Thoughts on Safeties...
- Thread starter 44 AMP
- Start date
RickB said:
I had a contrary impression.
The P7 I handled required significant and deliberate effort, enough that a child might not be able to squeeze it, in order to get it cocked. It didn't strike me as a passive safety, but one that needs to be disengaged and that resets once one lets go of the grip.
As well as I like Glock's product, a safety that is merely a different part of the same trigger one presses to shoot is not what I would consider a safety. I can and have lived with it (at the range), but it operates in a manner much more like a SIG250, in terms of operation a safetyless design.
Fishing_Cabin
New member
Since we are discussing safeties, and Glenn brought up ergonomics, I just thought I would toss out a couple of other things.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eive-35-000-guns-big-hands.html#ixzz2to7pxSEt
And also here is another ergonomic study that some here may enjoy reading over which was done at FLETC.
http://media.townhall.com/townhall/bearingarms/Ergonomics-in-semo-auto-weapons-selection.pdf
dailymail.co.uk said:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eive-35-000-guns-big-hands.html#ixzz2to7pxSEt
And also here is another ergonomic study that some here may enjoy reading over which was done at FLETC.
http://media.townhall.com/townhall/bearingarms/Ergonomics-in-semo-auto-weapons-selection.pdf
The main thing a safety being separate from the trigger accomplishes is that two events must happen independently for the gun to fire. Very difficult for a holster or awkward draw to result in a discharge the closer you force the gun to be "gripped/aimed" in order to deactivate the safety.
I personally don't buy the 'two conscious efforts' concept, since 1911/etc. guys with manual safeties claim all the time they are 'effortless' and 'instinctive' which seems to defeat that notion, while at the same time fundamentally requiring greater dexterity than a passive safety. I never understood pinning of the grip safety; deactivating/removing the thumb safety always seemed to make more sense to me (though I'd also make the grip safety more positive along with such a mod).
A quick & related ergonomics question; I'm working on a carbine that will have two grip safeties (left and right, which also automatically switch the direction brass is ejected), what would be a good place to put it? I originally thought I should place it at the first digit of the trigger finger (so finger had to be on/near the trigger to deactivate it), but I am also curious if putting it further down at the knuckles of the other fingers might be more favorable. There's also a manual safety for carry, the grip safety is for when you have stopped to shoot, but still want some protection against falls when you set the gun down (and it's free since the safety lever is needed for setting the ejection anyway).
TCB
I personally don't buy the 'two conscious efforts' concept, since 1911/etc. guys with manual safeties claim all the time they are 'effortless' and 'instinctive' which seems to defeat that notion, while at the same time fundamentally requiring greater dexterity than a passive safety. I never understood pinning of the grip safety; deactivating/removing the thumb safety always seemed to make more sense to me (though I'd also make the grip safety more positive along with such a mod).
A quick & related ergonomics question; I'm working on a carbine that will have two grip safeties (left and right, which also automatically switch the direction brass is ejected), what would be a good place to put it? I originally thought I should place it at the first digit of the trigger finger (so finger had to be on/near the trigger to deactivate it), but I am also curious if putting it further down at the knuckles of the other fingers might be more favorable. There's also a manual safety for carry, the grip safety is for when you have stopped to shoot, but still want some protection against falls when you set the gun down (and it's free since the safety lever is needed for setting the ejection anyway).
TCB
RickB said:
I respectfully disagree, a grip safety like the P7 is much different than a [Glocks] trigger safety in that its not part of the same mechanism. A pistol with only a trigger safety can still fire if something is snagged inside the trigger guard. With a grip safety two things must happen for the pistol to fire, a proper grip and a trigger pull.
Why does anybody bother with thumb safeties then? If the only concern is not being able to just pull the trigger accidentally, why don't all guns just use grip safeties (aside from variety)?
This is a legitimate question, I'm not trying to badger anyone about their preferences. I have guns with all kinds of safeties on them, and my preferences are just that, preferences.
SHE3PDOG said:
Recently, there was a thread on this board in which someone noted that there was a school of thought that preceded "only put your finger on the trigger when you are ready to fire". He noted that lots of people were trained on 1911s and revolvers to draw with the finger on the trigger.
If you are drawing a 1911 with a finger just touching the trigger, that thumb safety has a lot of value. My practice with a 1911 was to disengage the thumb safety just before pressing the trigger. Two easy to use and intuitive safeties were redundant, but also easy to use.
koda94 said:
I generally agree, but taking a step back I wonder whether a great variety in safety designs can work against safe results. If part of safety is familiarity, variety can work against that familiarity.
