Why do you need a safety?

[Brian in Oregon]

I prefer DA revolvers, and DA/SA autos that have hammers. I do not want safeties on them.

Striker fired autos are different. I want a safety on them. S&W is one of the few companies offering the option of a manual safety. I commend S&W for listening to people who have long wanted the option of a manual safety on their Glock, but Glock has ignored them.

The reason why is I pocket carry, and I think safety levers on triggers are an issue with that. If I was carrying in a holster that covered the trigger guard area completely, this would not bother me.

Please do not take the above that I am projecting this onto anyone else. This is MY personal preference. I'm not giving advice to anyone. You decide how you want to carry.

 

[LAA]

When CCW'ing a striker fire pistol, I prefer a thumb safety to ensure my safety, that I don't have an AD or a ND, especially in an IWB holster. OUCH that would hurt!

Same,

I've never gone out of my way, to get a safety version or not. Depended on stock, and my will to purchase the particular firearm that day. If it has it, I use it for carrying IWB. As it turns out, since my wife commandeered the Glock, all of my CCW IWB semi's have the safety. That item between my ears, just has a habit of swiping it off, as designed.

 

[Mister X]

I don't have 50 years. Little over 25. I said some people here who regularly carry with a safety have 50 years.

Produce 50 cases? Just google them. Two years ago, 2 year old kills
Mother when he got hold of her Shield. Everybody who failed to
Disengage a safety is dead? Really? Produce those stats, then.

NY trigger on a Glock is not the same as a revolver.

So those guys playing gun games under no life or
Death stress forget to take a safety off? So they're not perfect? Makes you
Wonder if they should be handling a gun at all? Do you
Forget to press the brake pedal before you shift into gear?

I have no doubt that someone, somewhere, forgot to disengage the safety in a life or death situation. But way more have been saved.

And I could post a dozen, right off the top of my head. But your just say "but they violated the other rules of safety", which is true. Because they made a mistake. Because they're human. And manual safeties make those less likely to result in injury or death.

And I'm sorry, but your terminology just proves my point. Force on Force? ECG Evos? You ever pull a weapon in a real self defense scenario? Who talks like that?

Why does the FBI and cops use Glocks? Because they're cheap and they generally work. Why did the US Army force Sig to put a manual safety on the new 320?

What self-defense insight and knowledge does simply carrying a gun for 50 years impart? A lot of folks study and train for a couple of years and then just repeat the things they learned for the rest of their lives ignoring any new techniques, tactics and technologies no matter how overwhelmingly the evidence is that it is more effective than what they learned years ago.

My focus was only on the tactical points rather than on carrying and administrative handling and that is what I assumed you were referencing. I'm not putting a manual safety on my gun just in case a toddler gets ahold of it since there is no way I would ever allow that to happen. My guns are either concealed on my person, completely under my control, or they are locked up. Someone so irresponsible as to let a small child get ahold of their handgun cannot be expected to remember to engage a safety and/or frequently monitor it to make sure of its status.

A lot of folks have had an AD/ND with M1911's. Ted Nugent even mentioned having one in one his books. Stating that he could never figure out how it happened. He subsequently went back to carrying a revolver for a long time. A manual safety can sometimes be inadvertently disengaged. A heavier trigger pull in contrast is not something you can forget or fail to engage/disengage.

And if the trigger is considered too light that it requires a manual safety for carry, what about when the safety is off. As Massad Ayoob said... "Single action triggers are great shooting tools, but lousy threat management tools." It's very reasonable to assume you might have to hold an attacker at gunpoint, run with weapon in hand etc. and I wouldn't want to do any of that with a cocked M1911.

I carry a gun because I obviously believe it's possible I might have to use it in a life and death scenario, otherwise I would simply leave it at home. Low probability, High Stakes. It's a matter of striking a balance. No manual safety/heavy trigger strikes the right balance in my opinion.

Regarding civilian stats. Like I said before, they are scarce.There is no national database detailing these armed encounters. There are a few studies available like the 500 or so cases documented by The Armed Citizen, but it is by no means comprehensive. Plus, they only include successful outcomes. The incidents where the defender didn't get their gun out in time, couldn't access it, were disarmed or possibly even failed to disengage the safety were not and would not be included since they would simply be cases of assault, rape and murder.

I actually carry a S&W snub more often than anything else. No manual safety on it and none needed. How is a DAO revolver is so much safer than a Glock with an NY trigger installed? Different operating systems for sure, but my S&W snubs triggers are 12 lbs and the trigger travel is about 3/4 inch. My Glocks NY triggers are about 12 lbs and trigger travel is about 1/2 inch. I just don't see much difference there in terms of increased risk of unintentional discharge. And if someone thinks a NY Glock needs a safety lever, then they should feel the same about a revolver.

