Before Gaston Glock came along in the early 1980's, we wouldn’t be having this discussion about the pros and cons of manual safeties because virtually every semi-automatic pistol on the market had at least one manual safety of some type. Why? Because it was the combined knowledge and experience of some of the greatest firearms designers known to mankind that manual safeties reduce (NOT eliminate) the risk of someone being seriously injured or killed when the user makes a mistake and causes something to contact the trigger. Back then, most responsible gun owners would have considered it dangerous, negligent and totally irresponsible to carry a semi-automatic in condition 1 without engaging the manual safety.
Again, let me reiterate that I am not suggesting manual safeties will prevent all accidental or negligent discharges. Any safety can be defeated and I am sure that there have been many scenarios where a manual safety has failed to prevent an AD/ND. However, manual safeties certainly do prevent some AD/ND’s. In my judgment, protecting the user or innocent bystanders from the user’s negligence is a good thing. Some of you obviously disagree.
I have been an avid hunter, shooter and gun collector for over 40 years. When it comes to hunting, I would never hunt with anyone who did not have a manual safety on his gun and keep it engaged until he is ready to shoot. Too many things can happen that can lead to unintentional discharge, such as dropping the gun, snagging something on the trigger, tripping and inadvertently squeezing the trigger, to name a few. Would anyone in their right mind dispute the
the benefit of having a manual safety on a hunting rifle or shotgun? As I see it, there is no downside whatsoever ------ only benefits. You keep the safety on until you are ready to shoot. As you raise the weapon to your shoulder, the safety is clicked-off, you fire the weapon, and you lower the weapon the safety is clicked-on. No lost time. And then you train yourself to constantly check the safety while your in the field.
I know that some of you would like to distinguish long arms from sidearms when it comes to the benefits of a manual safety, but I fail to see a difference. (NOTE: It is not my opinion that revolvers need a manual safety as they are substantially different from semi-automatic pistols and it is very difficult to inadvertently discharge a revolver in double-action mode with a long, hard 10-12 lb. trigger pull.) Once the pistol is out of the holster, you can drop it, snag something on the trigger or inadvertently touch the trigger, just like in the field. The risks of unintentional discharge are the same as with long arms, and the benefits of a manual safety are likewise the same. Moreover, the idea that there is some impediment to operating a pistol with a manual safety because you have to remember to engage/disengage it is “hogwash.” It’s all a matter of training and familiarity with your pistol. Disengaging the manual safety as you are raising the pistol to firing position is a matter of practice which becomes second nature. As many of you have said, there is no substitute for training. In my judgment, if you can not learn to operate a manual safety, then you should seriously question whether you should be using a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense. It’s not rocket science.
I appreciate many aspects of the Glock pistol (I happen to own one). I think they are very rugged and reliable, and shoot well. I think they are excellent combat sidearms in the hands of a highly trained expert. Having said that, I believe they are unsafe for the average user (which includes many LEO’s), because they are they lack a manual safety. Telling the user to rely on his finger is cop-out. I am all in favor of improvements in firearm design that make the weapon more effective, but not at the expense of safety. Glock’s elimination of the manual safety, in my opinion, is a step in the wrong direction.
Most of you will agree that the Glock pistol was designed as a military sidearm for the Austrian Army. Frankly, when it comes to military weapons/technology, I prefer to rely on American ingenuity and know-how. But perhaps someone out there can answer this question for me: Why does the U.S. military demand manual safeties on all of its standard issue long arms and sidearms?
