ParadiseRoad
Member
...if you're an old 1911 guy...it's hard to go "Cocked and Locked" without one...
Why do you need a safety?
- Thread starter amcline82
- Start date
- Status
Almost all of my semi-auto CC guns have a safety, the only exception is a little TCP that I got for deep concealment.
I don't use the safety on the ones that are DAO. Those that are SA don't get carried much, but when they do, they are "cocked and locked". I want them to be as ready for the quickest possible use, but am not comfortable with having the shorter, lighter trigger pull of a SA in a holster without the safety on. If I carry a SA pistol with one in the chamber and the hammer down, then I don't use the safety - because I feel it would be redundant. The longer, heavier trigger pull of a DAO provides a large enough measure of ND prevention to not need to use the safety IMO.
There have been too many instances of people having an ND due to getting something in the trigger guard during re-holstering, etc. It even happens to cops and military and others who are far more experienced gun handlers than me. I recognize that I am not perfect, and even training and muscle memory only goes so far when there are multiple distractions or in the aftermath of an adrenaline dump. For me a short, light SA trigger seems like it could too easily lead to an ND. At least IMO. Better safe than sorry.
I don't use the safety on the ones that are DAO. Those that are SA don't get carried much, but when they do, they are "cocked and locked". I want them to be as ready for the quickest possible use, but am not comfortable with having the shorter, lighter trigger pull of a SA in a holster without the safety on. If I carry a SA pistol with one in the chamber and the hammer down, then I don't use the safety - because I feel it would be redundant. The longer, heavier trigger pull of a DAO provides a large enough measure of ND prevention to not need to use the safety IMO.
There have been too many instances of people having an ND due to getting something in the trigger guard during re-holstering, etc. It even happens to cops and military and others who are far more experienced gun handlers than me. I recognize that I am not perfect, and even training and muscle memory only goes so far when there are multiple distractions or in the aftermath of an adrenaline dump. For me a short, light SA trigger seems like it could too easily lead to an ND. At least IMO. Better safe than sorry.
Rpg
Member
I'm a 1911 guy.
Thumb safety is just part of the manual of arms for me operating a pistol.
I don't carry striker fired pistols although I own some.
Folks that use non safety pistols often don't have the training to safely operate them.
Their apparent simplicity creates an illusion of safety.
Thumb safety is just part of the manual of arms for me operating a pistol.
I don't carry striker fired pistols although I own some.
Folks that use non safety pistols often don't have the training to safely operate them.
Their apparent simplicity creates an illusion of safety.
I don't own guns with manual safety levers, however I do install NY triggers on all my Glocks, which I view as essentially being a safety. The same with my DAO revolvers with their long, heavy trigger pulls.
The reason for any safety is its namesake... safety. Preventing unintentional discharges. No one is perfect, we all can make mistakes. Any possible tactical advantages are relatively far fetched outside of law enforcement and even then the cons outweigh the pros as far as I'm concerned.
The reason I prefer a heavier trigger rather than a lever however is that I do believe a manual safety lever could potentially interfere with my ability to respond no matter the depth of training. Numerous instructors have reported seeing even very seasoned shooters fail to get the safety disengaged on their 1911's in Force on Force training. I have seen it as well, primarily with little pocket pistols with small safeties during ECQ FOF. It can often be difficult enough to effectively access a weapon from a pocket when engaged in a contact scenario, let alone positively get that tiny safety disengaged.
Thinking you can simply be proactive and rely on situational awareness is not an effective strategy IMO. The possibility of having to respond in a reactive close-quarter defense situation remains a realistic possibility no matter how alert or aware you happen to be. Understanding counter-ambush methods are extremely important. I'm sure many think the safety will pose no issues at all in these of encounters, and it very well may not, but relatively few have tested it thoroughly in reality-based training.
The reason for any safety is its namesake... safety. Preventing unintentional discharges. No one is perfect, we all can make mistakes. Any possible tactical advantages are relatively far fetched outside of law enforcement and even then the cons outweigh the pros as far as I'm concerned.
The reason I prefer a heavier trigger rather than a lever however is that I do believe a manual safety lever could potentially interfere with my ability to respond no matter the depth of training. Numerous instructors have reported seeing even very seasoned shooters fail to get the safety disengaged on their 1911's in Force on Force training. I have seen it as well, primarily with little pocket pistols with small safeties during ECQ FOF. It can often be difficult enough to effectively access a weapon from a pocket when engaged in a contact scenario, let alone positively get that tiny safety disengaged.
