Am I being paranoid? No safety on pistols?

While I agree that there are inherently unsafe handguns that rely on a manual/external safety to assure that they do not accidentally discharge, no-one should ever consider carrying such handguns in the first place. I don't think that there is a single popular/modern semi-automatic handgun that is inherently unsafe (with the exception of the Remington R51 lemons sold and recalled last year).
Again, I would disagree. The Walther is a reasonable example. While the hammer is blocked when the trigger isn't pulled, the firing pin itself is restrained by the safety. If the safety is off and the gun is struck on the muzzle end, it may indeed fire. This is in contrast to something like a SIG where the pin is restrained by the trigger mechanism as well. KNOW YOUR WEAPON.
 

Again, I would disagree. The Walther is a reasonable example. While the hammer is blocked when the trigger isn't pulled, the firing pin itself is restrained by the safety. If the safety is off and the gun is struck on the muzzle end, it may indeed fire. KNOW YOUR WEAPON.

Which Walther?
 
I am guessing you mean the Walther PPK, which I do not count as a modern semi-automatic handgun. It is my understanding that this particular handgun does not have an internal firing pin safety. The external manual safety acts as hammer block. Once the safety is disengaged, the Walther PPK is not drop safe. The Walther PPK/s .22LR is drop safe, according to its Link Removed.

As you correctly pointed out, know your weapon. Or more precisely, research the weapon before you buy. Don't just buy something, because the shop clerk recommends it or a friend of yours does.
 
Hello, Annee. Congratulations on taking the first step into the world of self sufficiency. No, you are not being paranoid. Your username sounds like you may be a woman. If so, then your message makes sense. Women tend to use more common sense than men in matters where they are not very knowledgeable. Your choice of the Ruger LC9s was a good one, so I wonder why you would be looking at another pocket gun. Based on what you say, you have started right with training. Flicking off a manual safety needs to be part of your process. Some people here and on other forums believe a manual safety is a waste, or even counter productive. I believe that a striker gun is so easy to fire that a safety of some kind is essential, and I look at two places for evidence.
.
1. If you read the paper, watch the news on TV, or listen to the news on your satellite radio, you know that negligent discharges happen with some frequency. They happen with flash bang holsters, with inside the waistband holsters, and with "Mexican carry", as well as with guns laying on a store counter. They happen to new shooters and to experienced law enforcement. There is a reason that a particular kind of ND injury is called "Glock leg". It's because it happens with striker guns like Glocks with no manual safety, most often during reholstering. Yes, the safety between the ears is most often the culprit, but so are broken holsters, twigs, overly curious kids, and others that are not totally, but largely, beyond the gun owner's control.
.
2. The U.S. military has a couple hundred or so years experience with all sorts of people wearing uniforms and carrying firearms. They learned quite a bit about people during the first hundred years, so when John Moses Browning designed his now famous 45 automatic, the M1911, the army insisted that he put a manual thumb safety on it, even though the gun was designed with an excellent grip safety. For the next 70 years, that design proved right, so when Beretta proposed its DA/SA 9mm handgun, that gun which became the M9, it also had to have a manual thumb safety. Now the people that run the army are not brilliant, but they do have the ability to see what works, and they have the obligation to keep their fighting soldiers from accidentally shooting themselves, so that they can shoot the enemy. Being an ordinary grunt in the 1st Infantry Division in Vietnam, I never had occasion to carry a sidearm, just an M-16, which also has a manual safety, the use of which is drilled into those who must carry the M16.
.
You'll find many people who will say that a manual safety is unnecessary, and some of them may seem like they should know. BTW, the other, less politically correct name for "Glock proponents" is "Glock fanboys." I've had a Glock and never had an ND, but I sold it. When my wife started shopping, she was considering the LC9s and the M&P Shield with the optional thumb safety. Before she could really even get started with shopping, I happened to win a Glock 19 in a drawing I didn't even know I had entered. The Glock 19 comes really close to being the ideal all purpose handgun. Light weight, 4" barrel, 15 round magazine, and importantly, a full 3 finger grip, all in a gun with weight comparable to some subcompacts. Its only deficiencies are the cheesy plastic sights and total lack of a real safety. Well, since my price of entry to the G19 was low enough, I decided I would get a Cominolli thumb safety installed. Because of a lack of reasonable and competent local installers, I opted to send it to Cominolli for the installation along with a set of Truglo TFX combo fiber optic and tritium night sights. The G19 is now almost perfect, but my wife is undecided. The G19 is fatter than the Ruger or the Shield, and the trigger is a little sharp-edged, but she likes the 15+1 rounds. The Cominolli safety works perfectly. Flick off, flick on.
.
As to your paranoia or lack thereof, don't be influenced by Internet Ninjas or anyone who says, "the only safety you need is between your ears", as there are too many injured or dead people for that to be true. Practice with your carry gun and include disengaging the safety as part of the process, then engaging again.
 
bowserb, please post pictures of the Glock 19 with the thumb safety.

