Why are popular striker-fired pistols safe?

[rpenmanparker]

Not all pistols have safeties, but all have triggers.

In a grab, the hand won't tell the difference.

So you either have to be a dedicated manual safety pistol shooter, or you have to train your way through the problem.
All mine have both. Always have. Always will. Yours could too.



GR

 

[rpenmanparker]

On the other hand, riding the safety of a 1911 doesn't do anything to ensure it's engaged when you holster it.

Quite the opposite. I have no idea where that foolishness came from.

 

[Garandimal]

All mine have both. Always have. Always will. Yours could too.

Have/carry GLOCKS, Sigs, and Springfield 1911's.

Train... train... train...




GR

 

[rpenmanparker]

If you don't ride the safety on a 1911, the problem isn't the safety. The problem is one's grip! People who have low grips often don't realize how much benefit there is to being higher on the gun. My shooting was greatly improved when I switched to guns with frame-mounted safeties... riding them properly forced my right hand higher, and then gave my left had a lot more room to get high on the grip. I simply had no idea how ineffectual I was making my left hand by basically blocking it from contact with my low right thumb.

It's like a built-in grip trainer, sort of similar to those old golf trainer grips that had finger-positions molded into them... they forced a correct grip.

ETA: Go look a pictures of high-level shooters who favor the Glock - such as Bob Vogel or Shane Coley. It's not hard to see that their right thumb is high enough that, if the Glock had a safety in the same spot as a 1911, they'd be riding it.

I disagree. If your hand doesn’t fit with the thumb on top
Of the safety, it just doesn't. Good news is it doesn’t need to.

 

[labnoti]

Skykes and Fairbairn's views need to be understood relative to their time. They published Shooting to Live in 1942. In 1942, techniques for shooting pistols were still pretty much based in the old art of dueling pistols, with one-handed operation being standard.

The point of the post and video showing the thumb under the safety is valid, but Fairbairn and Sykes explicitly denied what you wrote that I quoted above. At the outset of their manual they very explicitly excluded dueling as a legitimate purpose for the handgun being either forbidden or declining in favor where it wasn't forbidden. Instead, they set forth a dichotomy between target shooting and combat. (Handgun hunting was a burgeoning novelty at the time that they were unlikely to have heard much of, bearing in mind that while the book was published in 1942, the author's experience from which they write stems primarily from the 1920's and 30's.)

Here are their criteria:

"circumstances which preclude the use of a better weapon than the pistol -- that is to say, when it is impractical to use a shot-gun, rifle or sub-machine gun."

This should not be overlooked. They understood the pistol as a one-hand gun because if it was at all practical, both hands would be better used on a better weapon. While more and more officers have started carrying M4 carbines in the last decade, most of the shooting affrays they're involved in don't call for the M4's longer range or anti-3A capability. On the other hand, in many cases, they would be better served with a sub-machine gun than a duty pistol. Either way, a handgun is promoted by Fairbairn and Sykes as a compromise for specific unfortunate circumstances:

"Often the only warning of what is about to take place is a suspicious movement of an opponent's hand... If you have to fire, your instinct will be to do so as quickly as possible, and you will probably do it with a bent arm, possibly even from the level of the hip. The whole affair may take place in a bad light or none at all, and that is precisely the moment when the policeman, at any rate, is most likely to meet trouble, since darkness favours the activities of the criminal.... Finally, you may find you have to shoot from some awkward position, not necessarily even while on your feet."

They go on to espouse "point-shooting" or instinctive as opposed to deliberate aim and justify this primarily due to the need for speed. Most training in recent decades has substituted the "Modern Method" developed from competitive target shooting, something which the authors did dismiss. (I am not personally making an argument one way or another. It should be evident that some evolution of the modern method has practically usurped point-shooting in most training).

"There is no time, for instance, to put yourself into some special stance or to align the sights of the pistol, and any attempt to do so places you at the mercy of a quicker opponent."

