warning labels.

Experience is the best teacher, unfortunately it is also the most unforgiving.

Experience is a series of non-fatal mistakes. ;-)

[elmacgyver0]

Another gun that requires a manual safety is a Glock but it doesn't have one.
A lot of cops that have shot themselves would probably agree with this.
Of course a manual safety on a Glock may make it too complicated for some to operate.
Just my opinion.

[Ozark mike]

Alot of my firearms dont have a safety they were either made that way or i removed em kinda like my 95gs removed the hammer block and installed a single piece firing pin the only type of safety i dont mind is a transfer bar or hammer halfcock but when i need it most i cant have something that may impede function

[elmacgyver0]

Alot of my firearms dont have a safety they were either made that way or i removed em kinda like my 95gs removed the hammer block and installed a single piece firing pin the only type of safety i dont mind is a transfer bar or hammer halfcock but when i need it most i cant have something that may impede function

This is true, a lot of guns don't need safeties.
I wasn't talking about those.

[jrayborn]

Another gun that requires a manual safety is a Glock but it doesn't have one.
A lot of cops that have shot themselves would probably agree with this.
Of course a manual safety on a Glock may make it too complicated for some to operate.
Just my opinion.

I have heard the statement that a lot of police officers have had ND's with the Glock. I wonder how, and if it is a gun issue or a human issue? I am a fan of the Glock-style platform and a big reason is that it has only passive safeties. I think a lot of folks don't train under stress enough to become proficient with dissengaging the safety when they are stressed, and the Glock-style handgun is "better" for this issue, in my mind. The revolver has this same strength.

I'm sure there is some truth to the officers shooting themselves, but with a retention holster it must be difficult? Or perhaps stress induced? Interesting conversation to be sure.

[Petrol & Powder]

Another gun that requires a manual safety is a Glock but it doesn't have one.
A lot of cops that have shot themselves would probably agree with this.
Of course a manual safety on a Glock may make it too complicated for some to operate.
Just my opinion.

The statement that "Another gun that requires a manual safety is a Glock but it doesn't have one.", shows a significant amount of bias. That statement combines fact and opinion. The fact portion is the Glock has no manually operated safety (it does have several passive safeties). The opinion portion of that statement is "Another gun that requires a manual safety......". Your opinion that Gaston Glock should have added a manual safety to the design is just that; an opinion.

The bias continues with the statement "A lot of cops that have shot themselves would probably agree with this.". Instead of simply writing "people" you chose to use the word "cops" (because I guess you feel cops aren't people ? )
Self-inflicted wounds from unintentional discharges are hardly confined to one profession. Poor gun handling cuts across all people. Would you write that, "a lot of republicans have shot themselves with Glocks"? Or would you write that a lot of Dallas Cowboys fans have shot themselves with Glocks". ?

And then in the pinnacle of your passive aggressive display, you insinuate that persons who select Glocks are feeble minded, "Of course a manual safety on a Glock may make it too complicated for some to operate." .
A gun such as a S&W DA revolver lacks a manual safety, would you write, "Of course a manual safety on a S&W revolver may make it too complicated for some to operate." ???
I don't know, .....maybe you would write that?

[charlie b]

Experience is a series of non-fatal mistakes. ;-)

ROFLMAO

That one is going up in my shop (and probably on the refrigerator)!

[Petrol & Powder]

I have heard the statement that a lot of police officers have had ND's with the Glock. I wonder how, and if it is a gun issue or a human issue? I am a fan of the Glock-style platform and a big reason is that it has only passive safeties. I think a lot of folks don't train under stress enough to become proficient with dissengaging the safety when they are stressed, and the Glock-style handgun is "better" for this issue, in my mind. The revolver has this same strength.

I'm sure there is some truth to the officers shooting themselves, but with a retention holster it must be difficult? Or perhaps stress induced? Interesting conversation to be sure.

To shed some light on this issue, the term "A lot" is one of those terms that people use but cannot define. What is "A Lot"?

As for accidental discharges (or if you prefer, negligent discharges), they always involve a human element but they don't always occur the same way. A portion of ADs with Glocks occur when the operator is disassembling the pistol and pulls the trigger without clearing the chamber. That's not a design flaw, that's a human flaw. However, because the Glock requires the striker be released before the slide can be removed, the stage is set for an accidental discharge by an inattentive operator. That doesn't mean it's a bad design, it just means the human operator needs to pay attention.

As for holsters; A holstered Glock is extremely safe assuming the holster adequately protects the trigger. That trigger is not going to pull itself. For those old enough to remember, it was once very common for revolver duty holsters to have exposed triggers. That would not be acceptable today but it was once very common. We all got a little more education and revolver holsters with covered triggers became the norm. Like a Glock, a modern DA revolver has a passive safety that prevents the gun from firing unless the trigger is pulled. That trigger is not going to pull itself.

[charlie b]

ND's with Glocks I understand. Why? Poor training and muscle memory.