As for your arguments, they are in part right and wrong. Negligent discharges don't just happen. There is always a reason for it and that reason is always stupid.

As I pointed out earlier, negligent discharges do happen with manual safeties as well. Tex Grebner shot himself in the leg with a Kimber 1911. Why? Because he disengaged the safety while the gun was in the holster and then pulled the trigger when he pulled the gun out of the holster. Why? Because he trained before (on the same day) with a Glock and a holster that has a thumb release at the same location 1911s have their thumb safety AND he used an outside the waistband Serpa holster with the Kimber 1911 that has an index finger release AND he pointed the gun at his leg. The lesson learned here is not that you shouldn't carry a 1911, Glock, Serpa holster, or whatever. The lesson learned here is that the combination of poor procedure and exhaustion caused a negligent discharge. Another lesson learned is that if you decide to carry and train with one type of action/safety and holster retention, then stick with it.

Note that shooting yourself in the leg is indicative of very poor procedure and not of a missing manual safety. Why is the gun pointed at the leg in the first place? Why is the finger or something else in the trigger guard?

Most other negligent discharges you hear about in the news are usually straight forward stupid violations of basic firearm safety, such as carrying without a holster or with a crap-piece of holster (such as the flash bang), disassembling a loaded firearm, providing unauthorized access, grabbing a falling loaded firearm.

The use of handguns in the military is not a good comparison to civilian self defense. These are completely different use cases. The rifle is the primary firearm in the military. The use of handguns in law enforcement is a better comparison to civilian self defense. Some law enforcement agencies do carry firearms with a manual safety, most don't.

The main reason why people say "the only safety you need is between your ears" is that a manual safety won't replace that. In fact, a manual safety can even lead to complacency. "The safety was on" is not an excuse to laser anyone who is not a threat (including yourself) or to have your finger on the trigger without having the gun pointed at the intended target.
 
bowserb, please post pictures of the Glock 19 with the thumb safety.

As for your arguments, they are in part right and wrong. Negligent discharges don't just happen. There is always a reason for it and that reason is always stupid.

As I pointed out earlier, negligent discharges do happen with manual safeties as well. Tex Grebner shot himself in the leg with a Kimber 1911. Why? Because he disengaged the safety while the gun was in the holster and then pulled the trigger when he pulled the gun out of the holster. Why? Because he trained before (on the same day) with a Glock and a holster that has a thumb release at the same location 1911s have their thumb safety AND he used an outside the waistband Serpa holster with the Kimber 1911 that has an index finger release AND he pointed the gun at his leg. The lesson learned here is not that you shouldn't carry a 1911, Glock, Serpa holster, or whatever. The lesson learned here is that the combination of poor procedure and exhaustion caused a negligent discharge. Another lesson learned is that if you decide to carry and train with one type of action/safety and holster retention, then stick with it.

Note that shooting yourself in the leg is indicative of very poor procedure and not of a missing manual safety. Why is the gun pointed at the leg in the first place? Why is the finger or something else in the trigger guard?

Most other negligent discharges you hear about in the news are usually straight forward stupid violations of basic firearm safety, such as carrying without a holster or with a crap-piece of holster (such as the flash bang), disassembling a loaded firearm, providing unauthorized access, grabbing a falling loaded firearm.

The use of handguns in the military is not a good comparison to civilian self defense. These are completely different use cases. The rifle is the primary firearm in the military. The use of handguns in law enforcement is a better comparison to civilian self defense. Some law enforcement agencies do carry firearms with a manual safety, most don't.

The main reason why people say "the only safety you need is between your ears" is that a manual safety won't replace that. In fact, a manual safety can even lead to complacency. "The safety was on" is not an excuse to laser anyone who is not a threat (including yourself) or to have your finger on the trigger without having the gun pointed at the intended target.
OK. Didn't mean to suggest that ND's just happen. That's why I called them ND's. The N stands for Negligent. Negligence to some degree or another is behind many things we do and many accidents. Ever drop your watch while you're putting it on? Spill wine while you're pouring it? Both of those are acts of negligence, not of the seriousness of a negligent discharge of a gun, of course. Consider the first time you negligently dropped your watch while you were putting it on. Or, the first time you spilled wine on the carpet while pouring. Negligence could cause a spill. In the case of the watch or the spill, the event could have been caused by your dog running into the room or your six year old flying a paper airplane into your face. Would those be negligence or something else? It doesn't matter. Assuming you can learn from your mistakes, you now use the dresser or bed as your "watch drop safety" and a tray or kitchen sink as your "wine spill safety". In both of those cases, paying attention, avoiding distraction, using the "safety between your ears", could have prevented the broken watch or the stained carpet.