Returning to an automotive analogy, I can drive my wife's van, which has been outfitted with hand controls, but my use isn't fluid and familiar, but unnatural and inept. I am glad she has that option, but the general standardization of auto-controls likely assists safety.
I have no complaint about the mere existence of any safety, but some seem less well conceived. This brings to mind the Browning with a thumb safety that disengages with an upward motion, and had a few different modes of operation.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Thanks for the links, Fishing Cabin 
About the English women - the other day I was demonstrating grip to three young women using a Blackhawk replica Glock 17. One was a very short person - just under 5 feet. She could not reach the trigger with a standard position on the gun.
About the English women - the other day I was demonstrating grip to three young women using a Blackhawk replica Glock 17. One was a very short person - just under 5 feet. She could not reach the trigger with a standard position on the gun.
Not just variety, but utility also...
The original part name used by the US ARMY for the thumb safety on a 1911 was "safety lock". This name was still in the shop manuals when I used them in the 1970s. Its a good name, and describes the intended function fairly well. "Thumb safety" only describes the location.
We "bother" with safeties (such as a safety lock) because, unlike a grip safety, they require a separate, conscious action to engage and disengage them.
A pistol with a grip safety is mechanically safe, but one with a manual safety is operationally safer.
According to what I have heard, it was the Cavalry that insisted on having the safety lock (thumb safety) on the 1911. Browning's prototypes only had a grip safety. The concern was a cavalryman trying to reholster a loaded cocked pistol with only a grip safety could result in an accidental discharge. Being able to "lock" the gun on safe was considered desirable, back then.
And, it is still desirable for a lot of us today. This is the point of a manual safety, it only goes on when you want it to, and it only comes OFF when you want it to.
There are many, many circumstances when I still want the gun on safe, while I am holding it in a firing grip. A grip safety is good, but I am more comfortable with a grip safety AND a manual safety. I am also comfortable with a manual safety alone. I am also ok with no mechanical safety at all. One just has to use the proper manual of arms for the gun in question in order to be safe.
If you aren't ok with a manual safety, simply don't use it, and rely on the safety between your ears alone. (note that while it does work, that safety often fails as well).
The original part name used by the US ARMY for the thumb safety on a 1911 was "safety lock". This name was still in the shop manuals when I used them in the 1970s. Its a good name, and describes the intended function fairly well. "Thumb safety" only describes the location.
We "bother" with safeties (such as a safety lock) because, unlike a grip safety, they require a separate, conscious action to engage and disengage them.
A pistol with a grip safety is mechanically safe, but one with a manual safety is operationally safer.
According to what I have heard, it was the Cavalry that insisted on having the safety lock (thumb safety) on the 1911. Browning's prototypes only had a grip safety. The concern was a cavalryman trying to reholster a loaded cocked pistol with only a grip safety could result in an accidental discharge. Being able to "lock" the gun on safe was considered desirable, back then.
And, it is still desirable for a lot of us today. This is the point of a manual safety, it only goes on when you want it to, and it only comes OFF when you want it to.
There are many, many circumstances when I still want the gun on safe, while I am holding it in a firing grip. A grip safety is good, but I am more comfortable with a grip safety AND a manual safety. I am also comfortable with a manual safety alone. I am also ok with no mechanical safety at all. One just has to use the proper manual of arms for the gun in question in order to be safe.
If you aren't ok with a manual safety, simply don't use it, and rely on the safety between your ears alone. (note that while it does work, that safety often fails as well).
Fishing_Cabin
New member
Just curious since we haven't discussed smart gun technology since we have been discussing safeties. I know that there is a bit (being nice?) of dislike toward the idea due to possible government mandates, but it is another option for some who may want such.
Found it interesting that another is slowly coming to the market evidently. Not sure it will be popular though.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/20-02-2014/126884-armatix_iP1_smartgun-0/
My view is it will probably be another 20 years or longer before such tech is reliably useable and accepted, if that soon.
Found it interesting that another is slowly coming to the market evidently. Not sure it will be popular though.
Pravda.ru said:
http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/20-02-2014/126884-armatix_iP1_smartgun-0/
My view is it will probably be another 20 years or longer before such tech is reliably useable and accepted, if that soon.
You have a point, but I'm still not too concerned about mechanical safeties that come into play when you are not holding the gun in your hand (see: grip safety). In the case of the P7 and Glock, if are holding the gun and pull the trigger the gun will fire. I consider the P7 to essentially have a grip safety on the front strap, rather than a "thumb safety" that is operated with the fingers instead of the thumb (though an argument could be made for the latter).