Being raised with 1911's and revolvers it was too easy to put the finger on the trigger without consequences. The safety of the 1911 and the heavy pull of the DA revolver meant there was little chance of the pistol discharging. Sloppy and bad form . It took me over a year of shooting to get me out of that bad form. During that time I had to sell off a striker fired pistol due to my sloppy form, just because I was afraid I would have an AD.

Now days my form is good and I am no longer a danger to myself or others with my striker fired pistols. I am still very aware of the 'dangers' of poor form.

A story from someone who worked with some Russian soldiers for a while. He noticed that they all left the safeties disengaged when they were entering a 'hot' zone (in this case it was while they were still in the helicopter). When asked about it the Russian replied, "if you don't want the rifle to fire, don't pull the trigger."

As others have stated, it is not the safety features of the weapon, it is the nut with a finger on the trigger.

[Slugster]

A safety is a mechanical device that sometimes fails to function correctly. The human brain is also prone to malfunctions.

[mattw]

Man that was a good basic write up! I feel that every gun has a safety... you! Both of my girls have been shooting since they were 5, started with a single shot 22. The small kids rifle in question had an "automatic" safety, load a round and it engaged. I would rather it was a manually engaged safety, so they would not have had that unnatural exposure at the start. I am old, I really like the 1911 safety system and I have confidence in it. I have a couple of essentially DA only striker fired semi's, I do like that system. But, after nearly 40 years with a 1911 of some kind, I find your basic double tap extremely hard to do with the long trigger pull and longish trigger resets. I also have a Springfield 911, basically a P238 or Kimber Micro... so a 1911'ish tiny gun. I really like it, but at times I do find myself missing the grip safety... it is a mental thing. I have been working with my 17 yo daughter on holster work, we started with OWB and her little favorite 22, moved to a 1911 OWB and will soon start with her 22 IWB. She never fails to make use of safeties, but it becomes an automatic thing. She will not let me holster her gun in an unsafe conditioon (empty), she always checks automatically if she does not holster it. She has gone thru thousands of rounds so far without an AD. Her favorite drill... draw, double tap, holster and repeat. I have done things like remove her firiing pin before we start to force her into unexpected failures to test here ability to work safely with the gun in a failed state... Kid is good!

As far as holstering AD's??? One must always be aware of the holster and clothing surrounding it. I feel that putting the gun back is the most dangerous part of using a holster, but that danger can be mitigated by they gray thing between your ears.

[Petrol & Powder]

A safety is a mechanical device that sometimes fails to function correctly. The human brain is also prone to malfunctions.

Agreed and I would submit that humans are FAR more prone to "malfunction" or do something stupid.

[Lloyd Smale]

single action like a 1911 probably needs one. Especially with a light trigger. BUT A GLOCK??? It about takes a freight train to pull the trigger on a typical glock or m&p or any black gun. Think about training drills with 1911s. Most train that the safety should be disengaged as you draw. So how is it stopping an accidental shooting. Unless your so nieve that your going to draw your pistol with the safety on and not disengaged it till you've decided you want to shoot its useless. Add to that that 99 percent of those who want safetys on there guns want them because there afraid of there gun and are that way because of lack of training for the most part. Those are the exact people that in the heat of a conflict are going to forget to take the safety off and that could cost you your life. I hear all the time. I want a safety so my kid doesn't kill himself with it. Well if you have kids you sure shouldn't have your loaded pistol where they can get it. If by chance they find it do you really think the inquisitive mind of a child isn't going to hit that switch anyway.

Safetys are a selling point to people that fear guns. people who think they magicaly go off all by themselves. Police have used DA pistols for MANY years. They don't have safetys. People had them in there homes and still do. What is the difference between a Da with an 8lb trigger and a glock with an 8 lb trigger?? I guess maybe you should sheath all your butcher knives so Johnny doesn't cut himself and best sure not let him ride a bicycle or walk down a sidewalk where a car might kill him. Because more kids are hurt and killed on bicycles every year then buy playing with daddys gun.

Do police officers have accidental shootings? Sure they do. They have them with guns with safetys on them too and had them with revolvers. Fact of life is all police officers aren't competent and well trained with firearms. Many depts. cant afford to buy even practice ammo today. Police qualifications don't usually require a college degree or a 150 iq either. They have accidents because they handle guns EVERY DAY where civilians don't. If glocks were unsafe because they didn't have safetys don't you think at least the liberal trouble makers wouldn't be screaming on tv that Raoul was killed because of those dangerous guns and that any gun without a safety should be banned.

Fact of life is the real statistics don't back it up. Millions of glocks, sigs, smiths, H&Ks ect are in the hands of law enforcement and militarys and they real world accidental discharges are minute in comparison to the fact that all those millions are being handled daily. It actually shocks me that on a gun site like this theres still people that don't understand. Bottom line is I have probably 50 semi auto handguns in the safe and the count of those (other then 1911s) that have safetys is ZERO. I wouldn't buy a glock with a safety if it was 200 dollars cheaper.

