CouchPotato
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2022
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 290
I personally believe that choosing a carry gun with or without a manual safety is entirely a personal choice and it's very important that we continue to have that choice. One's carry style, competency level, training frequency, and preexisting muscle memory must be taken into account.
The culture of advocating against manual safeties and scolding manufacturers who offer them needs to come to an end. Instead, it needs to be replaced with a culture of reinforcing repetitive dry-fire practice so as to develop muscle memory on whatever platform you choose, with or without a safety.
Considering the millions of first-time gun owners around the country who are conceal carrying for the first time, do you really think it's responsible for so many influencers to be vehemently advocating against carrying a firearm that has a manual safety?
Holster design, quality, and proper usage is a major factor as well, however how many people are carrying cheap or inadequate holsters though? How many just don't know better? There are far more YouTube videos where the influencer disparages the carry of a gun with a manual safety than there are talking about what goes into the design of a proper holster.
Just look at the plethora of holster options that do not offer a proper trigger guard, and/or are flimsy with poor retention. If some holster manufacturers don't know better, how can you expect the general public at large to know better?
The obvious argument against a manual safety is that in a high stress defensive situation, a person may forget to disengage the manual safety, especially if they're accustomed to a platform that does not include a manual safety, and most especially if they don't practice disengaging the safety.
Training and repetitive practice truly is the determining factor with regard to one's ability to properly operate a firearm in a high stress defensive situation, including the successful disengagement of the manual safety. Focus, discipline, practice, proper technique, and a proper holster set up are critical factors for everyday handling.
Humans are not machines and we are all prone to momentary lapses of focus or discipline, especially those who don't train and practice as much as others do. Regardless of training level, accidents and circumstances that are outside of our control can happen to anyone, especially when we're relaxed, distracted, preoccupied, or our guard is down.
I believe that the abundance of external and internal passive safeties on modern striker fired guns gives people a false sense of security. Those things do make accidents less likely, but definitely do not rule them out entirely. Obviously, the human is the most unreliable and inconsistent variable.
It's far too easy to look at another person's accident and dismiss it as negligence and improper handling, which nearly every time, it definitely is. The instances of manufacturer defect appear to be exceedingly rare, but do exist. With nearly all cases of accidental/negligent discharges, the human was the defect, and not the firearm. Holster defects and failures are another consideration. Regardless if a firearm is discharged inadvertently due to human or mechanical defect, the price of failure is the same, and it's excessively high.
I have never encountered a human who is infallible and I've never heard of a manufactured item which has a zero failure rate. Even a device as simple as a wheel can fail, especially if you involve a human user in the equation.
A manual safety, when engaged, offers a layer of protection against the human factor.
Before you argue that modern striker fired guns do not need a manual safety, I challenge you to search through social media, such as YouTube, and watch videos of negligent discharges and also read the different stories online.
For OWB carry, I'm far less concerned about a manual safety when a proper holster is used. However, for IWB in any position, I think there are many legitimate concerns, especially considering different body types and holster styles.
Personally, if a firearm is going inside of my pants, it must have a manual safety, and I don't care how uncool and unpopular it is. For that reason, I also will not purchase a concealable sized gun that does not have a manual safety.
What you put in your pants is your business. The ability to choose, and the freedom to do so is extremely important.
I like striker fired gun models that offer the choice of a manual safety. As a right-handed person, the one-sided and low-profile safety on the M&P Shield is my preference. A one-sided safety that presses against my body while holstered offers the unique advantage of not being able to be disengaged by external forces, such as bumping into something, or a dog jumping up to greet me with it's paws swiping along my waist line.
While I can operate my M&P Shield and its safety just fine with my left hand when necessary, imagine the shockwave S&W would cause in the market if they made a true left-hand version of the M&P Shield.
Choices are good. Dogma and group-think are bad.
The culture of advocating against manual safeties and scolding manufacturers who offer them needs to come to an end. Instead, it needs to be replaced with a culture of reinforcing repetitive dry-fire practice so as to develop muscle memory on whatever platform you choose, with or without a safety.
Considering the millions of first-time gun owners around the country who are conceal carrying for the first time, do you really think it's responsible for so many influencers to be vehemently advocating against carrying a firearm that has a manual safety?
Holster design, quality, and proper usage is a major factor as well, however how many people are carrying cheap or inadequate holsters though? How many just don't know better? There are far more YouTube videos where the influencer disparages the carry of a gun with a manual safety than there are talking about what goes into the design of a proper holster.
Just look at the plethora of holster options that do not offer a proper trigger guard, and/or are flimsy with poor retention. If some holster manufacturers don't know better, how can you expect the general public at large to know better?
The obvious argument against a manual safety is that in a high stress defensive situation, a person may forget to disengage the manual safety, especially if they're accustomed to a platform that does not include a manual safety, and most especially if they don't practice disengaging the safety.
Training and repetitive practice truly is the determining factor with regard to one's ability to properly operate a firearm in a high stress defensive situation, including the successful disengagement of the manual safety. Focus, discipline, practice, proper technique, and a proper holster set up are critical factors for everyday handling.
Humans are not machines and we are all prone to momentary lapses of focus or discipline, especially those who don't train and practice as much as others do. Regardless of training level, accidents and circumstances that are outside of our control can happen to anyone, especially when we're relaxed, distracted, preoccupied, or our guard is down.
I believe that the abundance of external and internal passive safeties on modern striker fired guns gives people a false sense of security. Those things do make accidents less likely, but definitely do not rule them out entirely. Obviously, the human is the most unreliable and inconsistent variable.
It's far too easy to look at another person's accident and dismiss it as negligence and improper handling, which nearly every time, it definitely is. The instances of manufacturer defect appear to be exceedingly rare, but do exist. With nearly all cases of accidental/negligent discharges, the human was the defect, and not the firearm. Holster defects and failures are another consideration. Regardless if a firearm is discharged inadvertently due to human or mechanical defect, the price of failure is the same, and it's excessively high.
I have never encountered a human who is infallible and I've never heard of a manufactured item which has a zero failure rate. Even a device as simple as a wheel can fail, especially if you involve a human user in the equation.
A manual safety, when engaged, offers a layer of protection against the human factor.
Before you argue that modern striker fired guns do not need a manual safety, I challenge you to search through social media, such as YouTube, and watch videos of negligent discharges and also read the different stories online.
For OWB carry, I'm far less concerned about a manual safety when a proper holster is used. However, for IWB in any position, I think there are many legitimate concerns, especially considering different body types and holster styles.
Personally, if a firearm is going inside of my pants, it must have a manual safety, and I don't care how uncool and unpopular it is. For that reason, I also will not purchase a concealable sized gun that does not have a manual safety.
What you put in your pants is your business. The ability to choose, and the freedom to do so is extremely important.
I like striker fired gun models that offer the choice of a manual safety. As a right-handed person, the one-sided and low-profile safety on the M&P Shield is my preference. A one-sided safety that presses against my body while holstered offers the unique advantage of not being able to be disengaged by external forces, such as bumping into something, or a dog jumping up to greet me with it's paws swiping along my waist line.
While I can operate my M&P Shield and its safety just fine with my left hand when necessary, imagine the shockwave S&W would cause in the market if they made a true left-hand version of the M&P Shield.
Choices are good. Dogma and group-think are bad.
