Are Manual Safeties on Striker Fired Handguns Heresy??

[maxxhavoc]

To put my pint simple is, to use what works for you.

To put my point simple, pick one and stick with it. And just because the other guy disagrees with you, doesn't mean anybody is wrong.

Since you seem to like M17's, I'll post my carry and bedstand rotation....and one that pretty much stays in the safe except for Memorial day and Veteran's day shoots.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Since you seem to like M17's, I'll post my carry and bedstand rotation....and one that pretty much stays in the safe except for Memorial day and Veteran's day shoots.
View attachment 1014970

There are only two G17s in that pic. One Gen3 and one Gen4, bought were issued guns that I bought. There is a Gen3 G22, that was my first issue Glock that I bought when we went to Gen4s I couldn’t pass them up for $300 each.
I have the one M17, I like it. I also have a M18. I’m on the lookout for a deal on a P320 Carry, without a manual safety.

 

[gc70]

Did the early Glocks have a heavier trigger pull than 5 lb, or has that always been their design standard?

Per Glock's website standard trigger pull weight through Gen 4 was 28 Newtons or 6.3 pounds.
Gen 5 trigger weight was reduced to 26 Newtons or 5.8 pounds.
Competition pistols (34, 35, 40, 41) and the most recent single-stacks (42, 43, 48) have trigger weights of 24 Newtons or 5.4 pounds.

 

[danez71]

If I were in dense brush and more or less immediately dealing with something that might eat me, the safety would still be off, and in that case, rifle or handgun.

Oh, me too, if I thought I was in eminent danger of being eaten. And I get out of there.

In my thick brush example/experience, I was just after little furry animals.

One time camping though, I woke up once to see a bear about 100 yards away... he saw me and scampered away over a hill. Stayed a few more days. I never thought I'd be eaten though; maybe foolishly since all I owned at the time was a 10/22 and a couple of ramline 25 round mags and 1 factory rotary mag.

Good times.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

Once a pistol is drawn from the holster, with the intent to fire if necessary, I don't see any benefit to using a manual safety. That is when your trigger finger discipline comes into play. You need to place your trigger finger in a position where it will not accidentally pull the trigger in a flinching situation.

The Best Resting Trigger Finger Position - Massad Ayoob


I see the importance of a manual safety coming into play when you are about to holster your pistol and/or when the pistol is already in the holster, and/or for pocket carry. The manual safety is there to help protect you from the unpredictable and improbable.

Imagine holstering your pistol, but not noticing that there is a branch, stick, wire, etc., that slips through the trigger guard, and as you continue to push your pistol into the holster the trigger is actuated and fires.

Or for whatever reason your pistol falls out of your holster and the trigger gets actuated on something as it's falling.

Or there is a scuffle and someone is trying to take your pistol out of your holster.

Or you were about to clean your pistol, removed it from your holster and put it on the table, but then got distracted by something and a young kid grabs your pistol and pulls the trigger.

If a manual safety even buys you a couple of seconds, that may be all of the time you need to secure your firearm before someone is accidentally killed.

The point is that you cannot prepare for the unpredictable no matter how much you train. A manual safety might just prevent a catastrophe.

 

[JohnKSa]

Unholstered single-action pistols are often held at the high- or low-ready position and the safety is disengaged (engaged) as the pistol is pointed directly toward (away from) a target. Manipulating the safety does not add time to getting the gun ready to fire.

Ok. What you're saying is that it is possible to manage a manual safety by flicking it on and off when one comes out of and into ready positions in such a way as to not add to the time it takes to get on target. I can agree with that. I'm not sure how practical/feasible constantly engaging/disengaging the safety is, but I agree that it is possible and that if it is done just right it can be done without increasing the time it takes to get on target. I would say that the more often the safety is manipulated, the higher the odds that it will, sooner or later, end up in the wrong position.

Are you seeing this method being taught/advocated?

How does a person infallibly operate a manual safety if they can't learn to keep their finger off the trigger?
How does a person infallibly keep their finger off the trigger if they can't learn to operate a manual safety?

The two things, stated this way, seem the same, but they are different.

1. A person needs to learn to exercise proper trigger finger discipline regardless of what kind of gun they are handling. It's a prerequisite of safe gun handling. So if a person can't learn trigger finger discipline they shouldn't be using a gun at all. That means comparing trigger finger discipline to manual safety usage as if they are an either or situation ignores reality.