Thinking you can simply be proactive and rely on situational awareness is not an effective strategy IMO. The possibility of having to respond in a reactive close-quarter defense situation remains a realistic possibility no matter how alert or aware you happen to be. Understanding counter-ambush methods are extremely important. I'm sure many think the safety will pose no issues at all in these of encounters, and it very well may not, but relatively few have tested it thoroughly in reality-based training.
I have four reasons:
1. It makes the gun generally safer to carry. (Imagine a person with modest experience carrying a M&P pistol with a four lbs trigger in an IWB).*
2. On S&W 3d Gen pistols that have safeties, the safety is mounted on the slide. In that location, it makes it easier to grip and operate the slide.
3. On S&W 3d Gen pistols that have safeties, the safety is also a decocker, which makes the gun safer during reinsertion into the holster. See "Glock Foot."
4. Having to operate the safety takes a very short period of time, but that brief additional time supports the task of gathering data on the threat, the situation, the backstop, etc.; and deciding whether to fire and what to shoot at -- the most under-rated but most important part of this concealed-carry self-defense thing.
*There are some specific scenarios where knowing how to operate a specific safety makes it hard for someone else to operate the gun. There are reported cases of police officers have benefited from bad guys not knowing how to unsafe the cop's pistol (the interweb indicates 10-20% of officers who get shot are shot with their own guns). There is also the recent case of the Mom who was shot in her car by her Shield, wielded by her two year old in the back seat -- a safety might have prevented that.
1. It makes the gun generally safer to carry. (Imagine a person with modest experience carrying a M&P pistol with a four lbs trigger in an IWB).*
2. On S&W 3d Gen pistols that have safeties, the safety is mounted on the slide. In that location, it makes it easier to grip and operate the slide.
3. On S&W 3d Gen pistols that have safeties, the safety is also a decocker, which makes the gun safer during reinsertion into the holster. See "Glock Foot."
4. Having to operate the safety takes a very short period of time, but that brief additional time supports the task of gathering data on the threat, the situation, the backstop, etc.; and deciding whether to fire and what to shoot at -- the most under-rated but most important part of this concealed-carry self-defense thing.
*There are some specific scenarios where knowing how to operate a specific safety makes it hard for someone else to operate the gun. There are reported cases of police officers have benefited from bad guys not knowing how to unsafe the cop's pistol (the interweb indicates 10-20% of officers who get shot are shot with their own guns). There is also the recent case of the Mom who was shot in her car by her Shield, wielded by her two year old in the back seat -- a safety might have prevented that.
Last edited:
Vulcan Bob
Member
The safety is not for me, it's for someone else who gets my gun and tries to shoot me with it! Numerous studies done by different PD's, law enforcement groups and such have pretty much proven that if your gun winds up in the bad guys hand it takes up to fifteen seconds for them to get it to fire, an eternity in that kind of dynamic. Time to get control, draw a back up or just scoot to cover or evasion and such.
Years of shooting IPSC with an 1911 makes disengaging the safety a automatic thing for me. I do carry at times a "point and pull" hand gun but I feel more comfortable with a safety equipped hand gun. That's why my M&P .45ACP is equipped with the safety. As always this is a personal choice thing.
Years of shooting IPSC with an 1911 makes disengaging the safety a automatic thing for me. I do carry at times a "point and pull" hand gun but I feel more comfortable with a safety equipped hand gun. That's why my M&P .45ACP is equipped with the safety. As always this is a personal choice thing.
ggibson511960
Member
Probability
The probability of needing my CCW handgun for self defense is lower than the probability of an accidental or negligent discharge. This calculation also drives some old-timers to leave the first chamber empty in revolvers. An inadvertent trigger pull causes only a scary snap rather than an explosion in your pants. It also gives a second chance to the good guy who has his gun snatched away by a bad guy, even if a very short one. There's also the probability of having to draw and shoot very quickly without time to manipulate a safety. I'm sure it's happened, but I judge the probability of this event lower than having time to get the piece out and swipe off a safety. I would guess that the overwhelming majority of police shootings happen with handguns out for several seconds, not quick draw and shoot. Civilian self defense situations would of course differ, but still the probability of injury from unintended discharge outweighs any perceived speed advantage, at least for me. There is certainly little wrong with carrying a weapon without a safety as long as the owner knows what he's doing and accepts all the risks.