My use of military as an example of why safeties can be valuable is that all kinds of people get into the army, especially back when I was in, because there was a draft in place. Everyone from a professional sharpshooter to a pot smoking musician to a city boy who had never had his hands on a real gun, were drafted and trained at the same time. A manual safety, as the army learned, is an extra measure of protection that, when put in as part of training, will not reduce the effectiveness of the weapon or soldier, but can help prevent unintended injuries or death. Police are a good example, too though, as Glocks are popular with police, and police are also often guilty of ND's in training or elsewhere. By now everyone has seen the YouTube video of a police officer speaking to a school class and shooting himself in the leg. To his credit, his immediate reaction was not to his own injury but to be certain that no children were injured. It was, however, totally his fault. It was also a case where use of a safety could have been beneficial. Similar story, the policeman whose gun was fired by a kid who grabbed it in the holster. Police officers have also been saved when their guns on safe were taken from them and the perps attempted to fire, not realizing the gun was on safe. According to Cominolli's product manager, some police forces have equipped all their Glocks with that safety.

Other stories we've seen are also sad. The lady who shot herself retrieving from a flashbang holster. The one who was killed by her two year old who got hold of the gun in a purse. Both of these and others I totally agree should not have happened and only did due to negligence. But like s..t, negligence happens. A manual safety can be that extra line of defense--the razor wire at the end of the minefield, the belt and suspenders, the emergency brake when the car transmission is in Park. BTW, OP, I have a belly band holster I use when I have to tuck a shirt, which fortunately is not often. It covers the trigger guard on a G19 or any smaller gun, but it is not as effective a cover as a kydex holster.

FWIW, most people get by with strikers--half cocked Glocks as well as other striker guns--and never have a problem. I've never needed a manual safety either. My 1911 has both a thumb safety and grip safety. The XDM-45 has only a grip safety, and I have no worries about that, as it is a great compromise--a passive safety, if you will. My Sig is a DA/SA, and arguably my most susceptible to ND, but that long 10Lb DA trigger pull is a pretty effective ND preventer. If I were buying a striker gun now, it would be one of those with a thumb safety either standard or available, like the S&W M&P line, Ruger, or FN, or else a grip safety gun like the Springfield Armory XD/XDM line. I am not advocating going out and buying a Glock with the intention of having a Cominolli safety installed afterward, as that would be unnecessarily expensive compared to buying a gun with a factory thumb safety. Anyway, bofh, here is a pic of the G19 with Cominolli safety and Truglo TFX sights.
Link Removed
 
Hello, Annee. Congratulations on taking the first step into the world of self sufficiency. No, you are not being paranoid.

Basic concepts:
Don't carry a POS gun, but a modern, drop safe gun
Carry it is a holster designed for the gun, that secures it and protects the trigger from booger hooks and clothing.
#1 safety is the responsibility of the person.

A thumb safety can provide a false sense of safety.

Link Removed

SPARTANBURG, S.C. - A man accidentally shot himself in the butt while at work Friday afternoon, according to police, and now they're urging everyone to think about gun safety.
Police tell us, they got a call about a gunshot victim at Palmetto Posting Inc. on E. Henry Street.
The victim stood up out of his chair and adjusted his pants when his handgun fired, a report states. He noticed he was bleeding after he took off his waistband holster.
Authorities say the bullet hit his right buttock and then hit the floor.
According to police, the man told them the safety of the gun was on and he thinks the gun malfunctioned before firing.
 
The only thing I can add to this discussion is when buying a gun with a manual safety, make sure you can operate it accordingly. That means the manual safety can be operated by you easily with one hand (weak and strong).
 
Thanks everyone for your replies. All good points of views to learn from and figure out what's best for me. I ended up getting the M&P Shield with an external safety since my Ruger LC9s has it, that's the way I've been training, and that's how I feel most comfortable right now. If I change my mind, I could always sell them, get some without safeties, and re-train. It's not just what's between my ears I worry about, it's seems like another layer of protection in case, god forbid, a youngster gets a hold of it.