[jrayborn]

I certainly agree with everything you just said Lloyd. I can't imagine adding a manual safety to a Glock, that pretty much defeats the point.

[sailcaptain]

When I instruct new (and refresher pistol) shooters in pistols, I bring my Walther P38, WW II vintage pistol with me.
The pistol has a fault design that will drop the hammer after the slide is pulled back and released and you engage the safety.
With a loaded clip and a round in the chamber, once you "push the safety to the engaged position" the gun will fire!
This known weak point of the P38, especially the war era ones.
The point of "safeties" gets driven home immediately. Do Not Trust Them!
The look on people's faces tells it all and really brings home the issue of just how dangerous a weapon can be.
The design of this pistol was often considered "booby trapped" by our soldiers in the war.
After this visual, a whole new respect of guns comes into perspective.

[fivegunner]

Great Post!! Very true, The best pistol`s safety Is between a person`s ear`s

[Lloyd Smale]

Great Post!! Very true, The best pistol`s safety Is between a person`s ear`s

that's a theory that's hard to grasp by those who have little between theres. I had to laugh in the gun shop yesterday. Owner said the shop is flooded by new gun buyers. All of them looking for 9s with a safety. Most of them when he trys to sell them something without a safety will say there dangerous or don't trust there kids around them!! Hes has so much problem getting 9s of any kind that he said he just tells them buy it or the next guy will. When this all blows over its sure going to be a gold mine for us real gun guys. All these liberal yuppies will decide they need a new cell phone more then a gun and the market will be flooded with cheap used 9s. he had a couple first gen 9mm shields he put in the case the evening before for 500 bucks!!! I laughed at him. While I was there a guy came in and bought both of them. He didn't even have a box of ball ammo to sell the guy. Id about bet my house that within two years both are sold and probably never fired. Those are the types that want safetys. Same ones who buy a car looking at its safety rating and how high tech the info center is. Same ones that pull up to the gun shop in a prius. Me I pulled up in my 392 challenger with one of those stick shifts that they couldn't even drive and left my flip phone at home! Wonder how they would have survived back when we were kids and most didn't even have a helmet on when they were riding a dirt bike or snowmobile let alone riding a bicycle in the driveway with helmet, elbow and knee pads on. Back when our parents didn't worry about where we were till around 11 pm in the summer and we walked out of our yards right in town at 10 years old with a 22. Now the liberal neighbor would be calling in a swat squad and fumbling around getting his pistol out of his eye scan safe and fumbling around loading it and trying to remember where the safety is. Now right there is a accidental discharge waiting to happen and not just the gun.

[Battis]

Keep in mind that these "yuppies" (old term - it went from hippie to yuppie to Generation X to the current Millennials) are currently in the group "Gun owners." If you believe that there is strength in numbers, that's a good thing for us.

[Geezer in NH]

FOTG! Taught at every hunter safety course.

[Ozark mike]

Keep in mind that these "yuppies" (old term - it went from hippie to yuppie to Generation X to the current Millennials) are currently in the group "Gun owners." If you believe that there is strength in numbers, that's a good thing for us.

I always thought yuppie stood for urban hippie

[Bigslug]

One of my favorite examples of how pointless safeties can be: do a search for something along the lines of "Las Vegas P.D. accidental discharge".

In this video, you'll see a fairly small female officer covering a subject that's face down and handcuffed with her Beretta 92 or 96, and she manages to inadvertently cook off a round mere inches from the fellow's head.

The double action first shot on that gun is SUPPOSED to be a safety that is there to ensure the less-trained operator really has to mean it to get a round off, but here we have a woman who can barely get her fist around the grip either powering through that DA trigger like it isn't even there, or somehow found herself in the SA mode and got a nasty shock when she violated Rule #3 and the heavy DA was no longer there.

So there we have an example of a safety feature that isn't, that also serves as a serious detriment to the accuracy of the less-trained shooter. At the point their trained to manage such a design, they probably no longer need the safety measures it is (COUGH!) purported to deliver.

During the brief couple of years while Ruger was trying like crazy to appease the California Safe Handgun Roster (they eventually packed up and bailed) we got the LC-9 CA. That gun had a 1911-style manual safety on top of a DAO trigger, a magazine disconnect, a shark-fin loaded chamber indicator that barely managed to stay below your sight line, AND an ignition key lockout. And here I always thought that a firearm was SUPPOSED to be dangerous.[smilie=b:

I have to think Glock got a great deal right - it won't fire until you press the trigger, but it WILL fire when you press the trigger. This allows an instructor to hammer home the one really important lesson - keep booger hook off bang switch - and not confuse the pupil with a whole lot of extraneous "Lever A in Position B equals Condition C" that they SHOULD keep straight, but often won't

[Lloyd Smale]

During the brief couple of years while Ruger was trying like crazy to appease the California Safe Handgun Roster (they eventually packed up and bailed) we got the LC-9 CA. That gun had a 1911-style manual safety on top of a DAO trigger, a magazine disconnect, a shark-fin loaded chamber indicator that barely managed to stay below your sight line, AND an ignition key lockout. And here I always thought that a firearm was SUPPOSED to be dangerous.
Even worse are the abortions smith and wesson did to there revolvers for a few years. Just what i want to do in the dark naked in my bedroom. Fumble with a tiny key trying to find a tiny hole!!

