For cc one can understand the concern for some sort of a manual safety. Less obvious is the need for a manual safety on a pistol that will be carried in the dash of a car, etc. Nevertheless so carried, it is not unreasonable that one would want a manual safety.
With a lifetime of using autos with manual safeties, to use a striker fired pistol such as the Glock, etc., without a manual safety would be less than satisfactory to many users For those who have less experience with older designs and more experience with the Glock, perhaps trigger discipline and absence of a manual safety is less disconcerting. Using a quality holster of correct design, lack of a manual safety would seem to be of less significance. I agree that a longer revolver like trigger movement would render more safe unholstered carry of the Glock in cc. Perhaps as mentioned in your comment, training is a significant variable.
As I do not currently cc, that issue did not enter into my thought about the need or lack of need for a manual safety. I think that as originally conceived, Browning did not plan for the 1911 to have either a grip or thumb safety. That it did have both reflected the insistence of the US Army. On Brownings Hi-Power, only the thumb safety remained but a magazine safety was added. Perhaps the Glock safe-action design only reflects similar original assumptions of Browning. Personally I would find it hard to conceive of the 1911 design absent the grip and thumb safeties. A SA Mil Spec currently sits on the nightstand... cocked and locked.
All in all, I would imagine that circumstances for the LEO are seldom ideal. My twin-brother (deceased LEO) used to tell me of some of the situations they encountered at the range and in day to day duty. The issue of safety for officers was for him a major concern.
Thank you for responding to my question. Your response is certainly not offensive. Further I can well understand your appreciation of the Glock. It is a very excellent design. I have no experience with the M&P series. From what I've read, many are pleased with its performance. That it has a safety doubtless will help its acceptance by some users.
With a lifetime of using autos with manual safeties, to use a striker fired pistol such as the Glock, etc., without a manual safety would be less than satisfactory to many users For those who have less experience with older designs and more experience with the Glock, perhaps trigger discipline and absence of a manual safety is less disconcerting. Using a quality holster of correct design, lack of a manual safety would seem to be of less significance. I agree that a longer revolver like trigger movement would render more safe unholstered carry of the Glock in cc. Perhaps as mentioned in your comment, training is a significant variable.
As I do not currently cc, that issue did not enter into my thought about the need or lack of need for a manual safety. I think that as originally conceived, Browning did not plan for the 1911 to have either a grip or thumb safety. That it did have both reflected the insistence of the US Army. On Brownings Hi-Power, only the thumb safety remained but a magazine safety was added. Perhaps the Glock safe-action design only reflects similar original assumptions of Browning. Personally I would find it hard to conceive of the 1911 design absent the grip and thumb safeties. A SA Mil Spec currently sits on the nightstand... cocked and locked.
All in all, I would imagine that circumstances for the LEO are seldom ideal. My twin-brother (deceased LEO) used to tell me of some of the situations they encountered at the range and in day to day duty. The issue of safety for officers was for him a major concern.
Thank you for responding to my question. Your response is certainly not offensive. Further I can well understand your appreciation of the Glock. It is a very excellent design. I have no experience with the M&P series. From what I've read, many are pleased with its performance. That it has a safety doubtless will help its acceptance by some users.