No Weaver or Isosceles here. Not even a sight picture. In those circumstances, the support hand does not give any advantage, but training with it does hinder the development of one-hand skills.

So no, it wasn't dueling that engendered the one-hand technique through the 20th century. But it was competition target shooting that started the two-handed methods.

 

[Garandimal]

The point of the post and video showing the thumb under the safety is valid, but Fairbairn and Sykes explicitly denied what you wrote that I quoted above. At the outset of their manual they very explicitly excluded dueling as a legitimate purpose for the handgun being either forbidden or declining in favor where it wasn't forbidden. Instead, they set forth a dichotomy between target shooting and combat. (Handgun hunting was a burgeoning novelty at the time that they were unlikely to have heard much of, bearing in mind that while the book was published in 1942, the author's experience from which they write stems primarily from the 1920's and 30's.)

Here are their criteria:

"circumstances which preclude the use of a better weapon than the pistol -- that is to say, when it is impractical to use a shot-gun, rifle or sub-machine gun."

This should not be overlooked. They understood the pistol as a one-hand gun because if it was at all practical, both hands would be better used on a better weapon. While more and more officers have started carrying M4 carbines in the last decade, most of the shooting affrays they're involved in don't call for the M4's longer range or anti-3A capability. On the other hand, in many cases, they would be better served with a sub-machine gun than a duty pistol. Either way, a handgun is promoted by Fairbairn and Sykes as a compromise for specific unfortunate circumstances:

"Often the only warning of what is about to take place is a suspicious movement of an opponent's hand... If you have to fire, your instinct will be to do so as quickly as possible, and you will probably do it with a bent arm, possibly even from the level of the hip. The whole affair may take place in a bad light or none at all, and that is precisely the moment when the policeman, at any rate, is most likely to meet trouble, since darkness favours the activities of the criminal.... Finally, you may find you have to shoot from some awkward position, not necessarily even while on your feet."

They go on to espouse "point-shooting" or instinctive as opposed to deliberate aim and justify this primarily due to the need for speed. Most training in recent decades has substituted the "Modern Method" developed from competitive target shooting, something which the authors did dismiss. (I am not personally making an argument one way or another. It should be evident that some evolution of the modern method has practically usurped point-shooting in most training).

"There is no time, for instance, to put yourself into some special stance or to align the sights of the pistol, and any attempt to do so places you at the mercy of a quicker opponent."

No Weaver or Isosceles here. Not even a sight picture. In those circumstances, the support hand does not give any advantage, but training with it does hinder the development of one-hand skills.

So no, it wasn't dueling that engendered the one-hand technique through the 20th century. But it was competition target shooting that started the two-handed methods.

Again,

Riding the safety - only works on pistols with extended safeties designed specifically for that purpose.




GR

 

[Garandimal]

How do you "ride the safety" on a slide mounted safety like an M9 Beretta?




GR

 

[drband]

manual safeties interfere with the operation of the firearm.

As they are designed to do so.

As stated above, disengaging the 1911 safety is part of the grip technique. No thought required after being trained properly. Trigger discipline is the same.

I fail to see a disadvantage in that setup.

I carry a P938 every day. The grip technique is the same however my thumb slips off the (smaller) disengaged safety while presenting the pistol. It’s the same motion as on a 1911.

 

[ATLDave]

How do you "ride the safety" on a slide mounted safety like an M9 Beretta?


GR

You cannot. Which is why they are dumb!

 

[Garandimal]

You cannot. Which is why they are dumb!

And try riding the safety on this:

​

You can't even tell what position it is in by grip.




GR

 

[ATLDave]

I rode the safety on a friend’s Springfield 1911A1 in October. I have no idea why you think that would be difficult.

 

[Garandimal]

You cannot. Which is why they are dumb!

And this li'l wonder?

​

Will eat you if you ride the safety.