[tazman]

I own handguns that have that lock but it is NEVER used. I want my guns to function as originally intended.
I shoot all my handguns often enough that I am quite familiar with the operation of their safety features. Enough so that I won't need to think about them when I use the gun.
Any safeties on my semi-autos all work the same so I don't need to worry about which safety is on the gun. That is why I don't and won't own a Beretta 92FS.

[onelight]

I own handguns that have that lock but it is NEVER used. I want my guns to function as originally intended.
I shoot all my handguns often enough that I am quite familiar with the operation of their safety features. Enough so that I won't need to think about them when I use the gun.
Any safeties on my semi-autos all work the same so I don't need to worry about which safety is on the gun. That is why I don't and won't own a Beretta 92FS.
We think alike !
And I think we predate yuppies :bigsmyl2:

[Battis]

keep booger hook off bang switch

That always cracks me up.

Check out the safety on my 1883 Reichsrevolver. You can use it as a kickstand.

It was notable for being one of the few military revolvers with a safety lever, which could be placed in the Safe position when the hammer was at half cock.

the hammer was placed on halfcock, and the revolver was loaded with six rounds. Then, the safety lever was rotated downward, interposing a solid steel shaft behind the hammer that prevented backward movement while the heavy-duty sear in the halfcock notch prevented forward movement. Flipping the safety lever up aligned a notch in the shaft with the back of the hammer and permitted it to be drawn to fullcock position. Thus, a fully loaded revolver could be carried in complete safety yet could be gotten into action fairly quickly.

[mattw]

This has been an interesting discussion so far. I agree, I think of large number of the current sales will come back to market in the next year or two. Most of the libs I know, really should not have one unless it has a safety that asks them "do your really want to shoot y/n" and they have to push a button after entering a password before it will work. A couple are so afraid of them that they can't even look at their new found joy without getting nervous as it might shoot someone.

I have a CPX-1 that came with a package that I wanted... it has a horrible, long DA style trigger and a mechanical safety that is so tiny I am not sure I could reliably find it. Given the trigger pull, the safety is not engaged. Other than that, it shoots pretty well and holds 10.

My 17 yo daughter has been working with me on proper use of an OWB holster, including how and when to un-safety a 1911 in the sequence. She really has begun to slip into automatic, but this has been my goal. She has worked on double and triple taps, from down and ready and now from holster, with a 22 TCM, single and double stack 1911's fit her small hands well. She has been spending time with almost all of my 1911's from the TCM to 45ACP and everything in between. Her favorites are the TCM (double stack) and 45 ACP with moderate 200 grain loads. Very early on during unloaded holster practice she did have a couple of mental issues with forgetting to un-safety and re-safety, but practice made perfect.

My point, these new gun owners will never practice, will never get familiar with and will never safely handle their guns. They are not 2A allies, they are nervous anti's that will get rid of them as soon as they can or will kill someone by mistake and become a bigger anti. A neighbor with more money than brains wanted guns for "protection", from what I am not sure. Asked my advice, did not like it and went out and bought an AR10 and an AR15 in 223 with a really short barrel. When I told him that both would likely go thru any and all walls in his house from one end to the other... the look on his face was priceless. I had advised that he look for a 38 or 357 revolver and maybe one of the wonder striker pistols, but he wanted all those rounds in case he needed them. I advised him to be very situationally aware and to never fire in the direction of one of his kids bedrooms as it would not be safe.

[Battis]

My neighbor told me he wanted to get a gun. I asked him what kind - revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun. He said, "I don't know - I like the looks of a Glock."
I finally convinced him that all he might need is a shotgun. I hope he doesn't list me as a reference.
Sig Arms is ten or so miles from me, and they offer a really good training program where they actually do live-fire. But I know people who have taken the course, and then never fired the handgun after that, never learned how to take it down, clean it, etc.
I'm still more concerned with the dangers of people driving while texting, drinking, etc.

[Petrol & Powder]

I find it interesting how different people perceive manual verses passive safeties.

Some people are mechanically inclined and have a good grasp on how mechanical devices work. They will look at a firearm such as a DA revolver or a Glock and know that the design doesn't need a separate manually operated safety. They have a mental grasp of the passive safeties built into those devices and have an understanding of how they work.

People who are not as mechanically inclined will look at a gun such as a Glock, and immediately proclaim that it is dangerous because it lacks a manual safety. There's really no logic to their assumption, it's just emotion - the gun lacks a manual safety therefore it couldn't possibly be safe.