The probability of needing my CCW handgun for self defense is lower than the probability of an accidental or negligent discharge. This calculation also drives some old-timers to leave the first chamber empty in revolvers. An inadvertent trigger pull causes only a scary snap rather than an explosion in your pants. It also gives a second chance to the good guy who has his gun snatched away by a bad guy, even if a very short one. There's also the probability of having to draw and shoot very quickly without time to manipulate a safety. I'm sure it's happened, but I judge the probability of this event lower than having time to get the piece out and swipe off a safety. I would guess that the overwhelming majority of police shootings happen with handguns out for several seconds, not quick draw and shoot. Civilian self defense situations would of course differ, but still the probability of injury from unintended discharge outweighs any perceived speed advantage, at least for me. There is certainly little wrong with carrying a weapon without a safety as long as the owner knows what he's doing and accepts all the risks.
Why not? Actually, there would be many comparisons that wouldn't be the same. But for the sake of this discussion, why not?
Proactive vs Reactive, Open carry vs Concealed carry, Pursue vs Flee, Intentionally engage vs Avoid, Arrest and control vs deter and de-escalate etc. etc. etc.
The directives are very different, making the dynamics very different and subsequently, often what tools are most effective different. My enclosed hammer snub is an extremely effective and suitable weapon for reactive civilian self-defense, but would be an absolutely horrible sidearm for military and police. Just the same as a police defensive tactics class is very different from a civilian reality-based martial art course.
VaTom
Member
If I am not mistaken the Military specifications for the modular pistol contract that was just awarded to Sig required an external safety. (The new pistol will be striker fired. Beretta 92 has a safety/de-cocker, and the 1911A1 had a safety.
Accidents do happen and apparently the military feels that an external safety helps reduce the risk. Also the specs required that the pistol be broken down without having to pull the trigger.
I have a Shield with a safety. I take it off when I carry and otherwise it stays on.
I say whatever you train with and are comfortable with.
Accidents do happen and apparently the military feels that an external safety helps reduce the risk. Also the specs required that the pistol be broken down without having to pull the trigger.
I have a Shield with a safety. I take it off when I carry and otherwise it stays on.
I say whatever you train with and are comfortable with.
Ok. But this is still a discussion of why or why not, in regards to safety's on a semi auto.
Regarding the proposed tactical adavantage of a safety buying you time in a disarm scenario...
If a civilian is engaged in a close-quarter struggle and has accessed the gun from concealment, the safety would be(or should be) disengaged, otherwise why is the gun even out. Therefore, in the event of an actual disarm, the manual safety is irrelevant since it is off.
LEO's open carry and must arrest and physically engage and restrain suspects, so they must be concerned with disarm attempts with the gun still in the holster which isn't really relevant to the armed civilian carrying concealed trying to avoid trouble.
JL Murray
Member
I bought my Shield with a safety because I like having the two option's of either using it or not using it.
To me the safety is a CYA device.
Litigating attorney (Or prosecuting atty): The shield line of firearms is available with a safety, Which yours doesn't have, Would this tragedy have been averted if the firearm had a safety on it?
Litigating attorney (Or prosecuting atty): The shield line of firearms is available with a safety, Which yours doesn't have, Would this tragedy have been averted if the firearm had a safety on it?
Depending on which......
Depending on which action the gun had and the condition that it is carried in, plus some other factors about safety among people that may not be as versed on the differences than you are safeties MAY be a good thing to have on a gun.
Depending on which action the gun had and the condition that it is carried in, plus some other factors about safety among people that may not be as versed on the differences than you are safeties MAY be a good thing to have on a gun.
Seems us old guy's like revolver's, no safety needed.
If it's a semi-auto BHP, 1911 it's condition 1.
A PPK , safety off.
I have some striker pistol's, but don't carry them.
That's just me. Don't trust them not putting a round in some part of me.
If it's a semi-auto BHP, 1911 it's condition 1.
A PPK , safety off.
I have some striker pistol's, but don't carry them.
That's just me. Don't trust them not putting a round in some part of me.
SmithNWesson
Member
My bodyguard has a safety and my next handgun (probably a shield) will have a safety also. I like the extra security. When i am out and about i switch the safety off. When i am home the safety is on. I trained myself to draw and move safety off.
Some pistols need a safety, some don't. I just kinda take 'em like they sell 'em and learn how to use 'em as they come. In the event the exact same pistol I wanted is offered with and without an external manual safety, I believe I would go without, but then again, I don't think I own one of those.
- Status
Similar threads