And it's not only about forgetting the safety, it's actually simply failing in the attempt to get it disengaged at all or in time. This is why I mentioned Force-on-Force, specifically ECQ. If you have never participated in it, then it can be difficult to understand the dynamics. Instead of hurling insults and disparaging it, maybe consider challenging your beliefs and go and take a class. It just might change your mind.

 

[LAA]

snipped

And if someone thinks a NY Glock needs a safety lever, then they should feel the same about a revolver.

And it's not only about forgetting the safety, it's actually simply failing in the attempt to get it disengaged at all or in time. This is why I mentioned Force-on-Force, specifically ECQ. If you have never participated in it, then it can be difficult to understand the dynamics. Instead of hurling insults and disparaging it, maybe consider challenging your beliefs and go and take a class. It just might change your mind.

Just as I said, at the beginning of this thread.....

Quite frankly, I hope I don't have to muddle through another 50 pages of "the safety's between my ears", or something along the lines of "get more training, if you feel you need a safety".....

See where we are again? It's back to "get more training" (go & take a class). Well, that's where we are again. I'm still getting tired of the same oh, same oh..... when there is disagreement. The training bit, is just another disguised, physiological put down.

 

[kbm6893]

i just shot myself - Google Search


I can't hot link to the video about because there's some language in it.

The guy in the video managed to shoot himself with a Kimber 1911 (2 external safeties). I guess this is a case of Kimber leg?

Why do these threads always become opinion measuring contests with the "bl:ded protagonists" with the smallest opinions being the most willing the measure them?

I'm not stupid if I choose to carry a handgun without a safety any more than I'm retarded if I choose to open carry. The people in this thread who choose not to use a firearm with a safety seem to have made their case without resorting to name calling.

I have had training and I really have had to use a gun in self defense and I don't have any extra holes in me and neither does the bad guy or the bear although the squirrel came pretty close.

I don't believe that anyone has never, not one time ever forgot to sweep the safety off, I don't buy it.

Bottom line. It's your life, you make the choices, you live with the consequences

The guy in that video is an idiot. "I resorted to my
training and called my mother". But even he is not a good example because he was trying to quick draw and the holster is what allowed the weapon to fire.

Carry what you want. I don't care. Just don't label a manual safety as an impediment. It's not. As
For take a class, why? I went through a police academy. I don't need a class to instill the habit of disengaging a safety. 10 minutes a night and it's no different than stepping on a brake before shifting or any other movement we all do automatically. Ironically, Glock actually uses the "so
Simple even a monkey can do it" as a selling point.

And nobody here is saying that a manual safety is an absolute guarantee that you will
Never have an ND. But it surely reduces those odds. As for your "I'll never leave a gun unattended comment, that's just arrogance. People get tired. Distracted. Nobody is immune from making a mistake. Overconfidence is the worst thing to have. Bill Jordan killed a fellow agent with his Model 19. Survivor of countless gunfights. World War II veteran. Professional shooter. Surely somebody that I would wager NOBODY here can come close to. But he screwed up and killed somebody he didn't want to. If he can make a mistake, you think you can't?

 

[Mister X]

The "get more training" response is usually in the context that the individual in question simply lacks competence or confidence to carry a weapon safely with a round chambered without a safety.

I don't see my suggestion as such. My recommendation was specifically for ECQ Force on Force and in this specific instance, it is not to gain necessarily gain skill, but insight and to demonstrate that it is more difficult than you might imagine to consistently get the gun out and the safety disengaged in those types of scenarios. Practicing drawing and disengaging a safety at the the range or at home in a controlled environment is very different from doing so is a violent close-quarter scenario. It's like saying successfully driving in everyday traffic prepares you to jump in a NASCAR and effectively race in the Daytona 500. There is a night and day difference.

Police Academy instruction is severely lacking in regards to extreme close-quarters and handgun combatives, especially in years gone by and why so many LEO's have sought out additional training on their own.

 

[kbm6893]

The "get more training" response is usually in the context that the individual in question simply lacks competence or confidence to carry a weapon safely with a round chambered without a safety.

I don't see my suggestion as such. My recommendation was specifically for ECQ Force on Force and in this specific instance, it is not to gain necessarily gain skill, but insight and to demonstrate that it is more difficult than you might imagine to consistently get the gun out and the safety disengaged in those types of scenarios. Practicing drawing and disengaging a safety at the the range or at home in a controlled environment is very different from doing so is a violent close-quarter scenario. It's like saying successfully driving in everyday traffic prepares you to jump in a NASCAR and effectively race in the Daytona 500. There is a night and day difference.

