Auto safety Release (patent Pending)

[Erhan]

Ok.
Firing pin block
Grip safety
Trigger safety
Safety lever
Decocker.......vs...one moving sight! Plus the ability to prevent a missfire with your second hands thumb !!...and bonus is,left right hand use is ready.the gun looks thinner without the outstanding levers...
And for cycling the gun you have to engage the safety,but why you need a safety for a empty chambered gun?.and pull back the hammer reduce the needed force for cycling!

 

[Erhan]

In this mechanic,there is no loaded spring force,wich can lead to missfire!
Even if some force hits the hammer and opes the safety,this wont lead to a missfire!!
There is not enough force in the hammer and there is a second security notch in the Hammer.
The only real disadvantage i can see from your posts,is that you have to cock the hammer for the first shot...you dont like that!

 

[Erhan]

Lack of understanding firearm design...
All the safety features in a common gun are more than 20 parts and springs...against one sight with one spring!.and you talk about the risk of failure of this one part!!!funny

 

[Erhan]

You are talkıng about a moving sight can affect your accuracy..Well,when a good manufactured moving barrel gun can shot accurate like as a fixed barrel gun,then a good manufactured moving sight can be accurate like a fixed sight..

 

[Davek1977]

The modern double-action design was meant to eliminate the need for thumb-cocking. Its not a technique widely used or practiced here, because, frankly, rapidly thumb-cocking a hammer isn't a skill the vast majority of us have ever needed to learn. Most people aren't going to want to "re-learn" their defensive pistol techniques JUST to take advantage of your design. You claim your system is "safer"....I counter with the argument most pistols carried today are "safe enough" meaning most trained individuals have absolutely no safety issues carrying them loaded. While your product shows ingenuity, I don't think its "special" enough that people are going to abandon the training they have already done in order to learn to use your product on a defensive pistol. Again, single-action cocked and locked and double action pistols already have proven safety mechanisms that don't interfere with one's grip, don't move the sights, and are familiar to most shooters today.

 

[Erhan]

Thank you Davek1977
Familiar..re-learn...training...these are arguments that i can understand!
i know also when Gaston Glock bring his first plastic gun on the market,every body was against that..even today there are people who are against plastic guns..But every manufacturer produce plastic guns now!!.... There is always a force against new ideas!!But i really didnt expect,that thumb cocking will be such a major problem!

 

[Erhan]

You claim your system is "safer".....The reason i claim this,no safety on the market lock the slider..no safety on the market give you a second point on the gun to prevent missfire..you may prefer or not..,...My design disable the trigger and there is no loaded spring,wich can cause a missfire...for a pro maybe this points are not interesting.
i have no safety lever,wich you can forget to open!..tghe only thing,but really the only thing you have to do,is to cock the gun with your thumb if you want to fire..Thats all.
My handicap is that you dont feel or use a gun,with this design !!!Maybe when you hold it in your Hand,you will change your mind....Maybe

 

[farm23]

Your idea is igneous but this seems to be a solution to a problem that does not exist. I have carried safely for many years and never had an accident. I would not pay extra for something that solves a problem I do not have. I know we live a in a time when society want us to be in a 'safe place' but at some point we need to take responsibility for our own lives. After saying all this I sincerely hope you are a success with invention and find a market.

 

[TomJ]

Erhan,
I admire innovators like yourself, as without you we'd still be defending ourselves with rocks and sharp sticks. If I could make a suggestion, we seem to be going in circles here, with the consensus from members of this forum being the device you're proposing is not something we're interested in. Perhaps the question you should be asking is what changes, if any, can be made to your device that would make it marketable. There are members more qualified than me that may offer suggestions.
Tom

 

[Varminterror]

Ok.
Firing pin block
Grip safety
Trigger safety
Safety lever
Decocker.......vs...one moving sight! Plus the ability to prevent a missfire with your second hands thumb !!...and bonus is,left right hand use is ready.the gun looks thinner without the outstanding levers...
And for cycling the gun you have to engage the safety,but why you need a safety for a empty chambered gun?.and pull back the hammer reduce the needed force for cycling!

Show us some statistics proving:

1) Common safeties on the market are more prone to failure than your system.

2) your system, alone, is as safe as these redundantly protected models.

Personally, I would not buy a pistol with only one safety which was so easily defeated.

You absolutely do not understand plain English - when unloading at the end of the day, having my slide locked is a problem. I have to make my pistol less safe by defeating your sight safety AND thumbing the hammer to be able to open the slide to unload. Americans don't carry with empty chambers unless required to do so by law in their specific state (relatively rare).

What I see here is a common problem among inventors. You found a niche problem, focused a lot of time, effort, energy, and probably capital into fixing it, and now you can't see the forest for the trees - you're not actually solving a real world problem, but you're so focused on your product, you're blind to that reality.

Your sight safety makes a pistol drop safe - pistols which are already drop safe... so it changes NOTHING. I could not care less about parts count, since these common pistol models have proven their reliability, and I do appreciate having redundant safeties in my pistol. So your lower parts count doesn't actually increase reliability, and if used alone, it DECREASES safety...

Barrels move reliably and consistently. If your sight gets fouled, it will not.

So again - what advantage does it bring?

All you're doing is preventing contact between the hammer and the firing pin when the pistol is at rest. Locking the slide is a wasted feature - no advantage. Disabling the trigger is a disadvantage, I personally would disable this feature if I purchased a pistol with your sight safety. Inertial firing pins, common to almost all modern hammer fired pistols, already eliminate the hammer-to-firing pin contact when at rest. So your system isn't a real advantage - it eliminates contact which was already eliminated.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How is this different from the sight-safety of Browning's M1900 pistol?