That bit makes the most sense to me along with 44 AMP's comment on familiarity. I was born into the school of thought where you should only put your finger on the trigger when you are ready to fire, but I can understand why people with different training may see some utility in a safety like that. Afterall, your familiarity with a gun is likely reflected by the training or practice you have had with it.
However, what about DA/SA guns? As was stated, there are people that have learned to put their finger on the trigger during the draw with 1911s and revolvers. The first trigger pull on the DA/SA guns is pretty heavy, similar to a revolvers, so is that enough of a safety to feel safe using that school of thought? An example would be the Sig P226 that only has a decocker with no external safeties.
Also, I just want to note again that my question wasn't meant to be offensive. I don't really care whether a gun has a safety or not on it.
One of the old rules we got taught was keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
A safe rule, and a good one. And one that always works. However, its kind of like a speed limit. There are times, and valid reasons to break the rule. WE get very focused on defensive shooting, because, face it, that's the most critical kind of shooting that we (hopefully never) will face.
But there is a lot more out there, many other kinds of shooting, and schools of thought about what is right, what is best, etc, for them.
There IS a difference between placing your finger on the trigger and pulling the trigger. I have heard the argument that the usual DA/SA autopistol is better for police work than the SA (only) pistol. And that the SA pistol is better for the military.
The reasoning is essentially, that when a solider aims at the enemy, he is expecting (and expected) to shoot them. Police, on the other hand often have to hold suspects at gunpoint, not expecting to shoot them, but prepared to do so if necessary. And therefore, the DA revolver style pull is safer (particularly for the people held at gunpoint).
Designers are such fascinating people, in what they do. And don't do. And both in the same design, sometimes. Look at all the old military rifles with slow, awkward safeties. Wings and loops and knobs and what have you. And also (virtually without exception) two stage triggers.
No matter what we teach, nor how often, there ARE going to be people who put their fingers on the trigger, with the safety off (or no safety). And, of course in military use its going to be even more common due to the stress levels. So that first stage take up, gives a small degree of safety, in those situations, much more than a clean crisp single stage match trigger would.
And we're drifting...but triggers and safeties are kind of ..connected...
A safe rule, and a good one. And one that always works. However, its kind of like a speed limit. There are times, and valid reasons to break the rule. WE get very focused on defensive shooting, because, face it, that's the most critical kind of shooting that we (hopefully never) will face.
But there is a lot more out there, many other kinds of shooting, and schools of thought about what is right, what is best, etc, for them.
There IS a difference between placing your finger on the trigger and pulling the trigger. I have heard the argument that the usual DA/SA autopistol is better for police work than the SA (only) pistol. And that the SA pistol is better for the military.
The reasoning is essentially, that when a solider aims at the enemy, he is expecting (and expected) to shoot them. Police, on the other hand often have to hold suspects at gunpoint, not expecting to shoot them, but prepared to do so if necessary. And therefore, the DA revolver style pull is safer (particularly for the people held at gunpoint).
Designers are such fascinating people, in what they do. And don't do. And both in the same design, sometimes. Look at all the old military rifles with slow, awkward safeties. Wings and loops and knobs and what have you. And also (virtually without exception) two stage triggers.
No matter what we teach, nor how often, there ARE going to be people who put their fingers on the trigger, with the safety off (or no safety). And, of course in military use its going to be even more common due to the stress levels. So that first stage take up, gives a small degree of safety, in those situations, much more than a clean crisp single stage match trigger would.
And we're drifting...but triggers and safeties are kind of ..connected...
Because Priorities.
"Not Tex Grebnering yourownself" is slightly above "centerpunching the BadGuy"......
... and in my book (YMMV), "center punching the BadGuy with our first two rounds in 1.5 seconds" is above "shotcocking the gun by flinging a round downrange to land heaven-knows-where so I can land the second round COM" .....
I imagine some have enough time and ammo to train to do virtually anything during their drawstroke. I don't.
Mehbee some are comfortable with no safety on a gun with the muzzle living, on a daily basis, between their jeans and their undies .... I'm not.
Mehbee you can draw and make two COM hits consistantly with a different trigger pull for each. I found it easier to do with a 1911 system.
Ain't diversity Grand?
I literally didn't understand half of your post, JimBob. I'm assuming you were talking about shooting yourself though. I don't worry about the gun going off by itself with or without a manual safety.
As for the DA/SA being harder to shoot, I really think that this is just something that can be overcome by training just as easily as drawing a 1911 and flipping the safety off can be.
As for the DA/SA being harder to shoot, I really think that this is just something that can be overcome by training just as easily as drawing a 1911 and flipping the safety off can be.