Those of use that grew up with vehicles that had manual transmissions probably see the parking brake in a different light than those that have only known automatic transmissions. It amazes me the number of people that will park a vehicle on a hill and rely solely upon the Park pawl to hold the vehicle. Those of us that have seen the inside of an automatic transmission, or grew up with manual transmissions, would never rely on that tiny parking pawl to hold a 2 ton car. Not to mention the force required to release that pawl when it's under tension.

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way.

[Thundarstick]

That is why I don't and won't own a Beretta 92FS.

I use a 92G where those ears are only de-cocking devices yet still retains the passive safeties. I shoot mostly DA revolvers so that DA first shot isn't an issue for me, however, on the striker fired passive safety only Sig 365 I carry in warn weather, I do have a tendency to fire the first shot low. I put a little too much pressure on the trigger while coming up to target and the round breaks a little early. Yep the best safety is between the ears, but those passive safeties probably prevent countless NDs from drops.

[Rick Hodges]

My Department had a number of ND's when we first changed over to Glocks. All involved putting the weapon in the waistband sans holster as was routinely done with revolvers and S&W 39's in use prior to the change over. Seems that a wad of material from the shirt/t-shirt would get into the trigger guard and as the pistol was shoved down into position in the belt that wad of material held the trigger while the gun was pushed....firing the weapon. I have heard of the same issue with kydex style IWB holsters with striker fired pistols. In our case it was unfamiliarity with new equipment.

Don't get me wrong, we also had NDs with 1911's (half cock is NOT a safety position), there is still a round in the chamber when the magazine is removed from semi-automatics, we even had a TV set destroyed by a guy dryfiring at "bad guys" with an "empty" S&W Model 36.

I am not picking on police officers, I have investigated more than my fair share of civilian accidental discharges, and I only knew about those that resulted in death or injury.

I am firmly in the camp with "the best safety is between the ears".

[35remington]

Having once had to chase a truck starting to roll down the street (what was I gonna do if I could catch it?) a manual transmission is on granny low if pointed uphill, reverse if downhill, the transfer case in 4Low, parking brake on and if a steep hill a block of wood under the tire for good measure.

[skrapyard628]

I think a bit of the entire discussion about types of safeties all relates back to personal preference and also understanding how the safety mechanisms operate in each firearm.

Petrol&Powder makes a good point above about the fact that some people are just not going to understand the way a specific type of safety mechanically operates and therefore to them it is not safe. Ignorance is not an excuse IMO.

I would wish that everyone who carries a firearm fully understands how the safety on their gun is actually supposed to prevent the gun from firing...But that wont happen.

On the other side of that though is people who do understand how all of these different types of safety mechanisms operate but personal preference comes into play. Ive carried firearms with a few different styles of safeties and never thought twice about them actually being unsafe because of the type of safety mechanism they use. But the preference (for me) is to have a single action hammer fired gun with a manual safety thats cocked and locked when going into the holster. And when holstering I always have my thumb between the hammer and firing pin. Its just personal preference. Its not needed for me to do that when holstering. Just another "safety" mechanism thats being controlled by me.

On the other hand, I dont like decockers. I understand how they work and know that they are safe. But the decocker just gives me the heebie jeebies. Something about dropping the hammer on a chambered round makes my rear end pucker up tight.

[mattw]

Oh man.. I am right there with you... I hate decockers! I get how they work and why they are liked by some, but seeing and hearing that hammer fall on a loaded chamber drives me nuts. I have seen folks use one in unsafe ways, "because it is safe to use it". Drives me nuts, don't point or decock in aa direction that is not safe!

[reddog81]

The design of some guns require a manual safety. A 1911 is an example of a gun that needs a manual safety.

Why does a 1911 need a manual safety? Between having the grip safety, series 80 firing pin safety, and a half cock notch makes it just as unlikely for an accidental discharge as anything else. The only way the gun is going to discharge is if something is pulling on that trigger.

[35remington]

Because when it was designed the military wanted one. Series 80 did not exist at the time nor for most of the existence of the 1911.

[reddog81]

I know the history but that doesn’t explain why it’s necessary (other than the Calvary required it) back then or today. Even without the firing pin safety you’d have the grip safety and half cock notch. John Moses Browning didn’t think it was necessary until the Army requested it.

[Texas by God]

I like the thumb safety on my Shieild 9 because I grew up on the ranch carrying a Colt Huntsman .22 loaded with the thumb safety on in Mexican Carry in my Levi’s every day. YMMV. Later I graduated to a 1911 carried cocked and locked the same way.

[35remington]

At this point it is an integral part of the design. I would guess campaigning for its removal would make it something other than a 1911.

