Why are popular striker-fired pistols safe?

[westernrover]

I've mostly been a double-action revolver guy, and a uncocked revolver action is normally considered safe simply because of the heavy trigger pull required to fire the gun provided it has a firing pin block or transfer bar, and otherwise there are some antiquated methods to provide drop safety and allow for safer decocking. The safety of a decocked DA/SA or DAO automatic is easy enough to interpolate. And a SAO automatic with a disconnect like the Series 80 1911 is also widely regarded as safe to carry when the safety is engaged, not because the trigger is heavy, but because firing requires two deliberate actions.

Why would any of the popular striker-fired actions be considered safer than a Series 80 with the safety off? Like the Glock, M&P 2.0, or P320. How would these actions be described anyway? Ok, so a spring acts directly on the firing pin to strike the primer instead of acting on a hammer that pivots about an axis or fulcrum to hit the primer, but the spring is primarily cocked or energized by the reward motion of the slide, so the trigger itself is essentially a SAO trigger, albeit it with some blocks and disconnects right?

I understand they have disconnects or blocks that make them drop-safe, so we might regard that issue as settled, but the triggers on these have been advertised or tested at as little as 5.5 or 6 pounds. Plenty of 1911's have trigger weights well over 5 pounds. So is carrying one of these just like carrying a Series 80 with a 6 pound trigger and the safety off?

 

[cheygriz]

A 6lb trigger is getting very close to the DA pull of a quality revolver. (~8-9 lbs)

If a 1911 has a 6 lb trigger it's broke and needs to be fixed.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I've mostly been a double-action revolver guy, and a uncocked revolver action is normally considered safe simply because of the heavy trigger pull required to fire the gun provided it has a firing pin block or transfer bar, and otherwise there are some antiquated methods to provide drop safety and allow for safer decocking. The safety of a decocked DA/SA or DAO automatic is easy enough to interpolate. And a SAO automatic with a disconnect like the Series 80 1911 is also widely regarded as safe to carry when the safety is engaged, not because the trigger is heavy, but because firing requires two deliberate actions.

Why would any of the popular striker-fired actions be considered safer than a Series 80 with the safety off? Like the Glock, M&P 2.0, or P320. How would these actions be described anyway? Ok, so a spring acts directly on the firing pin to strike the primer instead of acting on a hammer that pivots about an axis or fulcrum to hit the primer, but the spring is primarily cocked or energized by the reward motion of the slide, so the trigger itself is essentially a SAO trigger, albeit it with some blocks and disconnects right?

I understand they have disconnects or blocks that make them drop-safe, so we might regard that issue as settled, but the triggers on these have been advertised or tested at as little as 5.5 or 6 pounds. Plenty of 1911's have trigger weights well over 5 pounds. So is carrying one of these just like carrying a Series 80 with a 6 pound trigger and the safety off?

Is it the same? I guess that's a legit argument.

The difference in my mind is the criticality of a holster's integral use with a striker fired gun. I'd never carry a striker gun with a holster that doesn't totally cover the trigger. A 1911 has the manual safety to help maintain safety.

A well made striker gun is drop safe and will only fire if the trigger is pulled. Obey safety rules and use a good holster and it's just as safe in my opinion.

 

[Coal Dragger]

The striker fired guns are relying on built in passive safeties to be “safe”, as well as the striker not being fully tensioned until the trigger is fully pressed to the rear.

I like striker fired pistols but will admit that most striker fired pistols give you a choice between a safer partially tensioned striker with the passive safeties like the firing pin block, or an almost fully tensioned striker with more than enough potential energy to light off a primer with the passive safeties. The latter gives a better trigger pull, but the compromise is a reduced “safety” margin. My HK VP9 is realistically a single action pistol with a trigger bar safety, and a firing pin block, and no manual safety. Both safeties are deactivated by simply pressing the trigger rearward. That’s just reality. So holstering the pistol has to be very very deliberate. So much so that I prefer to put the gun on already holstered. I’m sure never in a big ass hury to reholster.

There are some aftermarket solutions for Glocks to positively control the firing mechanism when holstering like the “Gadget”.

