Curious, what's the BEST handgun safety design?

[leadcounsel]

There are a variety of handgun safeties. Just to list a few, non-exhaustive list, what are the best safety designs on a handgun, and while we're at it, the worst designs?

This could include the inadvertent impact on the gun due to the design.

There's the 1911 style, single action, cock and lock, grip safety, offering a smooth SA trigger. This style requires a downward sweep of the thumb to disengage.

There's the Glock style internal blocking mechanisms and trigger safety, which has been copied by a few manufactures.

Springfield XD incorporated the grip safety along with Glock style blocking and trigger mechanisms.

There are transfer bars, such as seen in revolvers.

There are the Beretta style decocker safety which rotates the firing pin up and away.

Tanfoglio decocker withdraws the firing pin.

Of course, Browning has a slide/hammer lock system AND a magazine disconnect.

The SW steel frame pistols have a design that blocks the firing pin and also a mag disconnect.

HK designs have both cock and lock, and decocker.

Sig offers a decocker.

CZ offers either a decocker or cock and lock, and on the P07 the user can switch these out.

Some guns offer subtle loaded chamber indicators and some offer obvious loaded chamber indicators.

There are certainly dozens of other designs. What do you like and dislike?

IF you were building a gun from scratch, what features would you incorporate in the design of YOUR new pistol?

 

[CWL]

Not sure if you covered the HK P7 series squeeze-cocker safety. It has been documented that police survived having their guns taken away because the BG didn't know how to work the squeeze-cocker, yet it remains an incredibly fast & accurate pistol for those who know how they work.

But if I had to build my own pistol from scratch, I'd stick with the M1911 design of grip safety + thumb safety combo. My hands naturally know where to go for instant and stable indexing of the pistol to my grip.

 

[AK103K]

what's the BEST handgun safety design?

The one that eliminates human contact with the gun.

 

[TAKtical]

Glock. Keep your booger hook off the trigger.

 

[ClemY]

The answer here is really a matter of personal preference. I prefer the Browning 1911 thumb safety, extended slightly, with no grip safety.

 

[strambo]

Best for what? Mechanical safety or user-interface? the best for user interface is something the user doesn't notice like the Glock or perhaps the HK P7, or a DA/SA without a user-operated safety. The best for mechanical safety would be a transfer bar plus another user-operated mechanical safety.

I personally prefer a DA or DA/SA style setup ala Sig, Glock, revolver OR the 1911 style thumb safety with a nice SA trigger. I really don't like the Beretta's slide mounted safety/de-cocker or the trigger ruining BHP magazine safety.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I always say safety begins with you. Nothing beats common sense.

Laura

 

[savit260]

The best safety is the one between your ears .

After that, I'll go with a single action revolver with the hammer down on an empty. The hammer itself is the safety.

100% drop safe every time.

Pull on the trigger till you're hearts content... it's not going to fire unless you intentionally cock the hammer first, even if something breaks.

Zero chance of an accidental second shot from squeezing on the trigger after your shot.

The chance of accidentally getting it to full cock is nearly impossible and extremely unlikely.

I know this bucks "conventional wisdom" but IMO the act of cocking the hammer is disengaging the "safety".

I don't view cocking the hammer to be any different than clicking off the safety on a semi auto.

Also IMO, the safest handgun design there is.

 

[il.bill]

The best safety is the one between your ears .

After that, I'll go with a single action revolver with the hammer down on an empty. The hammer itself is the safety.

100% drop safe every time.

Pull on the trigger till you're hearts content... it's not going to fire unless you intentionally cock the hammer first, even if something breaks.

Zero chance of an accidental second shot from squeezing on the trigger after your shot.

... .

What savit260 said.

My wife and I have an SAA revolver as our first line home defense handgun. It sits in the drawer in the center of our bed's headboard, loaded with five rounds of SJHP and the hammer down on an empty chamber. No chance of an accidental discharge from dropping it or while nervously fumbling around to take hold of it when awakened from a deep sleep. Only if and when it is actually time to put it to use will the safe condition be "off" by cocking the hammer.

In the event that five shots is not enough, a New York reload is the next step using a S&W Model 10 stored fully loaded nearby.

 

[WestKentucky]

I can add both safeties I have seen on single action revolvers. The heritage guns have a hammerblocker that is accessed by the thumb. My EMF has an offset roller attached to the hammer. Rolled back it lets the gun fire. Rolled forward it hits the frame before the hammer spur gets to the primer. Not to forget the halfcock option.

A third is on TC contenders but that entire system gets confusing when back and forth between rim fire and center fire.