I certainly could see where carrying a cocked and unlocked (no safety) 1911 in bouncy conditions would make some nervous, as in military conditions with your average conscript. Actually the military wanted chamber empty carry with a flap holster. We are lucky the gun had the capability to be carried chamber loaded mostly safely given the technology of the time. The military has a cynical rather than idealistic concept of the gun handling capabilities of the troops it fielded. And for good reason.

It did not trust them to “keep their booger hook off the bang switch” as accidental discharges oft reminded. A safety makes the military feel better.

I have to train to activate and reapply the safety on my AR 15s in proper use and I regard the 1911 manual safety as no great cross to bear. I am in no hurry to remove and deactivate the safeties on my defensive and sporting rifles and shotguns for fairly obvious reasons. Nobody else does that either.

Yet somehow life goes on.

[Petrol & Powder]

Why does a 1911 need a manual safety? Between having the grip safety, series 80 firing pin safety, and a half cock notch makes it just as unlikely for an accidental discharge as anything else. The only way the gun is going to discharge is if something is pulling on that trigger.

I think this has already been answered by others but I'll add a little.

A single action pistol with an empty chamber is fairly safe but after you chamber and fire the first round you have a cocked hammer and a chambered round until the magazine is empty. So without a means to render the pistol safe, your only option would be to remove the magazine and eject the live round from the chamber.

I agree with 35Remington that we are lucky the manual safety was incorporated early on or condition one carry would not be an option now.

As was pointed out, the series 80 firing pin safety was not part of the original design.

The grip safety prevents the trigger from moving rearward but it doesn't lock the sear or the hammer.

A half cock notch is designed to catch a hammer that falls before it reached the full cock position when the trigger is not depressed. A half cock notch is not a carry safety.

The manual safety on a 1911 locks the sear and blocks the hammer.

So the 1911 design does need a manual safety and lucky for us, it has one.

[reddog81]

I think this has already been answered by others but I'll add a little.

A single action pistol with an empty chamber is fairly safe but after you chamber and fire the first round you have a cocked hammer and a chambered round until the magazine is empty. So without a means to render the pistol safe, your only option would be to remove the magazine and eject the live round from the chamber.


How is that any different from striker fired guns?

The half cock notch catches the hammer if it is knocked off the full cock position, not just if it fails to reach it.

With the addition of the firing pin safety you basically have a gun that is just as safe as any modern striker fired gun. I realize the gun would need a redesign in order to eliminate the thumb safety and at that point it would be called something other than a 1911 It seems like peoples preference for the thumb safety is why they think it’s needed.

I realize the thumb safety is easy to use and an integral component of the design at ThIs point but it wasn’t needed until the Calvary deemed it necessary for mounted soldiers.

In the end I guess it all depends on how you define something as a “necessary or a needed” feature. A thumb safety on a Glock would have prevented many accidental discharges while reholstering. Doesn’t that mean it needs a thumb safety?

[Petrol & Powder]

How is that any different from striker fired guns?

The half cock notch catches the hammer if it is knocked off the full cock position, not just if it fails to reach it.

With the addition of the firing pin safety you basically have a gun that is just as safe as any modern striker fired gun. I realize the gun would need a redesign in order to eliminate the thumb safety and at that point it would be called something other than a 1911 It seems like peoples preference for the thumb safety is why they think it’s needed.

I realize the thumb safety is easy to use and an integral component of the design at ThIs point but it wasn’t needed until the Calvary deemed it necessary for mounted soldiers.

In the end I guess it all depends on how you define something as a “necessary or a needed” feature. A thumb safety on a Glock would have prevented many accidental discharges while reholstering. Doesn’t that mean it needs a thumb safety?

OK, fair enough, lets examine this:

"How is that any different from striker fired guns?" -That depends on the design of the striker fired gun. On a Glock, the striker is only partially loaded by the movement of the slide, the full cocking action needed to fire the pistol comes from the force applied to the trigger. And the firing pin block prevents forward movement of the firing pin/striker until the trigger is fully depressed.
On guns where the striker is fully loaded by the action of the slide, I know of none that lack a manual safety or a means to de-cock the striker. For example, the Luger pistol, which was roughly designed in the same era as the 1911, was a striker fired gun and it had a manual safety.

"The half cock notch catches the hammer if it is knocked off the full cock position, not just if it fails to reach it". - True, but it is generally not a carry safety. Its job is to arrest the forward movement of the hammer if the hammer fails to reach the full cock position (like it slips from the users grasp before the sear catches it) or the hammer falls off the sear (such as a worn sear, worn hammer hook or debris allows the hammer to fall when the trigger isn't depressed).

"A thumb safety on a Glock would have prevented many accidental discharges while reholstering." - Only if it was engaged. That's no guarantee that the there would never be a negligent discharge when re-holstering. A person that fails to remove their finger from the trigger is just as likely to fail to engage a safety. Safeties don't prevent bad gun handling, they just introduce another step to the firing sequence and only then IF the user engages the safety.