 

[Erhan]

Brownings sight safety was a 2 position switch...its just covered the firing pin..to open the safety,you have to switch manually...

 

[Jim Watson]

The other thing to know about the Browning 1900 sight safety was that it was a very short lived gimmick. Colt took them off of guns in inventory and off customer guns upon request, starting in 1901. The 1902 was made without any provision for a manual safety, depending on the inertial firing pin.

 

[Erhan]

Steyr mannlicher 1905 used the safety sight for long years..but yes,it was not a big succes...

 

[Varminterror]

You claim your system is "safer".....The reason i claim this,no safety on the market lock the slider.

Um... 1911 & Browning hi-power. Condition 2 with Sig P238/938... Done. You're flat wrong.

.no safety on the market give you a second point on the gun to prevent missfire..

Your sight safety doesn't prevent misfires either. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a translation error on your part.

Maybe when you hold it in your Hand,you will change your mind....Maybe

I can assure you, there's no magic associated with your design which would change my mind by holding it in person. It's an inferior design, and superfluous to existing safeties.

Answer this question - what height does a Sig 226 need to fall before the inertial firing pin safety is defeated, and does your firing pin NOT fire at that height? (in which case, it'll be working just like an inertial pin, but backwards).

The market paradigms your product is reliant upon are simply wrong. You're not enhancing safety with your product because the products it's replacing are not unsafe, and you ARE slowing down the first shot of the shooter.

 

[jaguarxk120]

You guys have talked about this safety to no end. The real test of it is,
would you buy a handgun with this safety?

For me the answer is NO!!!

 

[Jim K]

The question is not whether I would buy a gun with that safety, but whether it is sufficiently better than the numerous other safety designs already on the market to choose a gun BECAUSE it has that safety. As far as I can see, the answer is no.

Jim.

 

[Erhan]

All right...Thank you very much four your effort to read,understand and answer to this post..i will take my lessons from your thoughts....its time,to go back to the drawing board..

Thank you

 

[Zaydok Allen]

The real test of it is,
would you buy a handgun with this safety?

Absolutely not, and I would discourage anyone considering it for all the reasons pointed out in this thread. The design solves no problem and slows the first shot in a defensive situation.

All right...Thank you very much four your effort to read,understand and answer to this post..i will take my lessons from your thoughts....its time,to go back to the drawing board..

Thank you

Sir, that is the best idea you have presented so far. Good luck.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

You're a bit late to the party...one hundred and eleven years, to be exact. In American English, your system is called a "transfer bar," and it was patented by the Iver Johnson Arms and Cycle Works in 1906.

 

[Erhan]

You're a bit late to the party...one hundred and eleven years, to be exact. In American English, your system is called a "transfer bar," and it was patented by the Iver Johnson Arms and Cycle Works in


Congratulations!!.and thank you....now i know how i can call my design!!!Transfer bar!!..please pull down the transfer bar with your thumb to avoid a missfire!!...

 

[Varminterror]

This is absolutely NOT a transfer bar.

It is the functional opposite, and not mechanically manipulated like ANY transfer bar on the market. A transfer bar, including the original Iver Johnson Safety Automatic Revolvers, include a recessed face hammer which does not contact the firing pin when at rest, then the transfer bar moves up into position to fill said recess when the trigger is pulled. Comparatively, this product blocks the hammer from contacting the firing pin until it is released. A transfer bar does NOT block the hammer from falling, it fits itself between the hammer and firing pin to complete the contact, and TRANSFER the impact from the hammer to the pin. Hence the name, transfer bar. This product does NOT operate in that manner.

Ethan's product is a hammer block safety, that is all.

 

[bearcreek]

Americans don't carry with empty chambers unless required to do so by law in their specific state (relatively rare).

Don't mean to derail the thread but real quick, what state requires carrying on an empty chamber?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

You're a bit late to the party...one hundred and eleven years, to be exact. In American English, your system is called a "transfer bar," and it was patented by the Iver Johnson Arms and Cycle Works in 1906.

Yeah, sorry, but that is totally wrong. In what way do you think this device resembles a transfer bar? This device operates nothing like a transfer bar does.

It is the functional opposite, and not mechanically manipulated like ANY transfer bar on the market. A transfer bar, including the original Iver Johnson Safety Automatic Revolvers, include a recessed face hammer which does not contact the firing pin when at rest, then the transfer bar moves up into position to fill said recess when the trigger is pulled. Comparatively, this product blocks the hammer from contacting the firing pin until it is released. A transfer bar does NOT block the hammer from falling, it fits itself between the hammer and firing pin to complete the contact, and TRANSFER the impact from the hammer to the pin. Hence the name, transfer bar. This product does NOT operate in that manner.

Exactly. Though would it not be more accurate to say that there is a recess in the frame, with a frame mounted firing pin? I know what you mean but the way you wrote that, it sounds like the hammer has a recess in it. Not trying to nitpick just clarify.

 

[Varminterror]

Though would it not be more accurate to say that there is a recess in the frame, with a frame mounted firing pin? I know what you mean but the way you wrote that, it sounds like the hammer has a recess in it. Not trying to nitpick just clarify.

No, I wrote it to mean exactly as you read it - the hammer face in many transfer bar models have a recess so the hammer "nose" rests against the frame and the recess provides clearance over the firing pin until the transfer bar raises into place.

Ruger SBH Hammer


Taurus 85 Hammer, with transfer bar withdrawn


The Smith & Wesson hammer block safety, or other rebounding hammer models are NOT transfer bars, they are hammer blocks - these have a recess in the frame and a flat faced hammer - that is NOT a transfer bar, they're hammer blocks.