I don't get this argument anymore

[Jamie Young]

You don't want to carry a gun with a manual safety, but 7 out of the last 10 Glock CCW I saw at the range were carrying in a Blackhawk Serpa.

I understand the need for locking a pistol in a holster, especially for those of us taking Carbine courses where we're rolling around on the ground, but for CCW, I see no difference between carrying a cocked and locked 1911 and a Glock owner carrying in a serpa type holster.

Anyone want to tell me there is a difference?
__________________

 

[Erik]

Are you equating the disengagement of the Serpa lock with the swiping off of the manual safety? I think so, in which case I agree that they both require what can be an ingrained motion prior to using the pistol.

 

[Playboypenguin]

He is asking how is it different to have to release a safety on a holster than it is to have the safety on a gun.

The difference is, the release on the holster serves a real retention purpose. It keeps your gun in your possession. A safety on a gun is just another step that really serves no purpose in my mind.

 

[Jamie Young]

Are you equating the disengagement of the Serpa lock with the swiping off of the manual safety? I think so, in which case I agree that they both require what can be an ingrained motion prior to using the pistol.

Yeah, and IMHO this voids the advantage a Glock would have.

 

[FEG]

Anyone want to tell me there is a difference?

Let's just say I wouldn't care to live off the difference.

 

[Smaug]

I agree Jamie, mostly.

I think a locking holser is a good idea for cops because it makes their guns harder to steal. A cocked & locked High Power, for instance in a non-locking holster would be a bad idea for a cop these days, IMO.

Oftentimes, when a cop is expecting or even allowing for trouble, he will pop the button loose on his holster and put his hand on the grip. With a Glock with one in the chamber, it is hard to be more ready than that.

It is a compromise between readiness and theft-proofing.

 

[Moe Howard]

The Serpa holster, in particular, does lock your gun into the holster but does not slow down the draw. Some people just want their gun to have an extra layer of security of retention, maybe due to their particular lifestyle. A person who does a lot of athletic activities, or physical type work while wearing a gun, may feel more secure with a locking holster. If that is the case then the same person may choose a gun without a safety to cut down on the number of steps taken when pulling a firearm in self defense. I would not choose a locking or thumbreak holster for a 1911, too many steps, but to choose one for a Sig or a Glock would be a wise choice for someone who needed the holster to retain the gun a little more securely than a regular open top holster.

 

[ImDisaster]

They serve different purposes but neither should "slow down" the guns presentation if the owner learns how to use them properly.

 

[sholling]

With proper training a thumb safety is zero nanoseconds slower than no safety - it's just a Church of Gaston Glock article of faith/urban-myth. The Serpa on the other can slow you down if your hand doesn't land just right.

 

[Playboypenguin]

With proper training a thumb safety is zero nanoseconds slower than no safety - it's just a Church of Gaston Glock article of faith/urban-myth. The Serpa on the other can slow you down if your hand doesn't land just right.

But even the best training can fail in a tense situation. I have seen it happen to the best of soldiers. Simply panicking and forgetting to release a safety could spell doom.

Then there are the people who like to condemn the locks on Smith's by saying they are one more piece to fail on you. Wouldn't a safety fall under the same category?

I personally think the odds of either scenarios becoming an issue for anyone in here are negligible, but some people seem to worry about such things.

 

[Musketeer]

ImDisaster said:

They serve different purposes but neither should "slow down" the guns presentation if the owner learns how to use them properly.

EXACTLY. On the Glock, with its short pull, no manual safety and light trigger (compared to a revolver) making absolutely certain their is no way for the gun to be dislodged from the holster seems reasonable to me. For LEOs, even plain clothes who often are clearly KNOWN to be armed officers although not it uniform, it makes sense to have a lock on their holster since the chance of an attempted disarm against them is far more likely than on Joe CCW.

Of course this will most likely degrade into the typical "Gaston is God", "people should be perfect" chest thumping of most threads advocating the glory of Glock.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Of course this will most likely degrade into the typical "Gaston is God", "people should be perfect" chest thumping of most threads advocating the glory of Glock.

If you cannot trust yourself to be "perfect" enough to keep your finger off of a trigger, how can you expect yourself to be "perfect" enough to remember to release a safety every time?

 

[ImDisaster]

If you cannot trust yourself to be "perfect" enough to keep your finger off of a trigger, how can you expect yourself to be "perfect" enough to remember to release a safety every time?

From the same logic, if you can't trust yourself to keep you finger off the trigger how can you trust yourself to put your finger in the trigger guard to fire?

Bottom line, if you practice with a safety, you SHOULD be as quick with the gun as without. If you don't you won't.

I'm not a proponent of either system. I believe you should regularly with the your defense gun so it is second nature whatever the mechanism.

 

[Playboypenguin]

From the same logic, if you can't trust yourself to keep you finger off the trigger how can you trust yourself to put your finger in the trigger guard to fire?

That's actually not the same logic at all.

 

[ImDisaster]

That's actually not the same logic at all.

Isn't it?

Or is it possible neither one of them are logical...or that each is as logical as the other?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Isn't it?

Nope, not at all. One is comparing failing to remember an addition and unnecessary step while under pressure to remembering basic operating techniques and your comparison requires a complete failure of even basic skills.

 

[ImDisaster]

Nope, not at all. One is comparing failing to remember an addition and unnecessary step while under pressure to remembering basic operating techniques and your comparison requires a complete failure of even basic skills.

Hmmm....so if you use a gun, with a safety, removing it is an "unnecessary" step?

You are losing your own arguments with your statements.

The bottom line is, if you use a safety it has to become second nature. It IS a basic skill.

If you choose not to use a safety then it is not a basic skill.

It comes down to what you are used to and comfortable with.

I drive a stick shift. I don't even think about shifting anymore. It is an unconscious thing.

My wife, on the other hand, still hasn't mastered a manual transmission and doesn't want to.

I can every bit as well as her.

If you can't, or don't want to master a safety fine. But don't suggest that you are are quicker because your gun doesn't have one. There are a lot of guys out there that are faster than you and me with or without our safeties and always will be.

If you want to get faster and deadlier you should master the gun you've got.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Hmmm....so if you use a gun, with a safety, removing it is an "unnecessary" step?

You are losing your own arguments with your statements.

No, the only thing at a loss here is your ability to understand the concept.

I am making a valid statement about the fact that if you cannot be trusted to adhere to basic operation techniques you cannot be trusted to perform additional procedures.

You are going to an absurd level and saying if you cannot remember additional operating measures how can you remember basic techniques. Your logic is backwards and flawed.

My question is like saying "how can you walk AND chew gun at the same time if you cannot walk?" Your question is like saying "How can you walk if you can't chew gum?"

 

[ImDisaster]

...the only thing at a loss here is your ability to understand the concept.

If you say so. The other undeniable thing that is you aren't willing to accept someone can master a safety and that we are all different.

Perhaps you should challenge Todd Jarret to a shootout and see if he is quicker with his .45 and it's safety than you are with your Glock. I wouldn't count on him forgetting to remove the safety.

 

[Playboypenguin]

The other undeniable thing that is you aren't willing to accept someone can master a safety and that we are all different

You fail to understand once again.

I did not say someone cannot master a safety. I said how can someone that cannot follow basic safety techniques be sure they can follow measures in addition to the basic measures.