Or you can carry a DA/SA pistol. With some trigger work a CZ or Beretta can give a nice 6.5-7lb DA first shot that gets reliable ignition, and an excellent SA pull. You can place your thumb over the hammer when de-cocked and holstering and positively control the fire control by preventing the hammer from being able to cock.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

A well made striker gun is drop safe and will only fire if the trigger is pulled. Obey safety rules and use a good holster and it's just as safe in my opinion.

My opinion also. If you don't think strikers are safe don't carry one.

 

[someguy2800]

They are as safe as the user because the action of pulling the trigger on a striker fired gun also cocks the striker, so they require a long deliberate pull of the trigger to fire them, much like a double action revolver. The pull is lighter and shorter than a revolver but its the same concept and until you pull the trigger the gun is not in a state that it can fire. It requires a much longer pull than a SA auto such as a 1911. Unless you pull the trigger it can not and will not fire unless something is wrong with it. The amount of safety's in the way of using the gun is a choice everyone needs to make on their own.

I have a life long tendency to forget to take safety's off when I pull up to fire both with rifles, pistols, and shotguns, so I made the decision a few years ago to try a striker fired auto and it works great for me. I consider the first safety mechanism to be the holster. I cannot fire the gun unless I pull the trigger, and I cannot pull the trigger without first taking it out of the holster. Anytime I handle the gun outside of the holster I treat it as if its a 1911 with the safety off. The next safety is keeping my finger out of the trigger guard unless I intend to shoot. The third safety is the long trigger pull. It takes a deliberate movement of the trigger mechanism to make it go bang, so your much less likely to have a negligent discharge from preloading the trigger too much or bumping into something.

I carry a stiker fired 9mm but I shoot competitively with a 1911, so I have shot both enough to make up my mind what is right for me.

 

[Trey Veston]

It's not as safe, IMHO. I carry a Glock with the 3.5lb connector, which equals around a 4.7lb trigger. All of my holsters for it have trigger guards so there is no danger of the trigger being inadvertently manipulated while it is being carried.

Years ago, I did have a holster thumb strap go into the trigger guard upon reholstering. Luckily, I felt something wasn't quite right and didn't push hard enough to set it off. I've been paranoid ever since when re-holstering. My IWB holster has no thumb strap, nor does my kydex holster, which is a level II retention holster.

If Glock started putting manual safeties on their pistols, it would not bother me at all.

 

[Garandimal]

- Safe-Action -




​

GR

 

[Zerodefect]

Nothing is a safe as a cocked and locked 1911. But the unlocked 1911 isn't a fair comparison.

Although it may be best to think of a striker fired pistol that way. Perfectly safe, except for when you're holstering them. Be extra careful then. They only go off when the trigger is pulled. But a floppy holster, jacket pull, etc.,pulls that trigger just fine.

I only use Kydex for Glocks. Crossbreed, Ravens, Bravo, KT.

 

[rpenmanparker]

IMO the Glock concept is BS hype. Glocks are a bad solution in search of a problem. There is no reason for not having a manual thumb safety on it like on so many other striker pistols, e.g. Ruger SR9. For righties the thumb safety is smoothly and easily deactivated during the draw from the holster with no speed penalty whatsoever. For lefties the same is true if a pistol with ambidextrous safety is chosen. Personally I believe a 1911 in Condition 1 is as safe as any other current pistol type, moreso than most.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

There is no reason for not having a manual thumb safety

Not true, there is a reason, that's what many people want.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Don't assume that all striker-fired guns are the same.

• Some strikers are pre-tensioned to different degrees, so that the chance of an accidental discharge can vary.
• A couple of them can be decocked, and a few of them work exactly like a DA/SA hammer-fired, with second-strike capability.
  
• There have been DAO striker-fired guns which function just exactly like a DAO hammer-fired gun.
  
• Some of the Ruger, FNS, and S&W semi-autos are available with frame-mounted safeties.
  
• I think the Israeli military has begun transitioning to Glocks, and some of the earlier acquisitions had frame-mounted safeties.
• The new SIG M17/M18 which won the handgun competition have frame-mounted safeties.
• The XD line offers a grip safety.

