Why are some safety designs considered safer than others?

[Corn-Picker]

People often say that a design that locks the firing pin (e.g. Model 70) is safer than other designs, but why? For example, if a Model 70 had a faulty trigger assembly, and it were tripped while on safe, would the rifle discharge when the safety was released? What is different mechanically about other (non-fire pin locking) designs that could potentially allow discharge on safety release?

Blaser has an interesting design with their R8, where engaging/releasing the safety actually de-cocks/cocks the firing pin. I would imagine that disengaging the safety takes some real effort in this case, because it has to compress the firing pin spring, but I've never handled one so I can't confirm that.

This is mostly an academic question for me, as I hunt cold (almost everyone else in my area hunts with one in the chamber). I'm OK with a deer or two busting me every so often in exchange for knowing that there isn't one in the chamber at all times; just my personal preference. Are there any states that forbid hunting with one in the chamber? Seems like hunting hot is more common east of the Mississippi, where the shots are usually close and game can hear a bolt cycling.

 

[tark]

Some safeties do more than others. For instance, a simple push button safety behind the trigger (most 22s and a lot of shotguns) blocks trigger movement, but does nothing else to secure the firing mechanism. Drop the gun and it is possible to jar loose the sear engagement and fire the gun. Some safeties actually block or lock the firing pin itself. A 98 Mauser and the myriad of designs which use the same system, actually pulls the firing pin away from sear engagement and locks it in place, a very secure system. The M-1/ M-1A/ M-14 safety goes one step further by pulling the hammer backwards out of sear engagement, locking it in place, AND blocking trigger movement. A very secure arrangement.

I have never owned a pre-64 Model 70, so I can't comment on it, but think it works by the same method as a 98 Mauser, which would mean that it is a very good one.

To answer your first question, I am pretty sure that M-70 would NOT discharge if the gun was roughed up and then had the safety disengaged. The firing pin is not touching the sear with the safety on, so they're not banging against one another.

Bottom line: The best safety is the one between your ears.

 

[z7]

Hunting in the hills of east KY i will hike in/out on a cold chamber, the deer see or hear yoy way before you see or hear them in the woods. No point in having a hot chamber.

I abe hunted in SC slipping down roads (large private land, 20,000 acres) i had a hot chamber, you can walk silently and it is common to slip up on deer/pigs at 100 yds or so.
With my 30-30 lever action i grew up with i had the safety on, hammer down but hot chamber all the time

 

[Llama Bob]

The m70 trigger & 3 position safety has a very good record of not discharging due to mechanical failures, as does the Mauser system it's based on. In order for the firing pin to fall on safety-off, the sear doesn't just need to slip the hammer once due to inadequate engagement, it needs to shear off the hook so there will never be engagement again. Otherwise, trigger reset will return the rifle to a non-firing state essentially instantly. The newer m70 MOA trigger is arguably over-complicated but retains this desirable property. Contrast to the m700's two systems both of which can get into a state where reset does not return the rifle to non-fire because the safety does not pull the pin off the sear, and it discharges on safety-off.

With the m70 vs. the current m700 design you also have the advantage that if used as designed you can't have a bolt fall out or the handle get lifted causing your gun not to fire. Both are important for dangerous game rifles and just to avoid embarrassing bolt loss

As far as I'm concerned the m700 is simply a defective design. I current own a couple from before I understood the differences between actions, but will buy no more and would be very happy if they magically morphed into m70s in the safe one night. My m700s are confined to range use at this point.

I see no reason not to hunt in condition 1 (counting half-cock as a safety on JMB-design lever guns) with a correctly functioning rifle. It's safe, and I only want to deal with one manual of arms whether I'm in dangerous game country or not. And a condition 1 rifle is a handy thing to have if 2-legged problems should arise as well.

 

[BrocLuno]

Most durable safety I know is an Arisaka. The push-in round knob safety locks the firing pin. You could prolly run over it with a M1 Abrams and it would not discharge. Not pretty, but very effective

 

[LoonWulf]

Bottom line: The best safety is the one between your ears.

Best advice EVAR! and far to rarely heeded.