2. Operating a manual safety is more complicated than just keeping one's trigger finger in the right place. The safety has to be manipulated both on and off and both actions must be done positively to ensure full engagement/disengagement. Then in addition to that the trigger finger still needs to do its thing safely.

But I absolutely reject the idea there is a single "right" configuration for pistol triggers and safeties.

I have guns in both configurations and carry guns in both configurations. Obviously, then, I believe that both configurations have their place.

I think that in these threads, it's common for people to get carried away and overstate the case for one configuration or the other while exaggerating the problems with the opposite configuration.

Did the early Glocks have a heavier trigger pull than 5 lb, or has that always been their design standard?

The non-competition models have always been over 5lbs, usually closer to 6lbs. However, I'm not sure how relevant that is--if a person isn't following proper trigger finger discipline, they can easily overpower even much heavier triggers than 6lbs.

Glocks don't have a manual safety because it saves Glock literal pennies worth of parts and labor per gun to not install them.

From what I can tell, Glock really believes in the safety system on the guns. My personal opinion is that is the reason they push it, not because of any savings that may result from taking that approach. They have a few twitches like that--the plastic clad magazines are another. They increase the thickness of the mag which reduces the inner size if the magazine for a given size grip. That actually reduces the effective capacity of the magazine. And the cladding is an extra step in the manufacturing process which adds cost. But they stick with it because they think that's how a magazine should be even though it costs them two ways.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Once a pistol is drawn from the holster, with the intent to fire if necessary, I don't see any benefit to using a manual safety. That is when your trigger finger discipline comes into play. You need to place your trigger finger in a position where it will not accidentally pull the trigger in a flinching situation.

The Best Resting Trigger Finger Position - Massad Ayoob


I see the importance of a manual safety coming into play when you are about to holster your pistol and/or when the pistol is already in the holster, and/or for pocket carry. The manual safety is there to help protect you from the unpredictable and improbable.

Imagine holstering your pistol, but not noticing that there is a branch, stick, wire, etc., that slips through the trigger guard, and as you continue to push your pistol into the holster the trigger is actuated and fires.

It is possible but I’ve never seen it happen. Most often what happens is a piece of loose clothing or pull tab from a jacket or gear gets in the trigger guard. When this does happen, it is most often when the shooter is trying to re-holster quickly.

Or for whatever reason your pistol falls out of your holster and the trigger gets actuated on something as it's falling.

You should always use a good quality holster. But there are a lot of people that won’t spend more the $30 on a holster for their $500 gun. But then there’s always the chance that it will show on a hot day in the desert.

Or there is a scuffle and someone is trying to take your pistol out of your holster.

I’ve been in several fights while carrying a gun. I’ve rolled around on grass, dirt, concrete and asphalt with bad guys and never had my gun fall out, but then I also had a level 3 or 4 holster.
Most people that carry have never taken a class on weapon retention.(how to keep someone from taking your gun) I’ve taken several WR classes due to my last profession. I even had a rid broken in one class.

Or you were about to clean your pistol, removed it from your holster and put it on the table, but then got distracted by something and a young kid grabs your pistol and pulls the trigger.

This has nothing to do do with the safety on a gun. The one between the ears should tell you that the first thing you do is clear your weapon. The second thing the safety between the ears should tell you is that no matter what, you don’t leave a loaded gun unattended.

If a manual safety even buys you a couple of seconds, that may be all of the time you need to secure your firearm before someone is accidentally killed.

Some people need to make up reasons to justify what they believe. If you feel that a manual safety is the best way to go, you don’t have to play the what if game to justify it. Go with a manual safety if it makes you more comfortable. Everyone has a different comfort level.

The point is that you cannot prepare for the unpredictable no matter how much you train. A manual safety might just prevent a catastrophe.

Yes you are right. But I have seen where a manual safety almost cost the life of a few gun owners. There was a guy that thought his safety was engaged and pulled the trigger. His gun went off a he shot himself in his left hand.
A friend of mine was driving to the shooting range with some friends. One of the guys in the back seat decided to unload his 1911 and shoot him self in the knee. When asked what happened, he said that he thought the safety was on.
Just remember that people have been shooting them selves, and others by accident for a long time, with all types of guns. 99.99 times it’s the shooters fault not the gun.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

More often than not, the bottom line is what drives most design decisions. What is considered the bottom line also varies considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer. I've seen a lot of pennywise and dollar foolish decisions being made.

