Curious, what's the BEST handgun safety design?

[Jim K]

For a 1911 type safety, the best is probably that used on the Star and Argentine Ballester-Molina. The safety cams the hammer back off the sear by imposing a very solid block in front of it so it cannot fall. If the hammer is struck, it cannot damage the sear, where with the sear blocking system used in the 1911 the hammer rests on the sear and a blow to the hammer will damage the sear and hammer.

Jim

 

[Nom de Forum]

I have fond memories of watching a guy clean the clocks of some 1911 users in the first years after the founding of IPSC. It was a perfect example of personal skill defeating superior equipment. I can agree with you it has a superior thumbsafety, but unfortunately IIRC it does not have a firing pin safety. Something it really needs as a backup if the thumbsafety is inadvertently disengaged or the pistol is dropped.

 

[baryon]

I am surprised no one mentioned the original Walther P99 with decocker. Once the gun is decocked, pulling the trigger will not fire the gun. You have to retract the slide slightly in order to cock the striker.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I am surprised no one mentioned the original Walther P99 with decocker. Once the gun is decocked, pulling the trigger will not fire the gun. You have to retract the slide slightly in order to cock the striker.

Strikes me as more of a potentially fatal flaw than a safety feature. Pun intended .

 

[herrwalther]

I am surprised no one mentioned the original Walther P99 with decocker. Once the gun is decocked, pulling the trigger will not fire the gun. You have to retract the slide slightly in order to cock the striker.

That is because the original P99 and all subsequent generations are DA/SA. When you push the decocker it goes into Double Action. The P99 is one of the few striker fired firearms that does not need to be cycled to pull the trigger, which is great for dry fire practice.

 

[PT92]

Way too unnecessarily over-complicated in my view. I say a revolver or "Glock-like" semi is as safe as it gets. That said, I love the 1911...

 

[baryon]

That is because the original P99 and all subsequent generations are DA/SA. When you push the decocker it goes into Double Action. The P99 is one of the few striker fired firearms that does not need to be cycled to pull the trigger, which is great for dry fire practice.

Sorry, the exact model is P99 QA.

 

[herrwalther]

Sorry, the exact model is P99 QA.

Makes much more sense now. The QA is harder to find than the AS model, I don't think I have ever seen a P99QA. As I recall the QA did not have a decocker, other than the trigger.

 

[barnbwt]

"For a 1911 type safety, the best is probably that used on the Star and Argentine Ballester-Molina. The safety cams the hammer back off the sear by imposing a very solid block in front of it so it cannot fall. If the hammer is struck, it cannot damage the sear, where with the sear blocking system used in the 1911 the hammer rests on the sear and a blow to the hammer will damage the sear and hammer."

That does sound like a clever design. The little Skorparev carbine I'm designing has a safety that pushes the hammer off the trigger and uses its tension on an over-center detent to pull it positively against the trigger to block it as well. The only other modification I think also makes sense is having the sear and half cock/hammer block notches placed parallel on the hammer, so if the hammer unintentionally drops for any reason onto the safety stop, the sear will not be damaged, either. The obvious price to pay is the requisite extra moving part that does the hammer blocking independent of the sear, but I also suspect this role could be done by part of the disconnector to get the part count back down.

TCB

 

[shafter]

The best safety is the one between your ears .

While true, there have got to be better ways of conveying the same point without using this waaaaaay overused expression.

 

[baryon]

Makes much more sense now. The QA is harder to find than the AS model, I don't think I have ever seen a P99QA. As I recall the QA did not have a decocker, other than the trigger.

The QA did have a decocker. It was tiny when compared to the decocker on the AS.
The P99 DAO didn't come with a decocker.

I wonder why the QA didn't become popular. It is exactly like Glock with a decocker. The latest PPQ is QA without a decocker.
It is funny that every new model of P99 removed features and now is exactly like a Glock except the look.

 

[herrwalther]

The QA did have a decocker. It was tiny when compared to the decocker on the AS.
The P99 DAO didn't come with a decocker.

Did not know that. I didn't look at the QA and DAO versions of the P99 as serious options because I could never find them and I prefer DA/SA pistols.

It is funny that every new model of P99 removed features and now is exactly like a Glock except the look.

The PPQ is more like an upgraded version of the P99QA, with almost the exact same internals as a P99AS. So similar, in fact, you can take a P99AS slide/barrel and put it on a PPQ frame, according to the wizards on the Walther forums at least. Just as long as you don't use the decocker on the P99 slide as it won't do anything in the frame.

Glock did make some safety features popular such as the two stage trigger which is on some Walther and Ruger pistols. Some people like those Glock inspired features, some don't. The smart thing a company does is make firearms that a larger group will enjoy. Person X likes Glock features but doesn't like Glock? Sounds like a Ruger SR or Walther PPQ will work. Hate Glock features? A P99, SIG, or HK will work.

 

[Lindy7443]

Glock is nice because so many mechanical parts align at the same time when the trigger is pulled...Takes the thought out of it on the gun side of things...And could agree more w the safety God gave us in our brain housing group.

 

[rs7]

Glock. If you don't pull the trigger, it will not fire. Is this difficult? Do you need a handgun?

 

[barnbwt]

"Glock is nice because so many mechanical parts align at the same time when the trigger is pulled..."
That's exactly what prevents the trigger from being better, though. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs...

Having taken an even closer look at it, I think the R51 safety is extremely effective. Pushing the grip safety drops an internal sliding block (which could obviously be dropped any number of non-grip safety ways), freeing the trigger bar, sear, and hammer-block (second sear) simultaneously. When they are blocked, they cannot be moved out of interference with the hammer. The only way the system could be even more redundant (i.e. effective) would be to somehow block the hammer itself against rotation.

Remington neglected to put a positive firing pin retraction cam/pin block in the gun, but put in a long-travel inertial firing pin with a stiff return spring. Knowing how bad firing pin safeties can make triggers, I think this was the right choice in the case of the R51 at this point (but it's where I'd drop in a trigger-locking manual safety like the five-seven's were I so inclined)

TCB

 

[mgkdrgn]

The one that is between your ears.

Unless it works first, none of the rest will.

 

[Jim K]

I agree on the bit about the "safety between the ears." I certainly do not agree with some who take it further and disable or refuse to use the safety devices that are present. I recall one poster who said he ground off the internal stud on his 1911 safety, claiming the 3 1/2 pound trigger pull was plenty of safety because (you guessed it) the real safety was between his ears.

Jim