I'm familiar with the history of the development of what eventually became the 1911 pistol. While the Calvary requested the addition of a manual safety, i think we would have ended up with that safety on the final design, regardless of that specific request. Manual safeties were present in other designs of the era and problem of what to do with a pistol containing a partially expended magazine still would have existed.

[35remington]

Some people do think a Glock is safer with the gadget. Nothing to forget to take “off safe” with that device, but one does still have to remember to use it when reholstering.

I carry appendix and my preferred pistols all have manual safeties. Yes, I know, another layer of complexity and one has to remember to use it, but my choice and my burden to do so.

[reddog81]

OK, fair enough, lets examine this:

"How is that any different from striker fired guns?" -That depends on the design of the striker fired gun. On a Glock, the striker is only partially loaded by the movement of the slide, the full cocking action needed to fire the pistol comes from the force applied to the trigger. And the firing pin block prevents forward movement of the firing pin/striker until the trigger is fully depressed.
On guns where the striker is fully loaded by the action of the slide, I know of none that lack a manual safety or a means to de-cock the striker. For example, the Luger pistol, which was roughly designed in the same era as the 1911, was a striker fired gun and it had a manual safety.

Interesting. I didn’t realize all striker fired guns fully cocked by the action include a de-cocker or manual safety.

[mattw]

I love my 1911's, I am personally glad that it does have the manual safety. I use mine all the time and I had a very high mile 1911 recently fail in that the grip safety tip wore down and the grip safety was not required to release the hammer. But, the manual safety continued to work and made the gun mostly safe until I discovered the wear and had it repaired. I am sure the smith peened the tip of the grip safety and the manually reshaped it.

[Petrol & Powder]

While we're on the topic of the 1911 manual safety; lets consider how it operates.
Most people understand that the manual safety on a 1911 locks the sear. However, it performs a second function and that is to block the hammer.
You can demonstrate this to yourself with AN UNLOADED 1911 pistol. After ensuring the chamber is empty and there is no magazine in the pistol; cock the hammer. While restraining the hammer so that it will not fall, depress the trigger and allow the hammer to move slightly forward (just barely enough that the sear will not catch the hammer) and engage the safety. Then ease the hammer forward. The safety will catch the hammer and prevent it from moving fully forward. So even if the sear fails, the safety will intercept the hammer if the safety is engaged and properly fitted.

While John Browning didn't include a manual safety on some of the designs that led up what became the model of 1911, I believe it is highly likely that the pistol ultimately adopted at the end of those trials, would have included a manual safety. And when Browning did add a manual safety to meet the request of the Army, he designed an very good manual safety.

[Petrol & Powder]

Interesting. I didn’t realize all striker fired guns fully cocked by the action include a de-cocker or manual safety.

I've can't think of a striker fired pistol that lacks at least some type of secondary safety.
Maybe there are some crude copies of pistols made in Pakistan or some place, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[35remington]

If you substitute hammer for striker, which is an alternative meaning of “striker fully cocked by the action” I think that is pretty much true of the old school stuff as well.

[tazman]

I've can't think of a striker fired pistol that lacks at least some type of secondary safety.
Maybe there are some crude copies of pistols made in Pakistan or some place, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

My XDm has a grip safety, one of the trigger safeties, but no decocker or manual safety. It is fully cocked by slide action.
There are some other "safeties" built inside the gun that block the firing pin but no outside manual safety or decocker.
Not certain how that would fit with you definitions.

[Petrol & Powder]

I would say that it has more than one safety.

[Lloyd Smale]

Why does a 1911 need a manual safety? Between having the grip safety, series 80 firing pin safety, and a half cock notch makes it just as unlikely for an accidental discharge as anything else. The only way the gun is going to discharge is if something is pulling on that trigger.

dectonics made a model years ago that didnt have a safety. I owned one and yup i carried it cocked. Ive had holsters rub and disengage safetys on 1911s more times then i can count. Still have all of my toes. Thats even factoring in that most good 1911s have trigger pulls that are half what a glock is. If a man is so stupid as to put his finger on a trigger before he wants to shoot i sure hope he stays away from me. Bottom line is hes to stupid to own a gun. It reminds me of the FA court case where the red neck idiot was playing quick draw and shot his leg off with a 454 playing fast draw. Or the rem 700s that are magicaly going off by themselves. Pretty sad when you shoot your own kid because your to dump to not point a loaded gun at him and actually make a big payday out of it. I guess in a way as long as we have idiots like those its good its at least an option for those with an iq below 60. As to the military. They were not even trained to carry them cocked and locked. They were trained to carry them without a round in the chamber. The safety was there so if they had to reholster or stop shooting in the middle of a mag just long enough till they had time to clear there gun. When we trained for the drug interdiction team thats how we were taught to use them. Soon as we got on station a navy chief (the swimming kind) taught us cocked and locked. I never had shot a 1911 before the service and didnt know a thing about them but he sure did. He drilled us about daily in drawing with our finger off the trigger and flipping the safety as part of the draw till it became muscle memory.

