You guys ever notice that we have way more threads of some idiot with an ND than someone saying they used a gun in self defense?
Almost all of those NDs could've been prevented with a manual safety. I challenge you to find ONE (1) verified story of a self defense situation going horribly wrong because the defender forgot to tun off the safety.
>implying any news source can accurately describe any weapon used in any story ever.
>implying any news source would ever report on a life lost due to manual safety fumbling
I'm not saying you're right or wrong I'm saying you're asking for the impossible.
I can't do that and you know it.
What we can do is look at how most NDs occur during administrative tasks like cleaning or drawing and re-holstering. All times a safety will be on.
We also know that Police Departments have increased rates of NDs since switching to glocks or other safetyless pistols. Yes, this can be addressed with training but point still stands.
Did you attend the Dianne Feinstein school of rhetoric?
Care to explain why there's no "revolverleg"?
>I can't do that and you know it.
Then you cannot make the claim that "Almost all of those NDs could've been prevented with a manual safety."
>All times a safety will be on.
I challenge you to verify that claim.
I'm not a public safety official and this thread isn't about mandating safeties for the good of everyone.
As an individual, I posit that the reasons listed are sufficient to warrant the preference for a manual safety. Due to the reasons specified, I also recommend that everyone consider a safety as well.
Of course I cant prove that everyone will have a safety on during reholstering. But I can say that because of an awareness of the frequency of NDs during reholstering, I as an individual, will purchase a gun during a manual safety and ensure that it is on during reholstering.
Satisfied? You sound like those mental masturbatory pseudo-intellectual atheist fags on reddit.
Most cases where the shooter stole the gun from the cop and managed to shoot them were with drop safety only models like the Glock, too. In a lot of cases they couldn't work manual safeties in time.
I'm pretty sure the problem there was lack of familiarity with the pistol, not necessarily time. In all the cases that Ayoob brings up, he's talking about the shooter just trying to pull the trigger and being confused why it wont work.
Good point though, I haven't though of this as evidence of downside of safeties.
Yeah yeah we have 9 vs 45 threads all day.
This isn't a troll thread and I'm making some coherent yet often overlooked points for something that seems to be falling out of fashion with today's self defense instructors.
Bait but I'll reply so you get your 2/10.
Glocks (and keep in mind that they are only one example of a firearm designed with internal safeties) are extremely popular for CC. And yet not everyone is running around shooting themselves in the leg. By your own admission, you don't even know the statistics related to NDs and if they're even guns with internal safeties. You're just inferring this based on your own personal preference for external safeties. You can't posit something and then challenge your opponents to prove you wrong by finding an example of something tangentially related. The onus is on you here. Many people, myself included, carry weapons with no external safeties, and they work and we haven't shot ourselves. Even if you had the statistics, which you, again, don't, you would be arguing that because a small group of people misuse or are careless with guns with no manual external safeties, manual safeties must be better. (Does this line of argumentation remind you of any type of political argument?)
tl;dr - Glocks (and other guns with internal safeties) are perfectly safe. Coming in here with no evidence to the contrary makes you look like an asshole.
I must have misunderstood you.
If you are saying that a safety is great because of all those cases where a dindu didn't have time to disengage it before he shoots the guy with his own gun, then yes. Although I dont think that that alone is a good enough reason for a safety.
If you are saying the same thing as above, but extrapolating that this is evidence that taking off the safety takes time, therefore you should not use a gun safety, I was disagreeing with you but applauding your reasoning skills.
i'm OP, I firmly believe in guns with safeties
Yes, weapons with external safeties can be carried without any NDs. However, the likelihood of an ND is far higher than the likelihood of being in a self defense situation that requires a gun to be drawn and fired, AND forgetting to drop the safety at the same time crating a slight delay in reaction AND the dindu uses that delay against you
Based on what, your opinion? You told us you didn't have any statistics to prove this. You can't say things and not back them up and then expect people to not tell you that you might be wrong.
You're right. I searched and cant find any numbers. I amy be wrong but I'm satisfied that I am not to the point where having a manual safety is one of the criteria I look for in a gun. I may change my mind but I haven't done so yet.
I just don't like to see myths perpetuated. Lots of people believe a Glock has no safety when, in fact, three safeties are automatically engaged the *second* your finger leaves the trigger. If that's not safe, I don't know what is.
The US and Canadian militaries train grunts to clear rooms with their safeties on until time to shoot. No disrespect to 11Bs, but that is not a job that requires years and years of training.
