UncaGrunny
US Veteran
Because the mfg's always seem to put them on the wrong side of the weapon?
[ I'm left-handed.
]
Is the trigger really a safety?
- Thread starter Rastoff
- Start date
Because the mfg's always seem to put them on the wrong side of the weapon?
[ I'm left-handed.
]
SMMAssociates
Member
UncaGunny:
So just carry it in your other hand and....
Seriously, if you're used to swiping off a safety, having one on another gun that more or less works the same way, or is missing entirely, shouldn't be a problem. If there is one, it's just your old training. If it's missing, it's kind of breaking training, but trying to switch it off when it's not there will likely be less disconcerting than forgetting to do that, or, worse, having to remember that it goes the other way!
I carry an M&P40C and M&P40FS around the house. Neither have the thumb safety. "Outside", it's a 1911. On the range, I'll flip the non-existent lever on the M&P's (when I can get some affordable .40's!; I"m reloading .45's right now, but need something like $200 to add another caliber) out of habit.
The only real downside, IMHO, is that the M&P design really doesn't gain anything from having a thumb safety (although the one on the Shield is supposed to be mightily stiff), and you can't flip a safety on while "handling" the gun or for whatever reason you might come up with.
I tried a thumb safety on the 40C for a while (actually used the bottom half of a 9C) and decided that it really didn't matter. When I decided to sell the 9C, I swapped bottoms back. (Then kept the 9C anyway....)
YMMV, of course. Probably the worst thing you can do is try to carry something with a safety that works backwards. I've retired my two older guns - an M39 and a PPK/S - that are so equipped. Like the M&P's, it's safe to carry these with the safety off, but the M39 is soft enough to change it's mind. The PPK/S won't.... (With both of those, you lose their fairly positive drop safeties that way, too, but that's another story.)
Regards,
So just carry it in your other hand and....
Seriously, if you're used to swiping off a safety, having one on another gun that more or less works the same way, or is missing entirely, shouldn't be a problem. If there is one, it's just your old training. If it's missing, it's kind of breaking training, but trying to switch it off when it's not there will likely be less disconcerting than forgetting to do that, or, worse, having to remember that it goes the other way!
I carry an M&P40C and M&P40FS around the house. Neither have the thumb safety. "Outside", it's a 1911. On the range, I'll flip the non-existent lever on the M&P's (when I can get some affordable .40's!; I"m reloading .45's right now, but need something like $200 to add another caliber) out of habit.
The only real downside, IMHO, is that the M&P design really doesn't gain anything from having a thumb safety (although the one on the Shield is supposed to be mightily stiff), and you can't flip a safety on while "handling" the gun or for whatever reason you might come up with.
I tried a thumb safety on the 40C for a while (actually used the bottom half of a 9C) and decided that it really didn't matter. When I decided to sell the 9C, I swapped bottoms back. (Then kept the 9C anyway....)
YMMV, of course. Probably the worst thing you can do is try to carry something with a safety that works backwards. I've retired my two older guns - an M39 and a PPK/S - that are so equipped. Like the M&P's, it's safe to carry these with the safety off, but the M39 is soft enough to change it's mind. The PPK/S won't.... (With both of those, you lose their fairly positive drop safeties that way, too, but that's another story.)
Regards,
no.
suppose it prevents a drawstring or something like that from pulling the trigger if it gets wrapped around it and pulled up against the frame, but that's it. The real purpose is to make lawyers and others feel safer.
OP
Rastoff
US Veteran
You need to look at shawn's and BuckeyeChuck's posts. You'll see that you're wrong about that.no.
suppose it prevents a drawstring or something like that from pulling the trigger if it gets wrapped around it and pulled up against the frame, but that's it. The real purpose is to make lawyers and others feel safer.
It was a joke since we've thoroughly beat this one into the ground and still totally disagree.....
Why don't revolvers have fancy triggers? Inertia doesn't care about what type of action is involved, etc.....
OP
Rastoff
US Veteran
I yes, I forgot. We answered the question about revolvers as well. It has to do with the same math and the same answer about vectors.
I must have missed the revolver post....
OP
Rastoff
US Veteran
I know this is old, but it is still good info.
Here is a video that demonstrates what might happen when a gun is dropped on the rear of the slide:
When we were discussing this originally, some were questioning the physics of this. They didn't believe that dropping the gun on the back of the slide would generate enough force to move the trigger into the firing position; it does.
So, if you were ever thinking of defeating the trigger safety, don't. The life you save could be your own.
Here is a video that demonstrates what might happen when a gun is dropped on the rear of the slide:
When we were discussing this originally, some were questioning the physics of this. They didn't believe that dropping the gun on the back of the slide would generate enough force to move the trigger into the firing position; it does.
So, if you were ever thinking of defeating the trigger safety, don't. The life you save could be your own.
Arik
Member
It went off but didn't cycle? I'm guessing blanks?
rsrocket1
Member
So where is all the smoke, sparks and flame (faked videos?)