If it were my decision I would only manufacture pistols with manual safeties. My reasoning would be that it would make the product line more uniform, which reduces inventory issues, assembly schedule issues, packaging issues, safety testing issues, and marketing issues to name a just few things. That generally saves money.

It would be one more shield against possible lawsuits, which could again save money. Even unreasonable lawsuits without merit cost you money. If you have the manual safety on the pistol that you are selling, you can claim that you did everything in your power as a manufacturer to make sure that the weapon would be as safe as humanly possible to use.

It's also easier for dealers, as they don't need to stock as many variations of the pistol, and that would improve their bottom line.

It's one less decision that a customer needs to make. Indecision can lose a sale.

The customer can always remove the manual safety if they don't like it, and then it's not your fault if a problem occurs. I seriously doubt having a manual safety, that could easily be removed by the customer, would lose many sales, if any at all.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

More often than not, the bottom line is what drives most design decisions. What is considered the bottom line also varies considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer. I've seen a lot of pennywise and dollar foolish decisions being made.

If it were my decision I would only manufacture pistols with manual safeties. My reasoning would be that it would make the product line more uniform, which reduces inventory issues, assembly schedule issues, packaging issues, safety testing issues, and marketing issues to name a just few things. That generally saves money.

It would be one more shield against possible lawsuits, which could again save money. Even unreasonable lawsuits without merit cost you money. If you have the manual safety on the pistol that you are selling, you can claim that you did everything in your power as a manufacturer to make sure that the weapon would be as safe as humanly possible to use.

It's also easier for dealers, as they don't need to stock as many variations of the pistol, and that would improve their bottom line.

It's one less decision that a customer needs to make. Indecision can lose a sale.

The customer can always remove the manual safety if they don't like it, and then it's not your fault if a problem occurs. I seriously doubt having a manual safety, that could easily be removed by the customer, would lose many sales, if any at all.

There are several manufacturers that have gone to court over lawsuits involving guns with manual safeties. There are also many that have been settled out of court.
But this topic is not about how a gun should be designed. It’s about the safety that is or isn’t there.

 

[gc70]

I think that in these threads, it's common for people to get carried away and overstate the case for one configuration or the other while exaggerating the problems with the opposite configuration.

This I can agree with totally.

 

[gc70]

1. A person needs to learn to exercise proper trigger finger discipline regardless of what kind of gun they are handling. It's a prerequisite of safe gun handling. So if a person can't learn trigger finger discipline they shouldn't be using a gun at all. That means comparing trigger finger discipline to manual safety usage as if they are an either or situation ignores reality.

2. Operating a manual safety is more complicated than just keeping one's trigger finger in the right place. The safety has to be manipulated both on and off and both actions must be done positively to ensure full engagement/disengagement. Then in addition to that the trigger finger still needs to do its thing safely.

This is the typical rationale used to promote trigger discipline as the only necessary safety effort and to dismiss the use of manual safeties.

The trigger finger can supposedly be trained to infallibly move from the frame to the trigger and back, but the thumb supposedly cannot be trained to reliably push a lever up or down in the same exact situations in which a trigger finger operates.

Have you ever watched a small child learning to walk and run? Sometimes they cannot coordinate the movement of their legs and they fall down. Or sometimes they cannot coordinate the movement of their arms to provide balance and they fall down. But they learn to synchronize the movement of four separate limbs to get around. People "train" in that activity repeatedly every day and it requires no conscious thought.

I guarantee nobody's trigger finger is smarter or substantially more capable than their thumb. Like learning to walk or run, the mind can coordinate two relatively simple movements (frame-trigger-frame and lever up/down) driven by the same external inputs. There is no rational basis to believe that in the coordination of the movements of the thumb and forefinger, the mind is going to sometimes 'forget' thumb movements but absolutely always remember forefinger movements.

People who feel comfortable with trigger discipline alone should use that approach. People who feel comfortable with also using a manual safety should use that approach. And neither approach should be subject to unfounded criticism.

 

[JohnKSa]

The trigger finger can supposedly be trained to infallibly move from the frame to the trigger and back, but the thumb supposedly cannot be trained to reliably push a lever up or down in the same exact situations in which a trigger finger operates.

Nope, not claiming that the thumb can't be trained to reliably push a lever up or down at all.