Does the m70 or mausers safteys block the triggers? Ive never owned either.

I know the 1903 i had does not and would fire if the trigger was back and the safety fliped off.

Pretty much all the bolt guns i own do not have a firing pin locking saftey, the only ones are the Arisakas, and they do not lock the trigger. My Mini has the same style saftey as the m14 (i assume from looking at diagrams) and that one i find very reliable.

The current Remington trigger design (and all of the after markets that removed the seperate transfer bar thing that the sear actually rested on) is as far as im concerned quite safe. When properly adjusted the trigger s sear contact surface is shoved under the sear, so as long as your not tugging on the trigger when the saftey comes off the sear WILL contact the trigger correctly.

Yah know, i wonder if some of the ADs that get blamed on rem triggers arnt because of how easy it is to reach the saftey with your finger on the trigger, ill admit to having done that once when i first started. Ive watched my buddy do the same thing with my Abolt. One of our other friends complained about one of my 700s going off without pulling the trigger. Its the new style which i made damn sure was correctly adjusted, and i checked it after he told me about it. I could neither duplicate or see how he could have managed it without having had his finger on the trigger.

The designs with the safteis on the bolt shroud i have to rotate my hand or use my index finger to flip. I wonder if that doesn't help keep people from fliping the saftey with thier finger on the trigger.
Id already learned to keep my finger out of the trigger guard by the time i ever handled one so ive got no idea if i coulda done the same thing.

 

[Varminterror]

How safe is safe?

I used to work a lot more than I do now in risk mitigation, was even certified as a risk assessor for a time. Largely, we all work on a risk matrix of likelihood and consequence, then develop mitigating steps to reduce likelihood, and reduce consequence (effectively reducing both frequency and severity).

For a firearms safety, the maximal consequence is loss of human life - in which case, there is no concession. Guys often joke about "if OSHA wrote the rules" for different past times, but there is a reality - for simply climbing stairs in an industrial facility, operators receive elevated work training, and structural engineers are required to abide by certain design regulations, both of which reduce the risk of death. You can never stop someone from tripping down the stairs, but if they maintain 3 points of contact, they likely will not fall to their death if they do trip - that means they have to have one hand free to grab the railing and the railing must be sufficiently designed to provide support AND not allow the body then to fall over or under/through.

Similarly, consider a firearm safety. If the muzzle is always in a safe direction, then an ND/AD wouldn't matter. But one single point failure mode is a trip/fall/drop condition. Muzzle control is lost, and high G impact to the rifle is possible. So... If you worked in a building where semi-trucks drove by at 55mph right outside, would you rather have semi-truck drivers trained to NOT run into the building outside of your office, or would you prefer there be sufficient baluster and barricade design outside the walls to prevent the truck from crashing through the wall and into your lap even if they did lose control? One condition is safer than the other.

So like an office building with truck-blocking balusters, a Mauser, Win, or Ruger safety design which physically blocks striker travel (firing pin) is slightly safer than a simple trigger block or sear block safety, as it doesn't rely upon the sear (a limited contact, wearable service part) to prevent travel.

Now... On the flip side, positive safety is still positive safety. If the sear engagement is sufficient such that a trigger block or sear block safety provides positive prevention of striker/hammer travel, then there is no safer design (as in the design of a mil-spec AR trigger). Safe is safe.

The biggest concerns fall with 1) triggers with insufficient sear engagement - i.e. target triggers which will fire if you slam the bolt home which require extreme operator caution since the mechanical safety is reduced, or 2) with operators who fail to notice a different operating condition upon mechanical failure - i.e. in a Savage, if your striker slips off of the sear, the trigger blade safety catches it, BUT, if you pull the blade, it'll fire before you touch the trigger, BUT, the blade pull will be orders of magnitude heavier than it normally is, and the shooter should be able to notice the difference and STOP themselves. Similarly, in the Rem 700's, when the sear is broken and the safety holds it (at least in every one I've tested for this), you can feel the difference in the weight of the safety throw. Open and close the bolt in either model and it reverts back to a safe condition. I'll admit, if one of my Rugers ever slipped such the striker were hanging on the block safety, I'm not sure I know how to render that 100% safe, since I'll have to release a partial energy striker and push the safety off to be able to open the bolt... So there actually might be a downside to the Mauser type safeties - if they ever save you from an AD, what steps render it unloaded safely without a partial energy strike?