​

GR

 

[ATLDave]

I shot a friend’s rainbow-tinted 938 several years ago. All pocket pistols are pretty miserable to shoot, but I didn’t get injured. Where are you supposing Iwas getting eaten?

 

[Garandimal]

I rode the safety on a friend’s Springfield 1911A1 in October. I have no idea why you think that would be difficult.

That li'l nub right at the pivot point?

Ha!

You can disengage it with effort on a draw, but it's a fiddle-switch after that.




GR

 

[ATLDave]

??? It’s not a fiddle-switch if you keep pressure on it with your grip. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I will post picture of me gripping various guns.

 

[Garandimal]

I shot a friend’s rainbow-tinted 938 several years ago. All pocket pistols are pretty miserable to shoot, but I didn’t get injured. Where are you supposing Iwas getting eaten?

You weren't riding the safety, that's for sure.

And the P938 is a joy to shoot with std. pressure 147 gr. ammo.




GR

 

[Garandimal]

??? It’s not a fiddle-switch if you keep pressure on it with your grip. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I will post picture of me gripping various guns.

You keep saying that in an academic sense.

The shooting reality is that it's a little fiddle-switch.

I can hardly even reach that li'l nub from around the hammer guard (beavertail).

Only the purpose-built extended safeties do that well.




GR

 

[ATLDave]

You keep talking like I’ve never shot a 1911A1. I have. Numerous times. I dislike the rat-tail safety and the lousy sights. But the safety isn’t unrideble.

 

[Zerodefect]

I can ride the A1 safety just fine. I prefer grinding off the rear of the paddle for a more forward thumb angle.

Thumbs high and forward, especially with Glocks.

 

[Garandimal]

You keep talking like I’ve never shot a 1911A1. I have. Numerous times. I dislike the rat-tail safety and the lousy sights. But the safety isn’t unrideble.

The sights on the Springfield 1911-A1 are high profile three-dot and outstanding.

The small/close/high//round/smooth fiddle-switch manual safety is unobtrusive at best.


Try riding the safety on an M&P Shield.

Ha!




GR

 

[rpenmanparker]

None are so blind as they who will not see.

 

[Garandimal]

I can ride the A1 safety just fine. I prefer grinding off the rear of the paddle for a more forward thumb angle.

Thumbs high and forward, especially with Glocks.

On the OEM Springfield, that's under the fiddle-switch.




GR

 

[ATLDave]

Here are photos of my right-hand gripping 4 different guns riding the frame-mounted safety. Some of the safeties are pretty small, some are pretty large. They’re all in slightly different spots, but they all force a good, high grip that leaves lots of room for the left hand heel to get usefully high with lots of contact.

I think it’s pretty apparent from the photos I don’t have unusually large hands or orangutan-like fingers. Pretty much everyone can ride the safety on the vast majority of frame-mounted down-to-fire safeties.

 

[Garandimal]

Here are photos of my right-hand gripping 4 different guns riding the frame-mounted safety. Some of the safeties are pretty small, some are pretty large. They’re all in slightly different spots, but they all force a good, high grip that leaves lots of room for the left hand heel to get usefully high with lots of contact.

I think it’s pretty apparent from the photos I don’t have unusually large hands or orangutan-like fingers. Pretty much everyone can ride the safety on the vast majority of frame-mounted down-to-fire safeties.


View attachment 817077 View attachment 817078 View attachment 817079 View attachment 817080

Now, show us a picture of you riding a fiddle-switch like an OEM Springfield MIL-SPEC 1911-A1, Sig P938, or M&P Shield, and hitting anything while manipulating the safety under pressure between rounds.

Ha!




GR

 

[ATLDave]

I don’t own any of those, so I can’t run take a snap of them in my grip. I however have shot them all. I rode the safety on each (though the 938 was years ago and I wouldnt absolutely swear to it... though I simply never DON’T ride a safety that is there). I repeat: I have no idea why you think any of this is particularly difficult. Be specific about what you contend makes it impossible.