Just pointing out that:

1. Having a thumb that is trained to reliably operate a manual safety does not mean that proper trigger finger discipline can be ignored.

2. If a person can't learn proper trigger finger discipline it makes no sense to assume that they can learn to operate a manual safety. That would be true even if operating a manual safety really were exactly the same complexity as proper trigger finger discipline and in reality unlike a trigger which can only be pressed, a manual safety must be operated positively in both directions.

I guarantee nobody's trigger finger is smarter or substantially more capable than their thumb.

That's an interesting claim. I'm not sure it's true, but I'm willing to accept that it's true for the sake of argument. I've not made any claims that statement would contradict. I'm not claiming that the trigger finger is more capable than the thumb, only that if one can't learn to control it properly there's no reason to assume that they would be able to learn to control their thumb properly.

There is no rational basis to believe that in the coordination of the movements of the thumb and forefinger, the mind is going to sometimes 'forget' thumb movements but absolutely always remember forefinger movements.

You want to pretend that I'm saying that I'm saying people can't learn to operate manual safeties. I'm not saying that at all, so your assertions that people really can learn to operate manual safeties reliably are sort of pointless.

What I'm saying is that if a person can't learn trigger finger discipline (which is what supposedly makes a manual safety necessary/desirable in the first place), it makes no sense to assume that they will be able to learn to operate a manual safety properly when doing so is at least as complex as learning trigger finger discipline--and arguably more complicated since it involves a control that must be operated in two directions, not just one.

The common argument for manual safeties goes like this:

1. People can't reliably learn to operate a control on a gun.
2. This results in an unsafe situation. The solution is to add a second control to the gun that when operated properly will solve the problem.
3. People will be able to reliably learn to operate the second control.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that each control is exactly as easy to operate as the other

Then clearly, it is, at the very least, quite difficult to explain why, if statement 1 is true, statement 3 would also be true.

Of course the first control is the trigger, the second control is the manual safety.

You keep saying that 3 is true, but that misses the point. 1 and 3 are contradictory.

And neither approach should be subject to unfounded criticism.

Nothing should be subject to "unfounded criticism". The problem is that everyone thinks their criticism is "founded" unless they're intentionally trolling. Hopefully no one on this discussion is arguing a point that they know is wrong.

 

[gc70]

The common argument for manual safeties goes like this:

1. People can't reliably learn to operate a control on a gun.
2. This results in an unsafe situation. The solution is to add a second control to the gun that when operated properly will solve the problem.
3. People will be able to reliably learn to operate the second control.

I have never heard anyone express the idea they used a manual safety because they could not competently exercise trigger discipline.

At least for me, a manual safety is desirable as an extra margin of safety for guns with very short and very light triggers. Even with well-practiced trigger discipline, an involuntary twitch/jerk reflex can cause undesired finger movements and very short, very light triggers provide practically no margin of safety.

In short, trigger discipline is a given, but some trigger mechanisms warrant a separate device to help protect against wholly involuntary actions.

 

[danez71]

2. If a person can't learn proper trigger finger discipline it makes no sense to assume that they can learn to operate a manual safety. That would be true even if operating a manual safety really were exactly the same complexity as proper trigger finger discipline and in reality unlike a trigger which can only be pressed, a manual safety must be operated positively in both directions.

Conversely, if a person can't learn proper thumb safety actuation it makes no sense that they can learn proper trigger actuation.

Manual safety goes up and down. Two deliberate actions for the lever to move both directions. Repeat as needed.

Trigger goes back and forth. Two deliberate actions for the lever to move both directions; squeaze, release, repeat as needed.



I'm not advocating for manual safeties but I have not yet seen a compelling case that a manual safety is more complex than a trigger. Nor is it more complex than a level 2 or above retention holster that is often advocated for.


Heck, just drawing the gun from a holster and putting on target adds at least 2 deliberate actions of drawing up and getting on target... let's not forget grabbing the grip in the 1st place.

A net zero game of gotcha is often a sign of that no singular absolute answer is possible that fits all people in all scenarios all of the time but still want reassurance that ones choice is the right choice via group think conformity.

Pick your tools and know how to use them.

 

[Homerboy]

The heresy here is trying to make the Glock or something else similar you dont like or are afraid of, or have no experience with, ect, into something it isnt, because youre too lazy to bother learning the gun.

Just like trying to run an AK like an AR or vice versa, doesnt usually work out too well.