In light of this, I find the reasoning that civilians, who trust their lives to a carry pistol, cannot be bothered to make operating a safety as second nature as a trigger rather questionable.
Not being a member of a military or police organization and therefore not being trained specifically for high adrenaline situations is *exactly* why guns with no external safeties are so popular with civilians. The point of your post should have been that manual safeties make sense for LEOs or soldiers, not civilians.
>the military does it so we should do it
dear lord when will that stupid line of reasoning end? it's like people who brag about their mil spec shit. congrats. you have a cost effective thing built by the lowest bidder. yay for you!
Probably the grip safety. Also the Glock Safety being a little flipper on the trigger that prevents the gun from firing unless the trigger is being pulled.
And that is, in fact, one of the main reasons Glocks have such a high rate of ND's. The safety is useless for doing what you need a safety to do (not fire when the trigger is pulled) but having it lulls people into a false sense of security.
It also interacts with one of the other main reasons: shitty holsters that get caught on the trigger, depress the safety level, and fire the pistol.
It's also tangential to the common cop/ex-cop ND problem of switching to a normal Glock and treating it like it still has a 12 pound trigger.
>little flipper on the trigger
Not exactly. That's just the first safety. The other two, while actuated by the movement of the trigger, require a lot more than the "little flipper" to be depressed.
So what, civies are just too lazy to learn to flip a thumb lever? Granted pistol manufacturers could come up with some more ergonomic safeties, but that doesn't speak well for us.
>require a lot more than the "little flipper" to be depressed
Like... the rest of the trigger? It's not like the goddamn thing runs biometrics on who's holding it and where it's pointed. It's a fucking gun. If the trigger gets pulled, it goes off.
It's not about being "lazy." It's about being afraid for your life because someone is about to kill or rape you. Don't be a dickhead and don't pretend you might not fuck up under stress either.
I hope this question is fitting for this thread and I'm sorry for ignorance, but what the fuck is with the 2-trigger thing on glocks and similar guns?
pic related, that's what I'm talking about
fucking goddammit, forgot pic.
That is one of the safeties. There are three that disengage sequentially when you pull the trigger. I could explain it but Glock has a great diagram on their website that does it better.
It's technically a safety that prevents striker-fired pistols from firing unless it's depressed flush with the trigger. It tends to create a false sense of security leading to people doing shit wrong and shooting themselves.
It does. It's ok if you don't understand how it works, but it absolutely does have an effect. To claim otherwise just demonstrates that you're not familiar with how that particular family of firearms works.
Why, because you said so? There are distinct advantages to this system and distinct disadvantages. Some people like things you don't like. That's the way the world works, kiddo. Might as well get used to it.
>No positive-engagement safety
>All work in sequence as you pull the trigger
It's a fucking drop safety, no matter how many linkages it has it doesn't disable the trigger unless the lever is up.
there was a guy here who tried to spin his gun cowboy style and shot himself in the chest, he later died.
they never said the gun, but it must've been a striker-fired gun like that for him to be that retarded.
gotta fucking love new mexico
>What we can do is look at how most NDs occur during administrative tasks like cleaning...
NO ONE has EVER fired a gun while cleaning it! This is complete and utter bullshit. People ND while fucking screwing around and they make the excuse...uh, I was cleaning it. BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
It's one more step and therefore more complicated. Again, if you don't like it, that's one thing, but the continued high sales of this style of firearm demonstrate that no matter how butthurt you get about it, people see a value in simplicity of design.
the only way, THE ONLY FUCKING WAY to fire a gun while cleaning it is so unlikely that it would probably never happen, but anyway, here's how it would go down;
>you don't clear it
"nah i know its clear, I won't bother
>its bolt action
>there is something seriously fucking wrong with the bolt, causing it to fire when the bolt is pushed forward
unless of course, by "cleaning it" they mean fucking around racking it 27 times watching football
No, I'm suggesting that the reason 1911's shoot people in the leg less often than Glocks is that even if the frame safety is off the grip safety will prevent the gun from firing if something (shitty holster for example) pulls the trigger.
In the hands of someone who treats the firearm with care and knowledge the safety is unnecessary. Unfortunately many people don't do so either because they're cocky, uninformed, or cheap.
Revolverleg was a thing back about 100-150 years ago when everything was single actions. It was mostly mitigated by loading 5 shots and carrying with the hammer down on an empty cylinder.