Striker-fired guns have been around for a long time -- the Luger (P-08), which is as old as the 1911, was striker-fired and had a frame-mounted safety; I've had a couple of P-08s, and they were great guns!

 

[mcb]

I have always seen the meat-ware as the number one safety mechanism. The rest is just hardware that can't be 100% relied on. Properly train the meat-wear and it really does not matter what hardware you are using the safety will be the same.



I do not see any modern handgun action type as presents more or less of a safety issue assuming the brain running the trigger finger is trained on the selected hardware and is diligently following the four rules of gun safety.

i.e. I am equally comfortable carrying a double action revolver, 1911 or similar manual-safety single-action only semi-auto, or striker-fired semi-auto. Personally I would not be comfortable with a SA/DA semi-auto only because I have never owned or used one more than a few time borrowing friends'. SA/DA semi-auto is not more or less safe IMHO but I would be less safe with it due to my lack of familiarity and practice time. That could be addressed if desire/needed.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I have always seen the meat-ware as the number one safety mechanism. The rest is just hardware that can't be 100% relied on. Properly train the meat-wear and it really does not matter what hardware you using the safety will be the same.

View attachment 816908

I do not see any modern handgun action type as more or less of a safety issue assuming the brain running the trigger finger is trained on the selected hardware and is diligently following the four rules of gun safety.

i.e. I am equally comfortable carrying a double action revolver, 1911 or similar manual-safety single-action only semi-auto or striker-fired semi-auto. Personally I would not be comfortable with a SA/DA semi-auto only because I have never owned or used one more than a few time borrowing friends'. SA/DA semi-auto is not more or less safe IMHO but I would be less safe with it due to my lack of familiarity and practice time. That could be addressed if desire/needed.

You are missing the point. None of us is perfect try as we might. The safeties are there to catch our mistakes. If you don’t make mistakes, you don’t need a safety.

 

[jmr40]

If a 1911 has a 6 lb trigger it's broke and needs to be fixed.

Virtually all 1911's have a 5-6 lb trigger out of the box, exactly the same as most Glocks. The difference is that the 1911 trigger has no take up and is generally much more crisp. The long take up of a Glock makes it feel like a DAO pistol with a very light trigger pull. Which is exactly what it is.

Lots of striker fired pistols also have a 1911 style safety, and I don't see that as a negative. A Glock is my preferred pistol, and as long as it is carried in a holster that covers the trigger guard is as safe as any other pistol. But I think it would be a better pistol with the addition of a thumb safety. If Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Sig, and probably a few others can make a pistol with such a safety so could Glock.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Not true, there is a reason, that's what many people want.

My point is they were taught to want that by...are you ready for this...TAH DAH...Glock.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Ergo, you need a safety.

Lets compromise, you decide what handguns you need and I'll decided which ones I need, deal?

 

[JR24]

IMO the Glock concept is BS hype. Clocks are a bad solution in search of a problem. There is no reason for not having a manual thumb safety on it like on so many other striker pistols, e.g. Ruger SR9. For righties the thumb safety is smoothly and easily deactivated during the draw from the holster with no speed penalty whatsoever. For lefties the same is true if a pistol with ambidextrous safety is chosen. Personally I believe a 1911 in Condition 1 is as safe as any other current pistol type, models than most.

I disagree. With a drop safe pistol having a 5.5 lb trigger with the travel strikers have the safety is pointless, assuming the user uses appropriate respect they should have for any loaded weapon. Though I will admit the SR9 safety is well implemented and intuitive to use.

For the comparison with a safetyless 1911, even with a similar weight trigger, there is a very distinct distance in the length of the trigger travel. 1911s, at least decent ones, will have a short, crisp pull with little take up. Strikers will have significantly longer pulls, seemingly (in my estimation) half a DAO length. That makes a big difference in realizing when you are doing something dumb leaving more leeway.

I dont find safeties necessary on striker fired guns, but do prefer SAO over them due to preference in trigger pull and not being bothered by thumb safeties.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Lets compromise, you decide what handguns you need and I'll decided which ones I need, deal?