Police Academy instruction is severely lacking in regards to extreme close-quarters and handgun combatives, especially in years gone by and why so many LEO's have sought out additional training on their own.

Police Academy is generally pretty basic when it comes to weapons. Yet, when the switch from revolver to semi auto happened in the late 80's, ND's did go up. So there goes your "Glocks are no different than revolvers".

Not alot of people are gonna pay for the training that 99.999% of us will never use. And it isn't really valid, anyway. Unless your instructors really DO bash a person in the head with a brick, stick a loaded gun in somebody's face, or attempt to rape a woman. Which I'm sure they don't. You can't recreate real life or death stress.

Driving the Daytona 500 is surely not the same as driving to Walmart. But I would wager every one of here has driven under extreme stress. I barely remeber the frantic drive to the hospital with my in labor wife screaming "the baby is coming out". But I somehow didn't forget to get the key in the ignition, step on the brake before shifting, and drive at high speed in the dark, while switching lanes around to get around those who weren't driving 85 mph like I was, and stopped at every light, before looking to make sure clear and going through it, then parking between the lines. And I'm no professional race car driver.

 

[Mister X]

Police Academy is generally pretty basic when it comes to weapons. Yet, when the switch from revolver to semi auto happened in the late 80's, ND's did go up. So there goes your "Glocks are no different than revolvers".

Not alot of people are gonna pay for the training that 99.999% of us will never use. And it isn't really valid, anyway. Unless your instructors really DO bash a person in the head with a brick, stick a loaded gun in somebody's face, or attempt to rape a woman. Which I'm sure they don't. You can't recreate real life or death stress.

Driving the Daytona 500 is surely not the same as driving to Walmart. But I would wager every one of here has driven under extreme stress. I barely remeber the frantic drive to the hospital with my in labor wife screaming "the baby is coming out". But I somehow didn't forget to get the key in the ignition, step on the brake before shifting, and drive at high speed in the dark, while switching lanes around to get around those who weren't driving 85 mph like I was, and stopped at every light, before looking to make sure clear and going through it, then parking between the lines. And I'm no professional race car driver.

There was an initial increase in ND's during the transition from Revolvers to Glock, but the solution was better training and installation of the NY trigger, not a manual safety. It's still the same today. Standards Glocks are different from revolvers in terms of risks(higher) of unintentional discharges as far as I'm concerned, but Glocks with NY triggers are not IMO.

No one will ever uses ECQ skills? Almost every man I've ever known has been in at least a fist fight in their life, so those skills are almost certain to be useful to some degree at some point. And if involved in a scenario warranting a deadly force response, it will most likely occur at very close range. ECQ Force-on-Force training is conducted at varying intensities including full contact, usually wearing quality protective gear by at least one of participants. It is a fairly accurate and realistic simulation of the dynamics if conducted properly. At the very least, it's better than any other training method currently being done.

Your statement that since "you can't recreate real life and death stress" completely undermines your assertion that because you have practiced operating your safety in training, you will be able to do so in a real defense encounter.

And saying that close-quarter training is somehow invalid unless "you really DO bash a person in the head with a brick, stick a loaded in somebody's face, or attempt to rape a women" is absurd. I'm surprised a Police Officer would make such a statement. If this was true, all training is a waste of time including all firearm training unless you are actually shooting someone or getting shot. Plus it kind of contradicts the whole directive of self-defense, which is to avoid serious injury.

And again, it's not about forgetting the safety, it's attempting to disengage it, but physically failing to do so. In your frantic drive to the hospital, nothing was all that different except the added stress. A better analogy would be an assailant in the passenger seat trying to punch your head in and seeing how well you are able to drive.

I would agree that a handgun equipped with a manual safety is indeed safer in terms of preventing unintentional discharges, but I also know it to be a potential impediment in a reactive defensive response, particular one occuring at close-quarters. Not necessary an impediment all the time, every time, but a potential one nonetheless. I don't think it's worth it as a heavier trigger is a sufficient safeguard.

 

[ThrowinRocks]

I got the Shield with a safety because when I go to the gym I throw it in my gym bag and could possibly fall out of the holster and snag on something.
When I carry on body Safety is off

 

[BC38]

Ever watch a train wreck? The very title of this thread made it obvious that it was going to be the same kind of spectacle. Not sure why it always has to digress into an argument.
Whatever happened to the idea of "carry what you want how you want"?

 

[ThrowinRocks]

Ever watch a train wreck? The very title of this thread made it obvious that it was going to be the same kind of spectacle. Not sure why it always has to digress into an argument.
Whatever happened to the idea of "carry what you want how you want"?