No matter what model you use, you should understand the mechanics of the safety and consider the operating practices you must adopt to achieve what you consider to be "safe." For example, I don't hunt anything except colony varmints with my benchrest rifles which have sub-1lb triggers, as it's simply too risky to have an ND as I carry through the woods, or as I cycle the bolt for a follow up shot (when/if needed). But I carry a G19 with a trigger block safety or an LCP with a recoil-assisted DAO trigger every day.

 

[Llama Bob]

The new style m700 trigger (dubbed X-Mark Pro) has problems too - hence the reason it's subject to an active recall.

Remington should have just adopted the Mauser style safety long ago since both in theory and in 100+ years of practice it's proven far safer.

 

[LoonWulf]

The new style m700 trigger (dubbed X-Mark Pro) has problems too - hence the reason it's subject to an active recall.

Remington should have just adopted the Mauser style safety long ago since both in theory and in 100+ years of practice it's proven far safer.

I dont want to start a "Remington safety" argument, and i agree the wing safeties that block the firing pin do offer some mechanical advantages.

What are the issues with the current ones besides poor assembly?

Also what of the other sear or trigger block safeties, which pretty much everyone besides the mauser based rifles use? The designs implemented differently but the functions basically the same. I rarely hear of issues with any of them. As youll likely guess i prefer the positioning of non-shroud mounted safeties, as none of the guns I own have them...again besides the Arisakas lol.

 

[Llama Bob]

What are the issues with the current ones besides poor assembly?

A very good question. Since Remington has actively lied to everyone involved since the start of this debacle, it's hard to know. What we know for a fact is that every m700 trigger design ever created is currently recalled. According to Remington the post-2014 XMPs are safe, but since they can't explain what they changed in the design relative to the pre-2014 triggers (inspection of pre and post recall rifles doesn't show visible changes) you're basically taking Remington's word that whatever magic wand they waved fixed the problem and that after decades of unsafe rifles they've suddenly gotten it right the 3rd time. After 60+ years of outright lies, my truster is broken.

Also what of the other sear or trigger block safeties, which pretty much everyone besides the mauser based rifles use? The designs implemented differently but the functions basically the same. I rarely hear of issues with any of them. As you'll likely guess i prefer the positioning of non-shroud mounted safeties, as none of the guns I own have them...again besides the Arisakas lol.

Conceptually they're all less safe than the Mauser/m70 design. How much less safe in practice probably depends on tolerances. If they're set up for excessive engagement, trigger pull suffers but safety is increased. I do think it is possible to hand-fit such a safety to be safe (it's done on pistols all the time, although specific checks are required and the parts wear from safe to unsafe) but in a striker-type ignition system there's simply a better option.

 

[jmr40]

The current 700 trigger is a sound design. The recall is due to adhesive getting into the trigger assembly during manufacturing. It is the pre 2007 trigger that is a flawed design.

There is not, nor has there ever been a problem with the 700 safety. I prefer a design that allows the bolt to be locked down. A 3 position design that also allows the chamber to be unloaded while on "SAFE" is a nice feature. But not a necessity in my opinion.

 

[Llama Bob]

The current 700 trigger is a sound design. The recall is due to adhesive getting into the trigger assembly during manufacturing.

And yet there are well documented instances of XMP triggers firing without a pull and with no apparent adhesive contamination. Simply put, it's impossible to trust Remington after decades of lies up to this point and entirely likely that they either do not understand the situation, or are hiding what they know.

 

[Slamfire]

Safeties and triggers are usually two separate units, but not always. The military triggers we are familiar with, such as used in the Mauser 98, are commonly called direct pull triggers. These are the most rugged and reliable triggers ever made. However, shooters wanted triggers with very fine releases and the over ride trigger became universal in commercial rifles. The over ride trigger is somewhat analogous to a trap door. Knock out the prop and the trap door falls. Basically, that is how an over ride trigger works.