And you know why......

Carried a Glock 19 and 26 for years. Have plenty of experience with Glocks and not afraid of them at all.

 

[Homerboy]

It is possible but I’ve never seen it happen. Most often what happens is a piece of loose clothing or pull tab from a jacket or gear gets in the trigger guard. When this does happen, it is most often when the shooter is trying to re-holster quickly.
You should always use a good quality holster. But there are a lot of people that won’t spend more the $30 on a holster for their $500 gun. But then there’s always the chance that it will show on a hot day in the desert.

I’ve been in several fights while carrying a gun. I’ve rolled around on grass, dirt, concrete and asphalt with bad guys and never had my gun fall out, but then I also had a level 3 or 4 holster.
Most people that carry have never taken a class on weapon retention.(how to keep someone from taking your gun) I’ve taken several WR classes due to my last profession. I even had a rid broken in one class.

This has nothing to do do with the safety on a gun. The one between the ears should tell you that the first thing you do is clear your weapon. The second thing the safety between the ears should tell you is that no matter what, you don’t leave a loaded gun unattended.

Some people need to make up reasons to justify what they believe. If you feel that a manual safety is the best way to go, you don’t have to play the what if game to justify it. Go with a manual safety if it makes you more comfortable. Everyone has a different comfort level.


Yes you are right. But I have seen where a manual safety almost cost the life of a few gun owners. There was a guy that thought his safety was engaged and pulled the trigger. His gun went off a he shot himself in his left hand.
A friend of mine was driving to the shooting range with some friends. One of the guys in the back seat decided to unload his 1911 and shoot him self in the knee. When asked what happened, he said that he thought the safety was on.
Just remember that people have been shooting them selves, and others by accident for a long time, with all types of guns. 99.99 times it’s the shooters fault not the gun.

Your two examples aren’t very good ones. In both cases, the user intentionally pulled the trigger because he thought the safety was on. That’s not what a safety is for. A safety is for when you don’t mean to pull the trigger but you do, so the round is prevented from going off. I can’t even imagine the rationale for intentionally pulling a trigger on a loaded gun when you didn’t want to fire, safety on or not.

We all know the real rationale for no safeties. People are afraid that they will need the gun in a life or death scenario and the safety will be on, and it will prevent them from using the gun to defend their life. Of course, that scenario is remotely possible. A scenario that is much more possible is an ND while being distracted or while the gun is picked up by an unauthorized user. But the fact is that nearly all gun owners go their whole lives without using a weapon in actual self defense. Somebody find me a documented case where a safety got somebody killed or injured. For every one you find (if you even can), I’ll find you ten where the lack of one got somebody shot. And the truth is none of this mattered until Glock came along and convinced the masses that they were not only unnecessary, but somehow a liability. Millions of people carried guns with safeties before Glock came along. Nobody minded. Now we have a generation of users who believe all they have to do is “keep their bigger hook off the bang switch” and they’ll never have a problem.

If people don’t like or want a safety then don’t get one. But enough with the derision of those who see their benefit. And stop professing that they are so well trained that it will never happen. The stats say otherwise. Sure, people had ND’s with hammer fired guns and guns with safeties. It is more likely to happen with a striker fired weapon without a safety.

 

[Kleanbore]

Somebody find me a documented case where a safety got somebody killed or injured.

Happened to me once on training, and that was enough.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

My thought on the subject is, there are plenty of strikers available both with and without manual safeties. Everyone can choose for themselves what is best. The only carry guns I care about are my own.

 

[trackskippy]

If people don’t like or want a safety then don’t get one. But enough with the derision of those who see their benefit. And stop professing that they are so well trained that it will never happen. .

Agree totally with the first sentence.

The rest applies either way.

It appears too, that the training issue, seems to be an issue for some. Training, and reinforcing good practices, never stops, or at least, it shouldnt. And everyone benefits from ongoing training. There is no final grade.

The whole point of constant training is to increase skill and reduce problems. Those who think they have attained perfection by earning a certificate or badge, etc, and there is no need to continue learning and reinforcing what they have learned, are wrong and deciving themselves.


Put a loaded gun, safety or no safety on the table and watch it. Is it dangerous sitting there? At what point does it become dangerous? Is it the guns fault when it does?

 

[JohnKSa]

I have never heard anyone express the idea they used a manual safety because they could not competently exercise trigger discipline.