Have you ever shot a blank? They also smoke. A real round would recoil like crazy. The fact that the trigger pulls back is one thing, causing a locked barrel and slide to actuate is something else.
I smell something really fishy about these videos. Did NBC make them?
I don't mind if someone proves something, but to add "dramatics" to pretend that the gun is actually shooting irks me.
Have you ever shot a blank? They also smoke. A real round would recoil like crazy. The fact that the trigger pulls back is one thing, causing a locked barrel and slide to actuate is something else.
I smell something really fishy about these videos. Did NBC make them?
I don't mind if someone proves something, but to add "dramatics" to pretend that the gun is actually shooting irks me.
Last edited:
OP
Rastoff
US Veteran
Ah, I assume you are the one who also posted on the youtube video. I answered there as well, but I'll post it again here.
When they do this testing they use a case with only a primer in it. This is why you see only a small flash. It would be unsafe to use a fully loaded cartridge, don't you think?
When they do this testing they use a case with only a primer in it. This is why you see only a small flash. It would be unsafe to use a fully loaded cartridge, don't you think?
RJJ 1971
Member
Although the device is marketed as a "trigger safety," as Jeff Cooper pointed out with the Glock, putting the safety on the trigger is like putting the combination on the vault door.
One purpose of the device is, most assuredly, to help to prevent inadvertent discharge.
You will, however, note that for the most part such devices are only present on STRIKER fired pistols and not on hammer fired pistols.
The reason the device is ever present on striker fired pistols is because of the possibility of inertial discharge in case of a drop on the REAR (rather than muzzle) of the pistol.
Historically, engineers figured out that semi-autos could discharge if dropped on the MUZZLE as the only thing holding back the firing pin was the firing pin spring. A heavy steel firing pin, in combination with a spring that is worn, in combination with a drop onto the muzzle from a sufficient height results in a BANG.
Colt figured this out well before WWII and one of its engineers, William L. Swartz, filed a patent application on 4-13-1937. The so-called Swartz safety was patented on 12-20-1938, patent number 2,140,946. The device was licensed to Colt's Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, Hartford Connecticut. The Swartz Safety was an internal firing pin block which was deactivated when the grip safety on the 1911 was depressed.
The device was put on some pre-war 1911s (I have seen it more often on .38 Supers), but it was expensive and WWII came along, and the device was not put into war time production, nor was it added back after the war.
The weak point of its design was that it worked off the grip safety. Some thought that was its strong suit. In any event, when Colt introduced its Series 80 improvements, things were getting less business friendly from a litigation standpoint, and so a device to prevent discharge was needed in case the 1911 was dropped. Colt re-designed the Swartz Safety into the Series 80 firing pin block we know today, which differs from Swartz' patent in that the Series 80 works off the trigger as opposed to the grip safety. It is a more positive system. It was initially criticized as making a light trigger more difficult to achieve, but the only place this rumor still persists is on the internet.
The Series 80 system patent ran out and now Remington, Para, Umarex and others use it. Kimber uses the Swartz system as did S&W on its original 1911s. S&W's new system, like Springfield and many others, now use a very light titanium firing pin combined with a heavy firing pin spring to survive drop testing. Colt uses this method on its Series 70 reproduction guns and anything that does not have the actual Series 80 firing pin safety.
The main purpose of the firing pin block is to prevent inertial firing in the event of a drop on the muzzle. The firing pin block was introduced to "modern" pistols with the West German police pistol trials in the 1970s, which produced the Walther P5, the SIG P6 (commercial 225) and the HK P7 (PSP, P7, P7M8, etc.).
SIG and Walther put the firing pin block into its designs, which were, in compliance with the West German requirements, designed to have no safety lever in the traditional sense. S&W's 1st Gen Autos had the P38 style safety, which decocked the pistol and arrested the firing pin when in the ON position (down). Designed to prevent inertial discharge in the safe position, NOTHING was present to prevent inertial discharge in the event the slide mounted safety of the S&W was in the fire position (up). Because it deactivated the trigger when on, the slide mounted safety/decocker, which was difficult to take off at high speed - much more so than the ergonomically better thumb safety lock on the 1911 - Jeff Cooper gave it the nickname "Dingus," leading to the Cooper dictum, "Don't get caught with your Dingus down."
As LE doctrine changed subsequent to the West German Police trials, agencies decided that the slide mounted safeties should be carried OFF, and S&W then designed its firing pin block into 2nd Gen and subsequent designs, including all current modern duty pistols (except the 1911 E Series, which uses the light firing pin method as explained) in order to prevent inertial discharge in the event the pistol was dropped.
Enter the striker fired mechanism. Glock knew that inertia works in both directions. A striker fired pistol in which a "trigger bar" is in contact with not only the lug on the firing pin, but also the firing pin safety, and which when drawn to the rear will hit a release point causing BOTH the deactivation of the firing pin safety and the release of the striker to run forward at high speed to fire the round presented a problem not present on hammer fired pistols.