[beemer]

I sometimes carry a Ruger LCP2, It has a hammer that is cocked and is tripped over by the trigger. It does have a hammer block that is part of the sear, I have held the hammer, tripped the sear and took my finger off the trigger, the block works. I looked at and owned couple other small pistols but couldn't operate the slide. When Ruger brought out the LCP2 I found that the slide operated easily. Now the safety part, I refuse to carry it without a holster. I made a soft IWB that allows it to carry very flat. It covers the back to keep the it off my hide and covers the trigger completely. If I remove the pistol from the holster I remove the holster to replace the pistol. I like the pistol but really wish it was DAO. I don't understand the complaints about a DAO trigger on those little pistols, they are close range get off me guns not target pistols.

I think a DAO pistol is a good choice, if someone fires a shot with a SA auto under stress there they stand with a cocked pistol wired up and scared to death. My wife is not a gun person but wants some protection, we tried several but ended up with a Airweight snub. I am sort of partial to them myself.

Speaking of the Calvary, there are a few horse riders around here and I heard an interesting conversation a while back. It seems someone shot a double action revolver at a snake or something while riding. The horse spooked, while trying to regain control the rider accidently fired again. No one was hurt but the rider bought a single action revolver for the obvious reason.

There are a lot of good post here , that doesn't surprise me as we have a lot of combined experience. I try to learn about the safety features on firearm I own and how to handle it properly. If that includes a proper holster so be it.

Petrol and Powder was correct, a little knowledge goes a long way.

Please be safe,
Dave

[cp1969]

I think the safest guns are the ones that have no safeties at all, such as exposed hammer guns. Anything in which there is not enough energy stored in the hammer to fire the round in the chamber; that energy has to be added by the shooter prior to firing. The only thing safer would be a gun with no round in the chamber at all.

After the M700 Remington trigger fiasco (I witnessed two of these accidental discharges), I quit using the M700 safety altogether. I would not put a round in the chamber until it was time to fire.

[35remington]

I also would not pocket carry an LCP2 without a holster and think the regular LCP is better for that. I own both variants and each is carried in the manner that compliments its features most safely. In my opinion. For me the mouse gun is a deep carry backup.

[cp1969]

Why does a 1911 need a manual safety? Between having the grip safety, series 80 firing pin safety, and a half cock notch makes it just as unlikely for an accidental discharge as anything else. The only way the gun is going to discharge is if something is pulling on that trigger.

Apparently the folks who designed the Radom Vis P35 didn't think one was necessary. It has a decocker on the slide, even though it's a single action gun; a second slide lock in the location of the 1911's manual safety; and a grip safety. That leaves you will two choices of how to carry this with a round in the chamber:

1. Leave the hammer cocked and rely on the grip safety, or
2. Drop the hammer with the decocker and re-cock it when you need to shoot, ala Colt Single Action Army.

The only other option is to leave the chamber empty and rack the slide.

267346

[Thundarstick]

On guns where the striker is fully loaded by the action of the slide, I know of none that lack a manual safety or a means to de-cock the striker. For example, the Luger pistol, which was roughly designed in the same era as the 1911, was a striker fired gun and it had a manual safety.

My Sig 365 has a full cocked striker with only passive safeties. Drop the gun, your fine, hang something in the trigger guard (including your finger) and you'll get a loud noise! I carry appendix and pocket, but ONLY in a ridged kidex holster that COMPLETELY covers the trigger. When re-holstering such a gun, especially appendix cary, you make it a very deliberate careful act. You NEVER just shove such a pistol home into the holster without using the proper techniques, unless you don't care about your best friends!

[Petrol & Powder]

But that 365 isn't devoid of safeties, in fact, it has more than one.

[Thundarstick]

But that 365 isn't devoid of safeties, in fact, it has more than one.

Yes it do, but none require operator intervention to disengage, thus no manual safety, only passive ones. They are offering one now with a flick switch for those who just can't bring themselves to carry a gun without a flick switch. It still goes back to failing to understand how the passive safeties work to prevent the striker from falling.

[onelight]

Yes it do, but none require operator intervention to disengage, thus no manual safety, only passive ones. They are offering one now with a flick switch for those who just can't bring themselves to carry a gun without a flick switch. It still goes back to failing to understand how the passive safeties work to prevent the striker from falling.
It doesn't always mean you don't understand how safety's work if you chose a pistol with a long da trigger or a safety to pocket carry . Some of us like the redundancy . I fasten my seat belt even though I have air bags .
I agree totally that the most important safety is between you ears and with that goes being familiar with the manual of arms for what we choose to carry . The odds of me ever needing to use my cc for defense are extremely slim but I handle them several times a day you do if you carry all the time. So I will do all I can to minimize a serious momentary laps in judgement .
I wish I could say I have never made a dumb mistake with tools or vehicles or anything else in my life but I can't.
So even though I know how passive safety's work I will stick to a backup for them most of the time.