If that was the case then a lot of forums would have no members.
We all know at least once or twice a year maybe more there will be another post asking about GUN LUBES also.
No since in hashing over such things but that's why we're all here.
For discussion.

Best thing to do if it makes you mad? Don't read it.

But it's like a train wreck. You have to look. LOL

 

[zymurgeist]

The New York trigger doesn't fix anything. Your startle response will still cause you to have a negligent discharge unless a trigger is so heavy you can't pull it, or your finger isn't on the trigger when it doesn't belong there. Police departments used to teach sights on target finger on trigger for revolvers. That is why Glocks had so many negligent discharges when they first came out. Now they teach finger off trigger until you're ready to fire. A cocked 1911 in many cases has a very short light trigger pull so it has a safety so you can manipulate the gun cocked without firing it. If John Browning didn't think the 1911 needed a safety he wouldn't have put it there. If a safety makes you feel better buy a gun with one and learn to use it. If not having a safety makes you feel better buy a gun without one and learn to use it. The important thing is proper trigger control.

 

[Amp]

Bought a 9 Shield and the safety confused me.
So I bought a 45 Shield without.
Yesterday I bought a M2.0 with safety. (nice gun)
All I am adding is buy what works for you at the time and be happy.
And I am warming up to plastic guns.

 

[digiroc]

Plastic... On a gun??

Bought a 9 Shield... I bought a 45 Shield.. I bought a M2.0 with safety... I am warming up to plastic guns.

I'll contribute to the "Train Wreck" of this thread (I for one have been in an actual train wreck, and an internet "train wreck" is not one).

Off the topic I know, but plastic is for squirt guns and I reject guns with them. Adding polymer injected molding parts to handguns has lowered the quality (and costs) across the board. It is the triumph of the bean counters over high quality craftsmanship. Further (and to be somewhat on topic) I think striker equipped weapons should have a safety present to avoid negligent discharge when handling (and the trigger thingy is not a safety).

Third generation Smiths are the pinnacle of semi automatic handguns, now lost to the plastic fantastics of modern weapons. It's a shame that Smith & Wesson has been forced to join in the degraded quality to stay cost competitive with the Glocks of today's handgun market.

Just an old curmudgeon's thoughts, you can ignore me as hopelessly old school if your opinion differs.

digiroc

 

[Smoke]

If John Browning didn't think the 1911 needed a safety he wouldn't have put it there.

Ummmm, John Browning (APBHN) didn't put a safety on the 1911 until the Army demanded it

 

[ThrowinRocks]

Possibly due to negligent dicharges? LOL
Not a 1911 fan myself.
Say for a nice one that holds 7,8 maybe 9 rounds $1200.00+
Polymer wonders that hold the same for $300.00 + for a good one?

All about choice and I choose polymer because I can own more that holds more rounds.
I don't recall seeing any local LEO's carrying 1911's.
just saying

 

[Rastoff]

Not sure why it always has to digress into an argument.

It's simple human nature.

There are those who simply cannot fathom any way other than their way. When someone has a different opinion, the response to that opinion is incredulity, followed by anger if the opinion isn't changed.

This is especially true when it comes to guns and safety. If a person thinks they are being safe (whether they are or not) they become offended/embarrassed if another person points out some safety infraction. Suggest that someone might need some training and the initial response is, "How dare you suggest that I don't know what I'm doing!" Even though no one actually said that, it's how people respond.

This thread is a perfect example. The OP asked why individuals wanted a safety on their gun. This in no way implies that safeties are good or bad. It's simple research into why people do what they do. However, once the question is asked, rather than take it at face value, most assume there is some hidden slight at the fact they do or don't have a thumb safety. It just happens, we read into things.

Add to that the "keyboard filter" and people are much more apt to say things they wouldn't in person. The internet allows people to be blunt because they don't have to deal with the recipient in person. They can make claims of prowess because they don't feel they have to back it up. If they were doing this face to face, what they know or skills they have would be readily apparent. So, the keyboard gives most extra courage to be more forceful in their opinion.

Welcome to the internet.

 

[Rastoff]

If John Browning didn't think the 1911 needed a safety he wouldn't have put it there.

In fact, John Browning didn't think the 1911 needed a thumb safety. And in truth, it doesn't, but there it is.

 

[Cellar Hound]

Obviously, carrying a firearm with or without a safety is a personal choice. However, for over 100 years our Armed Forces have carried either the 1911 or Beretta M9 - both having manual safeties. With proper practice and familiarity a manual safety should not be an issue.

 

[HKB]

For those of you who carry open or concel and that have a model with a safety why did you choose it with a safety? Don't want to know why others should have a safety just why you feel you need one?

Rarely use mine.