Thus, something had to be designed into the system of the striker fired pistols which would prevent inertia from causing the trigger bar to travel rearward thereby deactivating BOTH the firing pin safety and causing release of the firing pin.
Because the pistol will discharge no matter what causes the striker to move far enough rearward, the extra device to prevent inertia firing was needed.
Inertia of the kind which can cause a discharge in the 1911 is normally thought of as a drop on the muzzle, the pistol stops suddenly, and the firing pin keeps moving forward. BANG. Certain rifles, such as ARs, AKs and M1As and M14s have this same issue. Slam firing is the term applied when the bolt runs forward on such a rifle at high speed, comes to a sudden stop, the firing pin keeps moving forward and the primer is dented. Usually not enough to cause a discharge, but if you have an extra sensitive primer, well - that is when your muzzle better be pointed in a safe direction. Some AKs for the US commercial market have firing pin springs designed to prevent slam firing.
Inertia works both ways. In a striker fired pistol, the firing pin safety prevents discharge if the pistol is dropped on the muzzle. However, if a striker fired pistol is dropped on its rear end, inertia can, and will, without the little articulating trigger, cause the trigger bar to keep moving to the rear. Of course, as it does so, the firing pin safety is deactivated and eventually, if the drop to the pistol's rear is with enough force, the trigger bar moves far enough back to its release point, and BANG.
In the event of a drop on the pistol's rear, there is no finger or anything else "pulling" the trigger, so the little articulating device does not get deactivated, and the whole trigger bar is not free to go flying rearward with inertia.
Now, all sorts of people will argue that it can't happen, the force is too great for an ordinary drop, etc. Not so. Please recall the Ruger SR9 was initially introduced without the articulating trigger safety. Very quickly, it was quietly redesigned and even the Ruger now has the device.
So, that is the real purpose of the device. Do you see why it is easier to merely call it a trigger safety? It would take pages of advertising to explain the above and few would understand it or care.
I hope that information was helpful.
All this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ = no, it's not truly a safety.
motorcyclejoe
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 129
In the event of a drop on the pistol's rear, there is no finger or anything else "pulling" the trigger, so the little articulating device does not get deactivated, and the whole trigger bar is not free to go flying rearward with inertia.
So, that is the real purpose of the device. Do you see why it is easier to merely call it a trigger safety? It would take pages of advertising to explain the above and few would understand it or care.
----------------------------
Thanks for the fantastic explanation! I'm wondering about "...no finger or anything else "pulling" the trigger, so the little articulating device does not get deactivated..." The little articulating device (both M&P and Springfield designs) is also subject to momentum. Why wouldn't they also continue moving rearward and deactivate? Thanks
Arik
Member
Because its like a hinge. Behind the trigger it's up against the frame. There is no where for it to go unless it's depressedIn the event of a drop on the pistol's rear, there is no finger or anything else "pulling" the trigger, so the little articulating device does not get deactivated, and the whole trigger bar is not free to go flying rearward with inertia.
So, that is the real purpose of the device. Do you see why it is easier to merely call it a trigger safety? It would take pages of advertising to explain the above and few would understand it or care.
----------------------------
Thanks for the fantastic explanation! I'm wondering about "...no finger or anything else "pulling" the trigger, so the little articulating device does not get deactivated..." The little articulating device (both M&P and Springfield designs) is also subject to momentum. Why wouldn't they also continue moving rearward and deactivate? Thanks
Last edited:
OP
Rastoff
US Veteran
It has to do with force vectors.
Force applied in the direction necessary for the trigger to move, isn't the correct direction for the trigger safety. Force applied in the correct direction for the trigger safety, isn't the correct direction for the trigger. Thus, it prevents the trigger from moving.
rsrocket1
Member
Absolutely.
It would be irresponsible to use a live round unless the camera were behind bullet proof glass and the drop camber was lined with steel walls.
If you attest to the authenticity of a primer going off Rastoff, then I apologize. I trust your integrity. The "flash" just looked like it was edited into the video.
OP
Rastoff
US Veteran
Apology accepted, but not necessary. I cannot attest to the veracity of the test as I was not there. However, I have seen many of these and I know how it is done. It looked just like some other tests I've seen.
Also, even if we ignore the flash, you can clearly see the trigger move fully rearward. This is enough for me to say that this gun could fire if dropped on the rear of the slide.
Also, I have no interest what-so-ever in the model of the gun. I only posted the video to show what can happen without a trigger safety.
The two part trigger...
The two part trigger ONLY prevents firing from dropping. Anything that pulls the trigger like a finger or anything else is going to fire the gun. I would think it was a pretty lame safety, but it does cover the area of inertial actuation better than anything.
The two part trigger ONLY prevents firing from dropping. Anything that pulls the trigger like a finger or anything else is going to fire the gun. I would think it was a pretty lame safety, but it does cover the area of inertial actuation better than anything.
