A Case against manual safetys?

[delcrossv]

I've heard about that approach. My question is, if you have the grippy handle part and the bad guy has the slippery cylinder part, wouldn't it be easier to just pull the revolver straight back out of his hand? Just wondering.

It'd be easiest for the perp to counter a pull. Twist gives him the least leverage (as you say you have the grip, which is a nice lever)

 

[moosedog]

I know of numerous cases of people/officers not taking their safety off under stress. I would never carry a manual safety gun.

 

[Mister X]

I've heard about that approach. My question is, if you have the grippy handle part and the bad guy has the slippery cylinder part, wouldn't it be easier to just pull the revolver straight back out of his hand? Just wondering.

Unless there is a significant strength difference(in which case they would probably simply disarm you), if they only get one hand on the gun, it would be very difficult for them to maintain a grip whether you drive it forward first, twist it or simply jerk it straight back.

 

[Protected One]

I know of numerous cases of people/officers not taking their safety off under stress. I would never carry a manual safety gun.

I have seen many videos and heard many stories of that happening, but this incident, where the guy DID take the safety off...only to have it RE-ENGAGED (accidentally OR intentionally) adds a whole new twistto the possibilities, to me.

That is the reason I started the thread.

Not trying to change anyone's mind, because I am well aware that people will do what they WANT to do, but those decisions are based on "information"...and this information is something that I fell is worthy of sharing and discussing.

 

[Fastbolt]

If you're going to choose a specific handgun, it would seem prudent to be as thoroughly familiar with not only the way it operates and is supposed to be safely manipulated in ordinary non-stress situations, but anything about its manipulation and function that might present a potential disadvantage during chaotic conditions.

Training acquired in dealing with specific situations might prove beneficial, too, but how many people ever encounter any actual conditions more stressful than putting holes in paper or cardboard targets on a controlled range?

Kind of like learning motorcycle riding skills in a large parking lot, and then hoping those will somehow successfully translate to being "accessible" to you if you encounter an actual emergency situation on the road, at faster speeds, in worse driving conditions and especially involving other traffic.

FWIW, I've watched more than one strong young man discover during a "minimum stress" qual course-of-fire that he wasn't obtaining a grip sufficient to depress his grip safety, and wonder why the 1911 didn't fire even though the thumb safety was OFF.

The 1911 design usually requires bit more familiarization with someone operating both the grip safety and the thumb safety, and having the requisite skillset and experience to maintain awareness and control of both "safeties", including manipulating and operating the gun under stress.

The same could be said of the importance of being thoroughly familiar with the design, operation and intended function of other types of handguns, including revolvers and other pistol designs.

After all, even just considering something as "simple" as having someone "make a fist", and perhaps even learning how to strike a padded practice surface or a heavy bag in a way that doesn't cause them to experience injury. Does that mean they can effectively do it under stress?

It's arguably quite another thing for them to be able to make a proper fist in the chaos of an unexpected and stressful real-life encounter, as well as be able to deliver the fist blow properly, on the intended (and appropriate) anatomical surface, without breaking their hand or injuring their wrist .. let alone do so rapidly and effectively enough to achieve their purpose.

Why would the importance of skill, ability and experience in an unarmed fight be that significantly different than having the presence of mind, ability and experience to use a handgun if involved in a gunfight?

 

[shouldazagged]

Not exactly the same thing, but I know of one real-life incident involving a cop defending himself against a revolver-armed assailant. The cop grabbed his attacker's revolver, and shoved the web of his hand between the frame and the hammer nose, which cut up his hand but kept the gun from firing. The officer ultimately prevailed...

That's one of a number of reasons I chose a concealed-hammer revolver for daily carry.

 

[Dvan34]

I agree with you on the potential danger of some of these non-1911 semi-autos. With the 1911 you look at it and the hammer is down - it isn't going to fire safety or no safety. With the strikers - no hammer visible. Hammer up? Watch out. With a striker you can't tell.I carry a .40 cal M&P I am always very careful with it. Even with a safety, make certain it is on. Many years ago a friend, another officer, wanted me to see his new semi-auto. We were working the 'graveyard shift'. He told me to look in his locker. I don't recall what make it was, not a 1911. Foolishly I picked it up and racked the slide back- it loaded a shell from the full magazine and scared the hell out of me. And I was unfamiliar with handling that weapon. Woke me up! I had assumed that it was unloaded. As I recall we had several accidental discharges in the office, most on the midnight shift. The holes in the wall proved it.

 

[Imissedagain]

Sounds kind of specific.. got something you want to tell us..

Since you asked politely .... just one arrogant sales boy, in a high end gun shop, needed to understand the difference between a decocker, a decocker/safety and why people use them.
When I explained the differences he asked if I was man enough to handle a gun without a safety..... so that was my response to the kid.... helping him to become an adult.

 

[Wise_A]

I agree with you on the potential danger of some of these non-1911 semi-autos. With the 1911 you look at it and the hammer is down - it isn't going to fire safety or no safety. With the strikers - no hammer visible. Hammer up? Watch out. With a striker you can't tell.I carry a .40 cal M&P I am always very careful with it. Even with a safety, make certain it is on. Many years ago a friend, another officer, wanted me to see his new semi-auto. We were working the 'graveyard shift'. He told me to look in his locker. I don't recall what make it was, not a 1911. Foolishly I picked it up and racked the slide back- it loaded a shell from the full magazine and scared the hell out of me. And I was unfamiliar with handling that weapon. Woke me up! I had assumed that it was unloaded. As I recall we had several accidental discharges in the office, most on the midnight shift. The holes in the wall proved it.

Is it cocked? Doesn't matter. It's a gun, handle it safely. I don't go sticking uncocked 1911s in my mouth, either. No, they won't go off, but it's foolish, poor handling to treat a firearm differently just because you think it's unloaded or uncocked. Repetition makes habits, and repeating dumb things leads to big ouchies.

Although if you really must know: trigger to the rear, gun is uncocked. Trigger forward, gun is cocked.

Re: your story--well, how is any of that the gun's fault? If you want to handle a firearm, pick it up, keep it pointed in a safe direction, remove the magazine and verify it's out, open the action and triple-check the chamber, and then continue to treat it as if it's loaded.

Your buddy is also not blameless. Why on God's green earth would you store a firearm with a loaded magazine inserted? It leads to exactly the situation you describe, for no reason whatsoever.

The name of the game in safety is redundancy.

 

[jim lock]

IMHO---Has nothing to do with a manual safety.
Jim