Related to this, I heard a story on the radio a while back about a kid was shot when his mother's gun fell on the ground and went off. Unless Mom was carrying an SAA/1911 hammer down, she was dicking around with it and shot her kid.
>Glocks don't. People do. Blaming the gun is a very gun grabby thing to do no?
If we can design a gun to lower the rates of ND, even if it is due to user error, would that not be the better thing to do?
I don't know about you, but I've trained it to be reflexive to drop the safety on my 1911, and on the MK 23 I carried in Iraq as I bring it up. Sweeping a thumb safety down takes basically no effort as part of the draw.
You have me confused for someone else. If you want the glock style of safety, be my guest. It's your money.
My position is that people who claim you cannot train around a manual safety, and thus should not have one on a carry pistol, are mistaken.
If you're stupid enough to ND in the first place I'm sure you'll be stupid enough to do it with a manual safety.
Do not underestimate the power of stupidity, it made you start this thread for starters.
There is no need for a manual safety, the problem is that trigger safeties tend promote bad habits. People get cocky and do stupid things because "I have muh safety."
But they don't so they shoot the fucking TV. If they had a frame safety it wouldn't have fired, but if they had no safety they wouldn't have done it to begin with.
Yes, it's their faults. Yes, they're idiots. No, trigger safety only really isn't a good idea for baby's first gun.
Step one prior to cleaning a gun: unload/clear weapon. If you have not done this you can not field strip it and begin cleaning it. Do you really believe people aren't just lying about that shit to protect themselves?
It happens a fair bit with Glocks. Not sure who thought 'pull the trigger' was a good step to include in disassembly, but someone did.
It shouldn't happen, but fuck if people aren't fucking idiots.
You haven't demonstrated with any kind of statistics that manual safeties cause fewer NDs.
Well no one is saying that. I'm simply saying that for me personally, I'd rather not have to. It's the manual safety fudds who can't get their heads around "people like different things."
Where is your proof of that other than the "muh Glock leg" meme? NDs happened before Glocks and they happened after Glocks. They will continue to happen. Also you don't have to pull the trigger to take it apart.
What he's saying would be more comparable to people being legally required to rip up a classic car to install a seatbelt for some new law, and how that would make no difference and waste time
>Also you don't have to pull the trigger to take it apart.
The manual even tells you to do so.
It also tells you to drop the magazine, clear the chamber physically and visually, and remove all ammunition from the room. But we've established that we're dealing with idiots here.
I don't care what it says. I own a G26. I'm literally wearing it now. You simply don't have to pull the trigger to take it down. I also just checked and the 4th gen manual certainly does not tell you to. More to your point, though, it's idiots who have NDs. Not Glock's fault.
Sorry, just realized you may be referring to the part where you have to decock it (by yes pulling the trigger) to take it down, but if you're trying to take apart any gun while it's cocked, you are fucking stupid.
>More to your point, though, it's idiots who have NDs. Not Glock's fault.
Much as I've been ragging on Glocks for not being the idiot proof designs they're often presented as, That's pretty much been my point all along.
The only reasons Glocks have an ND problem is that they're popular and often presented as being idiot proof, a supposition that idiots proceed to disprove.
>but if you're trying to take apart any gun while it's cocked, you are fucking stupid.
>you have to unchamber a gun to take it apart
>to unchamber a gun, you have to rack the slide
>if one forgets to remove mag, they just re-chamber a round and ND when they are ready to take it apart.
This is how many NDs happen, if glocks could be taken down like a normal pistol, this wouldn't be an issue
browning patterned pistols don't need to decock the hammers to take them apart. you can clear the pistol, leave it cocked, and take it apart without ever touching the trigger
If your argument is that you want a gun that will babysit you because you are so bad at gun safety that you didn't make sure the gun was safe and wanted to take a pistol apart while it was still cocked... I mean... ok, man. I don't feel a need for that and neither do the massive amount of Glock and other Glock like pistol owners, mostly because we trust ourselves to never do anything that incredibly stupid.
if you don't know the state of readiness your gun is in before you take it apart for any reason, you're fucking retarded.
always, always, ALWAYS know what state your guns are in.
There is an important distinction here that I think a lot of people are overlooking and that is the presence of an external hammer. I would argue that a DA/SA trigger on a pistol with an external hammer is much safer to handle than any striker fired pistol regardless of manual safety. When the hammer is down a long and deliberate trigger pull is required to fire ad is accompanied by the shooter being able to see and feel the movement of the hammer. You are also able to ride the hammer during manipulations such as holstering which prevent the trigger from being acuated accidentally as well has providing the user with feedback that pressure is being put on the hammer.