Yes, it's quite rare for a person to admit that the reason THEY personally use a manual safety is because they aren't competent to exercise trigger discipline. For obvious reasons.

But it's certainly common for people to say that problems with trigger discipline (in general, not, of course, as it applies to THEM) is why manual safeties are necessary. That sentiment has certainly been voiced on this thread, even touched on by you earlier in the thread when you commented about how people can't train to eliminate twitch/jerk reflexes or to keep their finger off the trigger in high stress situations--and then again in the post I'm quoting from.

Conversely, if a person can't learn proper thumb safety actuation it makes no sense that they can learn proper trigger actuation.

I would agree with that, but, just to be clear I am NOT asserting people can't learn proper thumb safety actuation. I'm absolutely not making that claim. I hope that nothing I've said on this thread or anywhere else suggests that people can't learn to operate manual safeties because that's certainly not what I believe.

We all know the real rationale for no safeties.

There are more than just one. Here are a few, there are probably others I'm not thinking of.

As you mention, the fear that forgetting to operate the safety properly could cost a person time in a time-critical situation drives some people away from manual safeties.

There are several reasons why people might take that attitude. Some people have actually had an instance in training or at the range where they forgot to disengage the safety--even in relatively low stress situations. Some may have spent a lot of time shooting revolvers and aren't used to manual safeties for that reason. Some may simply not be interested in putting in the extra training to learn to use a manual safety competently on top of learning the rest of what they need to know to operate a gun safely and competently. And then there are the people who just don't want to train at all so they want something that's as simple as possible. I'm certainly not trying to justify all of those rationales, just pointing them out.

Some people aren't so worried about the time issue, but don't want them because they add cost and complexity to the firearm. If a person feels they don't need it, why would they pay the cost to have it, however small? If a person doesn't feel that they need the function, why run the risk, however small, that the parts required to provide it might break or malfunction. The fact that the safety is expressly designed to disable the gun lends some level of credence to this concern. We see this same kind of concern about the gun lock type safeties even though they're far less likely to be accidentally engaged or to break than an easily accessible control.

Some people feel that the presence of a manual safety can cause people to place unwarranted faith in them. That could result in unwise actions. Like pulling the trigger when they shouldn't because the safety is on--or they think it's on. Like putting their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't because the safety is on--or they think it's on. We've all heard the "Don't worry, it isn't loaded." excuse--"Don't worry, the safety is on." is very similar, if perhaps less common. We see this same general kind of attitude voiced by people who say they keep all their guns loaded all the time so they don't ever become complacent.

Some people place a lot of importance on being able to operate a firearm with either hand in case of an injury. Ambidextrous safeties are a lot more common now than they used to be, but even with the large variety of handguns available they still aren't nearly universal. One choice if that's a major concern is to go with a gun that doesn't have a manual safety.

I'm not saying that all of those concerns are necessarily valid (so I'm not going to try to justify any of them), and certainly different people will place different levels of "value" on each of them. I'm just saying it's an oversimplification to assert that there's only one "real rationale" for why people choose guns with no manual safeties.

But enough with the derision of those who see their benefit.

Derision? Like this?

"The argument is always the same stupid mall ninja nonsense."
"The idea that you can train yourself to never make a mistake and touch that trigger when you didn't want to is laughable."
"So I guess you have it all figured out and you'll never make a mistake. Good for you."
"...have been telling the gullible public they don’t need them, and the gullible public bought it hook, line and sinker."

I agree that derision isn't helpful, but I think that just maybe it's a bit more widely distributed on this thread than you imply.

 

[Rexster]

I can be comfortable with no external safety. I DO have a certain level of discomfort, with striker-fired pistols, if the striker is fully cocked, which is why I am much more comfortable with Glocks, which do not have a fully-cocked striker, when everything is at rest. A Glock, with a stock trigger, is much like a double-action weapon. I have never dabbled with aftermarket Glock triggers, because it was forbidden, by PD policy, until I retired, in 2018, and I have not seen a reason to mess with success, since 2018. (A Glock trigger is light-and-easy, after one has learned to use revolvers with 12 to 15 pounds of trigger pull weight.)

I seem to be well-trained to keep my trigger finger safely indexed. What scares me, is the huge number of folks who think that a trigger is a carry handle. I do, very much, wish that those folks would have and use pistols with safety levers, and engage those safeties with religious fervor.