 

[smalls]

Even though I carry a 1911, I'm not a huge fan of manual safeties. I don't feel I have a need for them, I trust the safety between my ears enough. I would prefer something to stop the gun from firing if dropped, and that's it really.

Is there a "best" safety? I don't think so. As long as they work properly I think it's just personal preference.

 

[Nickb45]

With a short light trigger on a 1911 I like the grip safety and thumb safety. The grip safety is pretty much natural, same for the thumb safety since I ride it with my thumb. After that I like the safety system on the XD line, again a "natural" feel. I do agree that the best safety is you but I really like having a grip safety, when holstering a pistol i never disengage the grip safety, on 1911s I also hold the hammer back.

 

[PabloJ]

Picking from the guns I owned and am familiar with it would be Heckler & Koch P7 pistol.

 

[herrwalther]

I think it is a huge pitfall thinking which is the SAFEST firearm designs. Pretty much every modern firearm I can think of IS safe when properly used.

Example: Anything with a grip safety can't be fired unless depressed. So if you are worried about it snagging on a holster, don't grab the grip safety. Glocks are pretty simple but I have still seen plenty of AD/ND with them, namely because they are thought as the safest. Likewise you can put any make and model firearm into google and discharge and probably find someone, somewhere did something stupid. Barring a freak mechanical failure, the safety is you. Not the firearm.

 

[JDR]

You should carry what you can hit your targets with the best; you can make whatever safety you train and practice with work for you!

 

[TRX]

[looking at my Taurus 85]

Safety? What's that?

 

[jad0110]

I think it is a huge pitfall thinking which is the SAFEST firearm designs. Pretty much every modern firearm I can think of IS safe when properly used.

I agree. However, though I own guns with manual safeties and have nothing personal against them, from my own experience I have observed that manual safeties can engender a false sense of security for some people; they seem to rely on the safety lever/switch/whatever to make up for mediocre gun handling technique without really being aware of it.

 

[Skribs]

I think they are all the best. For the most part, you have...

1911s and other single actions, as well as some DA/SA pistols simply have a manual safety. This safety is required for the light, short SA trigger pulls. The FN 57 puts it in an interesting spot, though.

DA/SA pistols tend to have at least a manual safety or a decocker, so the gun can be made safe from the SA position.

DAO pistols have no need for a manual safety, but there is the problem of the heavy trigger pull.

Striker pistols don't need a safety, but some people want them. Most safeties applied here are passive, regardless of the style.

It's all a balance of accuracy and steps. 1911s are more accurate, but require more steps. A pistol like a FNX is probably the most complex you'll see (DA/SA with decocker+safety), but that gives you a lot of options to use the gun how you would want to. Or you can go with the KISS principle and get a Glock or a Sig.

Personally, I like the KISS principle. I would go with a striker-fired gun with no manual safety, and that's what I've done.

 

[SFsc616171]

The best is:
The one that the holder of the gun finds to work best for them, and the marriage of gun safety theory, human contact with the gun, and how the brain makes the two, one.

For those born after the end of The Cold War, it would seem to be some kind of polymer something semi-automatic that resembles John Dillinger's jail gun.

For those born prior to that moment in time, it is a toss-up between a well-made revolver, which have no other safeties than human contact, or semi-automatics made with external hammers and thumb-activated safeties.

 

[ATLDave]

This is a little like asking what the best meal is. There are some meals that are objectively bad and clearly not the right answer, but strong cases can be made for a great many answers.

I personally prefer a frame mounted, down-to-fire safety. Although I have owned other systems, I will no longer buy a semi-auto that doesn't have this arrangement. For me, I find it offers the best combination of features. It is about as simple as a no-external-safety system, because taking off the safety is part of assuming the firing grip (I ride the safety). Yet it offers an "off switch" for when I am holstering or need to otherwise put down a loaded gun. I will buy guns with hammers and guns with strikers, DA/SA and SAO triggers, single- and double-stack magazines, and all kinds of calibers. But, at least for now, I've decided I only buy guns with this safety/control configuration.*

* I reserve the right to change my mind. If I ever come across a P7 at a fair price (ha!), I might pick it up.

 

[Paladin7]

Interesting question, but it may be better to put some parameters around what you are asking... Best for what?

Otherwise, this thread is going to go all over the place like a bad rash...

 

[Nom de Forum]

The best is the one between your ears.

The second best has not been invented yet but will only allow authorized users to fire the gun and prevent discharging toward the authorized user.