When the hammer is cocked there is a clear visual indication that the gun is in a state where the trigger can be easily actuated. Striker fired pistols lack both the ability to ride the hammer and a strong visual indicator of readiness to fire and as such are more prone to accidental or negligent discharges.
I'm sorry, are you literally retarded? I'm talking about BEFORE you start the takedown process. You don't have a cocked gun and go, WELP GUESS I WON'T CHECK THE CHAMBER TODAY. You decock it, THEN take it apart. Like you do with a Glock.
>strong visual indicator of readiness to fire
What is a loaded chamber indicator? Also if you don't know if a gun is loaded, it's loaded. Your dad should have taught you this the first time you fired a .22.
I can't say this enough. The key to a Glock, or XD, or any other striker design is don't be a retard. Seriously. That's it. Actually that's true of any gun. If manual safeties are so much safer, why were there NDs before Glock? The N in ND is there for a reason.
>he can't tell if a glock is loaded or not just by looking at it
Loaded chamber indicators can be present on both hammer and striker fired pistols, they do not indicate the state the trigger is in. Like you said, if you're following standard safety procedures then an ND shouldn't be possible. However with an external hammer you can prevent any accidental discharges through triggers snagging on clothing or holsters, and offer another layer of visual feedback for the user that isn't present in most striker fired designs.
>Loaded chamber indicators can be present on both hammer and striker fired pistols, they do not indicate the state the trigger is in.
Who gives a shit what state the trigger is in if there's not one in the pipe? And you have to be pretty deliberate to get a striker gun to go off. I don't know how people imagine these things as ticking time bombs. If you need a hammer to tell you what position your trigger is in and you can't tell by looking at the gun, the ticking time bomb isn't the gun. It's you.
>gun can go off if it snags
And a 1911 can go off if you have your hand on the grip and forget to turn on the manual safety while you reholster. The chances of these things happening are probably about equal, since you can't pull a Glock trigger without the first safety being disengaged in a very specific way and by a specific amount of weight.
Glock only entered this thread because of le glockleg meme, not because there's something inherently wrong in that specific design.
The downsides of a Glock are in an striker fired pistol with no manual safety
>If you need a hammer to tell you what position your trigger is in and you can't tell by looking at the gun, the ticking time bomb isn't the gun. It's you
and thats why NDs happen
if everyone knew their shit ND would be extinct, but they clearly arent, any retard can and will get a gun and shoot themselves.
the argument is that manual safety and or hammer is more retard friendly
>any retard can and will get a gun and shoot themselves
And please explain how a safety you can turn off is more retard friendly than a safety you literally can't disengage unless you pull the trigger? Manual safeties just make fudds feel warm and fuzzy because they can see and feel them. Again, if they're so retard friendly, how come NDs existed long before Glocks did? Retards find a way.
how to avoid all ND's
>have everyone carry a SA at all times
>cant pull trigger to fire without previous action
>cant release hammer while cocked if you snag it
>always know what state gun is in
"oh hey i have to decock my gun"
why are SA's not the CCW masterrace?
I like you. Also pic related is now my new CCW.
>I'm not a public safety official and this thread isn't about mandating safeties for the good of everyone.
OK. And? Did I say you were a public official? Do you think being a public official would make you less full of crap?
>You sound like those mental masturbatory pseudo-intellectual atheist fags on reddit.
Says the fag who took the time to make this thread. Heaven forbid someone should ask you to show that you're not just pulling things out of your ass.
You made a positive statement, back it up.
>Revolverleg was a thing back about 100-150 years ago when everything was single actions. It was mostly mitigated by loading 5 shots and carrying with the hammer down on an empty cylinder.
An old SA revolver going off without the trigger being pulled doesn't seem comparable to Glockleg. Firing a Glock requires pulling the trigger.
Even when DA revolvers came around the trigger being pulled on accident was apparently of little concern to many people.
>Revolverleg was a thing back about 100-150 years ago when everything was single actions. It was mostly mitigated by loading 5 shots and carrying with the hammer down on an empty cylinder.
Remington 1858 master race
the post I made was literally only talking about SA's
you can carry cocked and fully loaded if you don't have a shitty holster with a SA. or you could figure a way to put something between the hammer and the round, but I digress.