This over ride trigger, you can see just how little metal is holding the sear.



Most rifles with over ride triggers, the safety blocks sear movement. I do not consider this as safe or reliable as blocking the firing pin as jarring will sometimes cause an over ride trigger to jar off. Regardless of the safety, be it firing pin or sear blocking, and regardless of the trigger type, a trigger failure will allow the firing pin to go forward. However, due to all the parts, adjustment screws, springs, over ride triggers are more delicate and more likely to get out of order than a military direct pull trigger.

Then within over ride triggers, some are more complicated than others, and some are more reliable than others. The original M70 trigger was one of the best over ride triggers made for field use. Because it was not in an enclosed housing, water and mud tended not to freeze or gum up the things.





I have several target rifles made from M70's and unfortunately the trigger cannot be adjusted to very light trigger pulls. Typically they over ride around 2.5 pounds of pull. I suspect Winchester could have redesigned the things so the lever arm distances were different, they could have made them with lighter trigger pulls. But for their target M52C &D rimfire rifles, they came up with a very complicated over ride trigger mechanism.

The very best military semi auto trigger I have ever seen or used is the Garand trigger. It is very mechanically reliable and capable of being adjusted to a crisp pull






One thing I did not appreciate about the Garand trigger, till I started shooting AR's, is how easy it is to pull the trigger mechanism out of the rifle and clear it of all junk. While I never blew a primer in a Garand or M1a, I have blown plenty in AR's. When you blow a primer in the AR, sometimes it falls down, down, down into the lower. Due to all the grease and oil and powder residue, I had one blown primer that just would not come out. I was unable to dislodge the thing by banging the lower on hard surfaces. I had to knock out the trigger pins and pull the mechanism apart before I could actually touch the blown primer. Now with a Garand mechanism, you can easily wipe and blow on all the components once you pull the trigger assembly out of the rifle.

 

[tark]

Most durable safety I know is an Arisaka. The push-in round knob safety locks the firing pin. You could prolly run over it with a M1 Abrams and it would not discharge. Not pretty, but very effective

Couldn't agree more BrocLuno. The Arisaka safety locks up everything. It is very easy to take off when the gun is shouldered and it is silent. Difficult to apply? No it isn't, try a Schmidt-Ruben or a Mosin and then get back to me.

 

[Corn-Picker]

...

Thank you for the super detailed writeup. Do you know if the mini-14 uses the garand type mechanism? I know the safeties look similar from the outside, but I've no idea if the internal mechanisms are the same.

I find all of this fascinating, it certainly illustrates the saftey design tradeoffs between making a rifle with a nice trigger for deer camp vs one with a safety and trigger designed for the trenches.

 

[Corn-Picker]

Couldn't agree more BrocLuno. The Arisaka safety locks up everything. It is very easy to take off when the gun is shouldered and it is silent. Difficult to apply? No it isn't, try a Schmidt-Ruben or a Mosin and then get back to me.

It is interesting that you mention the 7.5x55, any idea what type of safety it uses?

I've read that they have great triggers, and I've also read that they often have dented stocks because an army drill required pounding tent stakes into the ground with the butt stock. A safety that could stand up to the rifle being used as a hammer sounds like a robust safety, though presumably the chamber would be empty when you were using it to drive stakes.

 

[BrocLuno]

Couldn't agree more BrocLuno. The Arisaka safety locks up everything. It is very easy to take off when the gun is shouldered and it is silent. Difficult to apply? No it isn't, try a Schmidt-Ruben or a Mosin and then get back to me.

Yeah, it's my idea of a truly effective safety. Leave one in the chamber all day every day while hunting - no problem

 

[LoonWulf]

The Arisakas safety is a pain to get at under a scope tho. Same for most militarily rifles of the era, if they even worked with a scope. They are still easier to use than the Mosin and others.

The Mini uses the same basic mechanical theory as the garand and m14 but the parts differ.

 

[BrocLuno]

I agree. Scoping an Arisaka is not a trivial matter. A long eye relief scope like a Leupold VX-R is good. Not long enough for a forward mount like a scout rifle, but one forward enough to be even, or slightly ahead of the safety is good. Or ... Mount the scope a bit higher and add a cheek pad to get the best cheek weld.