Also, if I ever want to use the belly band (I'll actually wear it low on my hips), I'll feel better with the external safety. I did buy a really good molded IWB holsters specially for each one also.
 
"The gun malfunctioned." Isn't that statement SOP for someone who screwed up? The gun malfunctioned is code for "I got careless and shot myself." That story is evidence of nothing, because it is heresay. Someone did something stupid and immediately started making excuses. I don't know what kind of gun he had, but odds are it did not malfunction and cause him to shoot himself with the safety on. There was a malfunction alright, of that safety some of you like to reference so frequently. This guy was not a very effective thinker. So he used the same excuse you hear in car accidents, "The brakes failed." "The car jumped into gear."

If you do not want a manual safety on your handgun, you don't have to have one. Glock will accommodate you, as will Smith & Wesson and others. If you do want a thumb safety, Smith & Wesson will also fix you up, since their M&P line is available both with or without. The model with a thumb safety has an MSRP only $20 higher. Ruger's striker guns have thumb safeties except for one model. FN has striker guns with or without. Whatever you carry, you should train with all its features and under various conditions.

The one thing I really oppose is calling someone wrong because they don't agree with your opinion--and that's all that is being expressed here, opinions. Give me any set of conditions, gun brands and types, and you can be sure there are examples of why that gun was good or bad in the circumstance. My wife refused to carry the G19 without a manual safety. So what's better? She doesn't carry anything, or she carries a gun with a safety and trains to draw and flip off the safety?
 
I have had pistols with and without safeties. It is just a matter of getting used to whichever you have. One of my 2 guns now has no safety, is just double action, the other has a decocker, I just load a round in the pipe and decock and carry. I feel safe with both of these guns. The main safety is the owner knowing how to handle the gun properly. :dance3:
 
None of my guns have an external safety, one has a decocker. Glock, SIG P220, & Ruger Single Action Army. Two are carried in holster with trigger guard protected, SAA not necessary. Unlike the majority of persons, I always have my finger on the trigger when in my hand. That's the way that I was taught and it has as worked for me for over 60 years, so save all the retoric, I've heard it all.
 
None of my guns have an external safety, one has a decocker. Glock, SIG P220, & Ruger Single Action Army. Two are carried in holster with trigger guard protected, SAA not necessary. Unlike the majority of persons, I always have my finger on the trigger when in my hand. That's the way that I was taught and it has as worked for me for over 60 years, so save all the retoric, I've heard it all.
So it's true? You can't teach an old dog new tricks? Too bad, because if what you said here is accurate, you are a danger to others and should rethink that trigger finger position.
Link Removed
 
So it's true? You can't teach an old dog new tricks? Too bad, because if what you said here is accurate, you are a danger to others and should rethink that trigger finger position.
Your new "tricks" & New School Safety Rhetoric are just that, rhetoric. Like I said, I've heard it all. I would never point my gun at anyone that I didn't intend to shoot, so no reason to rethink anything. Nuff said.
 
I almost bought another one this weekend. I loved it. It was a M&P Shield 9 mm, but I didn't get it because it didn't have a safety.
I think you're just being peranoid :)

I bought the M&P Shield 9mm without the thumb safety because a safety that tiny can be easily fumbled in a stressful situation.
 
Your new "tricks" & New School Safety Rhetoric are just that, rhetoric. Like I said, I've heard it all. I would never point my gun at anyone that I didn't intend to shoot, so no reason to rethink anything. Nuff said.
You know what you speak.:triniti:
 
You're not paranoid, just not comfortable yet. Familiarity with a new type of weapon is what you need. First, read up on the inherent safety features of these new type handguns for a mechanical understanding of why they are safe. Then, if you can find your way to purchasing one, shoot it, clean it, shoot it, clean it, fondle it and make it your BF. Won't take long and you'll love the simplicity of a handgun that you can just raise and shoot, because, in a moment of grave extreme, you have one less thing to think about. JMO.
 
I was the same way when I first started carrying concealed. I chose the Shield with a thumb safety just because I wanted to be comfortable carrying the firearm. If I was scared to carry it then it wouldn't do me much good right? I've since become more comfortable and informed about how firearms are made. I actually transitioned from the Shield to a Ruger LCR which has been my constant companion ever since. It, of course, has no thumb safety being a revolver. It does have a heavier trigger pull since it is double-action only.

You're not paranoid. It just takes time to get comfortable
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,527
Messages
610,761
Members
74,965
Latest member
Roosince1911
Back
Top