 

[barnbwt]

Three Parts to Proper Safety Arrangement IMO

1-Passive safety independent of trigger ("user" safety requiring intent to go live that blocks the trigger, typically a grip safety; a "thumb" safety qualifies as well since well-trained users will flick it automatically as part of their grip making it a passive safety in practice)
2-Passive safety dependent on trigger ("fail safe" to prevent hammer/striker transmission to primer in event of sear failure)
3-Automatic safety dependent on slide ("timing safety" that prevents hammer/striker drop until slide is fully forward; usually is built into the disconnector function)

The "holy trinity" here will give you a gun that is mechanically inert (and redundantly so, so it can incur some severe damage or abuse and remain safe) until the user demonstrates clear intent to fire by grasping it, at which point it is ready to go. Were it not birthed as a steaming turd of Para's malfeasance, the Remington R51 would be a very good example of this. If it lacked a manual slide stop/release lever it would be even better. Personally, I've never understood why rifles (especially semi-autos) seem to almost always lack the second one (a firing pin return spring doesn't quite qualify in my book), and half the first one (requiring a very conscious decision to take off the safety). Especially since they are far, far more likely to be needed quickly in the event of ambush/etc. than pistols given their wide usage. I find it hard to believe they would be more accident prone given how infrequent the issue is with pistols, and I find it hard to believe making the guns faster/easier to bring into use under duress makes them less effective. Maybe I'm missing something

Couple corollaries to the above;
-The two passive safeties must be truly independent of each other (my main beef with the Glock is that it "cheats" by combining both into the trigger; making them both dependent on that single operation renders the action susceptible to unintentional trigger manipulation for no particular benefit)
-The two passive safeties must be drop safe in opposite directions (and not be capable of being deactivated by force from the same direction; i.e. a "butt cheek load")
-Me, personally, I like the controls on a gun as minimal, automatic, and out of the way as possible, so I don't care for levers on the sides of guns; makes them thicker and more awkward than needed (the awkwardness is, I think, for the benefit of new users to force them to think about what they do before doing it while they get used to the gun, and is really not otherwise necessary)

"Simplicity of operation" is not a real benefit of the Glock trigger design, since all the same moving parts and operations are still there, they are just both defeated by a single conscious portion of the shooter's action simultaneously. But that means you lose one degree of fail-safety (if one is defeated the other is automatically defeated and the gun fires). Same as you'd lose one degree of fail-safety were you to remove a firing pin safety--the gun would no longer be drop safe, but would otherwise be perfectly serviceable. But then at least you'd be making a compromise between simplicity and safety redundancy.

If simpler were truly superior, a fully decocked DAO hammer/striker gun with no other safeties (apart from a firing pin drop safety) would be preferred, but they really aren't apart from derringers and other sub-compacts without the room for the extra parts. To me, personally, a gun that automatically (not merely intuitively) gets out of your way when you intend to fire, but is otherwise blocked by multiple barriers, is very appealing.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"The second best has not been invented yet but will only allow authorized users to fire the gun and prevent discharging toward the authorized user."

Well, they're working on the first part (though I guess we'll just have to have faith in the user to fulfill the second part ). But the "Stupidmart Gun" concept fails the first point on my trigger scheme; anything short of having the transmitter implanted into your being* --along with anyone else who at any time (and only that time) would have legitimate need for the weapons-- requires a conscious action to wear and maintain, at least for as long as these components require more care than the firearm action. Moreover, the system is inherently susceptible to input from sources other than the user; I didn't list it since it's so obvious, but of course the gun must not be capable of firing by way of external interference --that's the whole point of the safeties in the first place!

A minor "philosophical" tangent; guns are currently free-agents, inanimate objects capable of neither right nor wrong, serving hero and villain alike (as the intro to Tales of the Gun goes... ). If you truly do key them into particular individuals, render them subject to external forces (remote de/activation), or worst of all, have them govern themselves** --are the guns truly still neutral parties? In such case, banning them out of morality becomes a logical possibility...

*While not a huge deal logistically, is rather unsavory in concept to most folks not accustomed to this Brave New World we now live in with its "mature" nihilism
**We have scopes that are capable of basic ballistic compensation and will let off the trigger after making proper corrections, already we have drone systems capable of detecting and designating targets; in time I fully expect sighting systems to be capable of target discretion if we permit them to take on gun owners' most sacred responsibility.

TCB

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

There's the Glock style internal blocking mechanisms and trigger safety, which has been copied by a few manufactures.

Which Glock copied from the 1893 Iver Johnson Second Model Safety Hammerless revolver...