The smaller safety knobs are better at this than older more elegant "big bump" knurled safeties from the Type 38 say ... And, if shooting a Type 99, one can use a Last Ditch safety with a divot profile and weld on a flat like a 1/2 washer so it can be easily grasped from the back

No loss of value by welding on a last ditch safety. They were welded from the armory that made them

 

[chicharrones]

It is interesting that you mention the 7.5x55, any idea what type of safety it uses?

I've read that they have great triggers, and I've also read that they often have dented stocks because an army drill required pounding tent stakes into the ground with the butt stock. A safety that could stand up to the rifle being used as a hammer sounds like a robust safety, though presumably the chamber would be empty when you were using it to drive stakes.

The K31 safety blocks the striker, but does not block the trigger.

The safety is actually the striker and its sear surface "lug". With the thumbhole of the striker vertical, the safety is off. If the thumbhole is against the back of the bolt assembly, the gun is decocked. If the thumbhole is away from the bolt assembly, the striker is cocked.

To put on safe, you pull the striker by the thumbhole rearward until the sear lug is exposed, then turn the striker clockwise until you lower that lug into the horizontal cut out. That keeps the sear surfaces away from one another, while decocking the gun and locking the bolt.

You can see an illustration on post 26 from another forum here. http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?192883-K31-trigger-woes#/topics/192883?page=3&_k=o0nn37

Here's another link with some photos to help visualize better.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/k3...-rifle-last-shipment-tack-driving-rifles/amp/

 

[Slamfire]

Thank you for the super detailed writeup. Do you know if the mini-14 uses the garand type mechanism? I know the safeties look similar from the outside, but I've no idea if the internal mechanisms are the same.
.

The Mini 14 does copy many aspects of the M1 Garand action, including the free floating pin. Because of that, there are a number of Mini 14 slamfire reports on the web. Just as with Garand and M1a, Mini 14's will slamfire in battery, and out of battery. It behooves shooters to use the least sensitive primers in the things.

 

[eastbank]

where,s the bitch about pre-82 lever action,s?, i think they are the most unsafe rifles ever made to load and unload for a newbee or in adverse conditiones, not to mention old worn rifles. since 1860 with the first henrys. if you want to be safe, hunt by your self away from other hunters or just don,t put a shell in the chamber on till you are about to shoot and use a single shot, that should cut your odds way down for having any problems while hunting. i don,t wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle and love eating big mac,s with fries too. eastbank.

 

[sage5907]

I hunt alone and I always load the rifle including the chamber at the Jeep and I unload it when I get back to the Jeep. One of the reasons I like a Winchester Model 70 is because the 3 position safety locks the firing pin and it also locks the bolt handle down. I trust these rifles completely and I have never had a problem. The mature bucks where I hunt are woods wise and if they would hear a bolt rattle it would clear the area in a quarter mile circle and the hunt would be over. I do not use elevated stands but if I did I would not climb a tree with a round in the chamber.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Hunting is a sport. A sport is defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill. Those who lack the skill of being able to engage in a sport without taking the required measures to be safe should just stay home. There will always be somebody who will blame his gear for an unsafe condition when the reality is they have total control of everything that happens with that gear. There will always be somebody who will blame a rifle or pistol for a negligent discharge or a pair of skies for hitting a tree. People like these are the ones who sue firearms companies and the reason the PLCAA was passed in congress in 2005. Anyone who hunts in condition 1 should just man up, accept the responsibility that goes with that, and stop trying to scapegoat a company which has no control over how their product is used. Does your mamma know you're in the woods with a rifle?

 

[Jim Watson]

60 Minutes ran an expose on the dangerous Remington 700 trigger yesterday. Typical Left Liberal Media hatchet job, but it is clear that where there is smoke there is fire and the Remington is not secure.

The strangest Remington to me is the 725. Offered as the deluxe model when the very plain 721/722 were standard, it has the large, strong, and convenient safety carried over from the P14 through the Model 30.