Of course. I wouldn’t have it any other way...as long as we can still mouth off about our preferences. Best of both worlds.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I disagree. With a drop safe pistol having a 5.5 lb trigger with the travel strikers have the safety is pointless, assuming the user uses appropriate respect they should have for any loaded weapon. Though I will admit the SR9 safety is well implemented and intuitive to use.

For the comparison with a safetyless 1911, even with a similar weight trigger, there is a very distinct distance in the length of the trigger travel. 1911s, at least decent ones, will have a short, crisp pull with little take up. Strikers will have significantly longer pulls, seemingly (in my estimation) half a DAO length. That makes a big difference in realizing when you are doing something dumb leaving more leeway.

I dont find safeties necessary on striker fired guns, but do prefer SAO over them due to preference in trigger pull and not being bothered by thumb safeties.

Fair enough. I just don’t trust that “appropriate respect” stuff.

 

[JohnKSa]

My point is they were taught to want that by...are you ready for this...TAH DAH...Glock.

Perspective is important. It wasn't like some foreign manufacturer would have had a chance to break into the U.S. LE market if they had to brainwash everyone first.

The reason the general concept of "DAO" autopistols caught on was because LE had already been conditioned to desire the "point and shoot" feature of DA revolvers by U.S. revolver makers. LE already liked the "no manual safety" approach, they just wanted more capacity and better shootability.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Perspective is important. It wasn't like some foreign manufacturer would have had a chance to break into the U.S. LE market if they had to brainwash everyone first.

The reason the general concept of "DAO" autopistols caught on was because LE had already been conditioned to desire the "point and shoot" feature of DA revolvers by U.S. revolver makers. LE already liked the "no manual safety" approach, they just wanted more capacity and better shootability.

Another perspective. Thanks.

 

[labnoti]

I'm glad everyone can have it almost according to their preference. I say almost because let's face it, there's still some lame blemishes out there in the name of safety that truly nobody wants. But the idea of a handgun that cannot be disabled by a manual safety lever goes back to the beginning of the adoption of automatics by institutions and agencies that previously fielded revolvers that did not include safety manipulation in their manual of arms. Fairbairn and Sykes practiced and promoted the idea of pinning safeties on 1911's (and carrying them in condition 3). I don't think they were such advocates of condition 3 as they were, by experience, opponents of manual safeties. Needless to say, they and their practices were heavily influential in police and military doctrine, later especially in police agency doctrine and many people, departments, and institutions came to follow their thinking -- which I would emphasize was not merely opinion based on conjecture, but borne of experience and hard lessons. I have no argument against the idea that condition 1 carry merely requires training, but I also have no experience with failures of that practice whereas there are many people that do. Whether we think those people's bias against condition 1 is justified or not, they do have liberty to hold an opinion and maintain a practice different than ours, whatever it may be.

So we can see a practice that evolved of:

double-action revolver
single-action auto without safety in condition 3
da/sa with decocker and without safety
various striker actions without a manual safety

alternatively, we can see an evolution of:

single action revolver
single-action auto with safety in condition 1
da/sa with safety in condition 1
various striker actions with a manual safety

The question the OP seems to be asking is about the safety of "various striker actions without a manual safety." I believe the answer is they are made safe in carry either by having a DAO action where the trigger fully cocks the striker (I think these are mostly obsolete among duty guns), or by nothing more than a longer and possibly slightly heavier trigger pull that may complete the energizing of a partially cocked striker as well as clearing passive safeties, and a reliance on the holster to protect the trigger.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Look! My striker fired gun has s safety! And it's not even a Glock!

 

[shoobe01]

Anyone can pull through any trigger weight under stress. Documented cases of new cops NDing through the DA pull of autos and revolvers while in stress; e.g. holding a guy at gunpoint, too much yelling and suddenly 22# goes away: bang!

Thumb safeties are a poor solution practically. Too many come off in holsters, and the draw stroke – mostly – has you dropping the safety on draw. So no prevention of NDs as a gun in the hand is a short, single-acton pull now.

So what "safety" means for agencies evaluating guns — and what they mean in advertising to consumers – is not going off by themselves, like when you drop the gun, or administratively handle the gun and grab it wrong, etc. It is the user's responsibility to not pull the trigger until they mean to, and the gun's responsibility to fire every time the trigger is pulled, and no other times at all.