Though many deride it merely because it is "unordinary," I think FNH really hit on a nice compromise between the manual and automatic safety schemes with their Five-seven pistol. The safety is a simple lever placed directly
above the trigger on the frame. You know, where you are
supposed to put your finger before you are about to shoot, provided you are being a good little shooter?
Simply dragging the finger down into the trigger guard flips off the safety and makes the gun ready. Not a separate motor-skills operation like a thumb safety, and not an automatic operation as part of merely carrying/pointing the gun like a grip safety. And if you
do train to make the safety-deactivation part of the trigger draw (which GEM and others allude to), in which the next step beyond pointing the gun is a certain and rapid path to discharge, the motion your body does is very similar to a Glock or other safety-less design, but there is still a trigger-independent device keeping the gun from firing. That last part is important to some because of the possibility of yanking the trigger on the draw or catching the trigger upon holstering.
I must say, this discussion has been fantastic. We need more threads like these; "
Why do we do things the way we do?" This is how we come up with better designs and ideas that improve the whole regime of firearms. I, myself, am currently working on a carbine design in which I am trying to borrow the very best elements of the very best guns, and also incorporate uncommon ideas that nonetheless make sense for the platform. I call it the Skorparev (Skorpion-in-Tokarev), and it is a subcompact semi-auto pistol caliber carbine, which fires from a gas operated locked breech (VZ52-style piston, RPD-style bolt lockup). Presently, I am looking to use both a grip safety as well as a manual safety; my thinking is that the handy little gun should be rough-and-tumble friendly for carrying around, but must also be capable of being brought into action very intuitively and simply for defense use (when it's not otherwise being carried or messed with). My idea was an ambidextrous cross-bolt style
grip safety, as well as a more common "rifle safety" like that of the M1 Garand or AR15 that requires real thought to actuate.
So far, I've learned that there are really different safety philosophies (not just manual or automatic safety concepts) that run the gambit from automatic to intentionally cumbersome. The same decision is made in every interface requiring human decision ("Are you sure you want to exit?" Some people like warning messages to help keep them from mistakes, I personally can't stand them
once I've gotten familiar with a system).
-No safety: French service rifles, where it was a set rule that rifle chambers were to be empty unless fired. Makes sense if Condition 3 is the rule. Most modern guns have triggers too light and neutrally engaged at the sear to be safe when bumped around all day.
-Automatic: Trigger is the safety lever, or they are on top of each other. Glock or set triggers, and heavy/long DA triggers force the shooter to pause or think a teeny bit before breaking, but are just as fast as no safety if needed. I suppose magazine disconnect safeties fall under this heading.
-Shooting Stance: Grip safeties and squeeze cockers make sure the pistol is at least gripped properly in order to shoot, the assumption being that the pistol is only drawn when justified (and about to be shot). I'd also put trigger guards here, since even though they are very passive/automatic, they do require you to basically put your finger directly on the trigger in order to fire the gun.
-Sympathetic motion: double set triggers, Five-seven safety. Takes advantage of hand movements necessary to fire the gun, but is not built into the trigger itself and can therefore block an errant unintentional trigger pull
-Independent motor operation: thumb safety, any safety requiring a movement divorced from the trigger. Supposedly requires two thoughts in order to shoot the gun instead of once, the thought being the additional calculus is beneficial more often than not. The motion requires a separate movement of the trigger or other fingers, but does not interrupt the rapid draw and firing of the pistol much (if at all)
-Highly independent motor operation: requires breaking the shooting grip or a second hand to remove the safety. Think the ring safety on the back of a K31 bolt, or most cross-bolt safeties that can't be actuated without breaking the grip of the shooting hand. The thinking here seems to be one of different operating environments, more like a 2WD/4WD switch than a shift from 1st into 2nd. The gun is either "carry safe" or "ready to fire" and it is assumed a clear delineation will separate the two, and sufficient time given to make the change.
It makes clear sense that certain types work better for certain roles; a sniper's rifle won't be used for close, unexpected encounters, so a highly independent safety is a great way to absolutely sure it cannot be fired in any way without a lot of time, forethought, and specific motions. A derringer is the polar opposite in every sense, and they normally use cruelly-terrible triggers to keep from going off unintended (usually) while not restricting the user's speed or trigger access in any way. What I'm most curious about, now, is what people like/dislike about
how manufacturers go about these different kinds of safety-concepts, rather than the unanswerable question of "which is better"
This technical discussion is so even-headed, I'm actually inspired to start a thread on another element of guns; the trigger group. I had been worried it would devolve into sectarian fanboy warfare almost immediately; I now have a bit more faith that some good may come of it
TCB