I first learned handgunning with a 1911, which has a safety lever that falls within the natural reach and arc of movement of my weapon-hand thumb, in late 1982 or early 1983. Soon afterward, starting in late 1983, I had to really, seriously learn the S&W DA revolver trigger system, as a police cadet and rookie. So, I learned both ways, to make a handgun fire; SA, with a thumb safety, and DA, without an external safety. I have carried both types, in harm’s way.

When the S&W 3913* was introduced, I learned the Third-Generation S&W DA/SA pistol system, which also has a safety lever that falls within my thumb’s natural reach, and though the movement is up to off-safe, rather than down to off-safe, a very similar forward movement of the thumb will work with BOTH systems: Simply move tip of thumb forward, toward the enemy/opponent/target. It is difficult to remember whether I carried my 3913 pistols on-safe- or off-safe. Either way, I always thought it was important to interface with the safety, as part of presenting a pistol, because safety lever can be brushed or bumped to a different position.

I then learned to use a DA/SA SIG, with a de-cock lever. (I bought this one when my Colt Commander duty/carry pistol started malfunctioning about once per 400 rounds, after a early history of being reliable.) Again, no conflict; I simply draw and fire, like a revolver, and de-cock before holstering. I carried this P220, as a duty pistol, and my usual personal-time weapon, from 1991-1993. (The old-school heel-clip mag release, snagging on the seat back fabric of patrol cars, allowing a partial mag drop, prompted me to stop using the SIG, at which time I resumed using revolvers while on duty, and even dabbling with the 3913 as a duty pistol.)

Plenty of pistol designs, however, have safety levers that just do not fit me. I do not buy such pistols, anymore, because there seems to be a limit to how many pistols safety systems I can keep within my brain. The systems I have learned, work for me. Even if ammo were no so expensive, I would rather not learn yet another new system, with the 10,000+ hours of practice necessary to develop unconscious competence.

*I was a fan of the concept of the Seventrees ASP pistol, a quite expensive custom pistol made by chopping an S&W Model 39. S&W tapped into this interest in miniaturized Nines, by introducing the 3913 and 3914. Needless to say, on a public servant’s salary, I never bought an ASP, but did buy at least one 3913, probably two, financing them by working the then-abundant OT details. I let them get away from me, when I started another 1911 “phase,” in the mid-Nineties, but in a recent post-retirement nostalgia phase, I have acquired well-preserved 3913 TSW, 908, and 3914 LS pistols, and will soon start test-firing them, which may result in a resumption of regular carry of the S&W Third-Generation system.

 

[Jim Watson]

the plastic clad magazines are another. They increase the thickness of the mag which reduces the inner size if the magazine for a given size grip. That actually reduces the effective capacity of the magazine. And the cladding is an extra step in the manufacturing process which adds cost. But they stick with it because they think that's how a magazine should be even though it costs them two ways.

No, what it does is make the butt thicker. Look at the metal magazines of other service pistols, there are a lot of 17 shooters out there. STI 9mm magazines for their .45 size magazine well are fluted to narrow the internal space and hold 17. You can only stagger the cartridges so much.

And I bet ol Gaston's people figured it out with a sharp pencil and they can mold a plastic magazine over a metal liner cheaper than they could tool up for a steel magazine.
H&K put a steel magazine in the USP .45 to keep the butt width of a 12 shot .45 down (not enough for me), but smaller calibers use plastic.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Your two examples aren’t very good ones. In both cases, the user intentionally pulled the trigger because he thought the safety was on. That’s not what a safety is for. A safety is for when you don’t mean to pull the trigger but you do, so the round is prevented from going off. I can’t even imagine the rationale for intentionally pulling a trigger on a loaded gun when you didn’t want to fire, safety on or not.

We all know the real rationale for no safeties. People are afraid that they will need the gun in a life or death scenario and the safety will be on, and it will prevent them from using the gun to defend their life. Of course, that scenario is remotely possible. A scenario that is much more possible is an ND while being distracted or while the gun is picked up by an unauthorized user. But the fact is that nearly all gun owners go their whole lives without using a weapon in actual self defense. Somebody find me a documented case where a safety got somebody killed or injured. For every one you find (if you even can), I’ll find you ten where the lack of one got somebody shot. And the truth is none of this mattered until Glock came along and convinced the masses that they were not only unnecessary, but somehow a liability. Millions of people carried guns with safeties before Glock came along. Nobody minded. Now we have a generation of users who believe all they have to do is “keep their bigger hook off the bang switch” and they’ll never have a problem.

If people don’t like or want a safety then don’t get one. But enough with the derision of those who see their benefit. And stop professing that they are so well trained that it will never happen. The stats say otherwise. Sure, people had ND’s with hammer fired guns and guns with safeties. It is more likely to happen with a striker fired weapon without a safety.

Maybe my two examples weren’t to your liking, but there is the fact that people still shoot them selves with manual safety guns. This is just my opinion, but I believe that some people have a false since of security with a manual safety. I meet a guy years ago that had a nasty scar that ran down his right calf. It was a pretty bad scare. I asked what had happened. He said that he worked nights at a full service gas station when he was younger. He carried a Browning Buckmark for protection. One night he stuck it in his back pocket and when he squatted down the gun went off. He said that the safety must’ve gotten knocked off.
Myself, I was never big on guns without manual safeties until I was forced to use them. The police department I worked for, for just over 20 years issued the S&W 4046 my first two years and then went to Glocks. I didn’t have a problem making the transition.
I’ve been in harms way more then I can count, in the military and as a police officer. I’ve used handguns with and without manual safeties during those times. And I will assure you, fear had nothing to do with the weapon I carried.
I’m not sure if you have read everything that I posted in this topic. Never once have I said that having, or not having a manual safety was right or wrong. I’ve only stressed that one should be comfortable and confident in their choice of Gun that they carry.
Your statement that people carry guns without manual safeties due to the fear of the safety being left on. That sounds more like an opinion (a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge) That would pretty much be the same as saying the a person carries a gun with a manual safety due to the fear of the gun being fired without the shooters intent.
I have no desire to change someone’s mind on what gun they carry, or to convince them that a striker fire gun without a manual safety is better. When it comes right down to it, it a personal choice that a person needs to make.
But I do find that most often, it’s the people that prefer a gun with a manual safety, that will argue that they are right.

 

[Homerboy]

Maybe my two examples weren’t to your liking, but there is the fact that people still shoot them selves with manual safety guns. This is just my opinion, but I believe that some people have a false since of security with a manual safety. I meet a guy years ago that had a nasty scar that ran down his right calf. It was a pretty bad scare. I asked what had happened. He said that he worked nights at a full service gas station when he was younger. He carried a Browning Buckmark for protection. One night he stuck it in his back pocket and when he squatted down the gun went off. He said that the safety must’ve gotten knocked off.
Myself, I was never big on guns without manual safeties until I was forced to use them. The police department I worked for, for just over 20 years issued the S&W 4046 my first two years and then went to Glocks. I didn’t have a problem making the transition.
I’ve been in harms way more then I can count, in the military and as a police officer. I’ve used handguns with and without manual safeties during those times. And I will assure you, fear had nothing to do with the weapon I carried.
I’m not sure if you have read everything that I posted in this topic. Never once have I said that having, or not having a manual safety was right or wrong. I’ve only stressed that one should be comfortable and confident in their choice of Gun that they carry.
Your statement that people carry guns without manual safeties due to the fear of the safety being left on. That sounds more like an opinion (a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge) That would pretty much be the same as saying the a person carries a gun with a manual safety due to the fear of the gun being fired without the shooters intent.
I have no desire to change someone’s mind on what gun they carry, or to convince them that a striker fire gun without a manual safety is better. When it comes right down to it, it a personal choice that a person needs to make.
But I do find that most often, it’s the people that prefer a gun with a manual safety, that will argue that they are right.

That's not my opinion. Every post on this forum and every other forum, youtube channel, and everything else, says the same thing: "One less thing to go wrong when I need it", "A manual safety will get you killed". "I would never have one on a gun I carry for self defense".

I know you are well versed in firearms. Never said you said safeties were wrong. Look back at this thread and see how many see them as an absolute liability to defending their lives.

This thread was misnamed. It's obvious to me that many consider a safety to be heresy on ANY handgun, not just striker fired. It's just that nobody seemed to care before Glock came along and told the gullible masses they weren't needed. And every self proclaimed youtube expert has been repeating that for decades.

 

[Homerboy]

Happened to me once on training, and that was enough.

And you never saw anybody touch a round off when they didn't mean to? Next time you're at an indoor range, look at the walls, ceilings and floors.