Evil Black Rifles and tacticool hotness

[Jeffy]

Originally Posted by High Country Herb

Can someone explain the idea behind this trigger safety? It seems completely useless to me, since all safety mechanisms are disabled as soon as you grab the gun.

I ask because a LEO had an accidental misfire in a movie theater last week with one of these. He said he went to re-adjust the gun in its holster (not sure what style) and the gun went off. I assume he was carrying "cocked and locked", which isn't locked at all as far as I can see. The round hit an armrest, and nobody was hurt. Someone did call the theater after it hit the local news to say they were hit with fragments, but I think it was a scammer. We are kind of a gun friendly community, so it dropped out of the news in about 2 days.

I personally prefer no safety on a self defense gun. A cross bar safety is handy on a hunting rifle when hiking rough terrain with the gun cocked.

NRA Gun Safety Rule #2; "ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot." The safety is there to prevent Accidental Discharge not Negligent Discharge's. (ie, dropping the gun.) If the gun is holstered, the person has bad discipline if he's tugging on the trigger.

[Fire Escape]

Originally Posted by High Country Herb

Can someone explain the idea behind this trigger safety? It seems completely useless to me, since all safety mechanisms are disabled as soon as you grab the gun.

I ask because a LEO had an accidental misfire in a movie theater last week with one of these. He said he went to re-adjust the gun in its holster (not sure what style) and the gun went off. I assume he was carrying "cocked and locked", which isn't locked at all as far as I can see. The round hit an armrest, and nobody was hurt. Someone did call the theater after it hit the local news to say they were hit with fragments, but I think it was a scammer. We are kind of a gun friendly community, so it dropped out of the news in about 2 days.

I personally prefer no safety on a self defense gun. A cross bar safety is handy on a hunting rifle when hiking rough terrain with the gun cocked.

In theory, it prevents exactly what was reported to have happened.

The center section of the trigger has to be depressed before the main body of the trigger can be pulled. The idea being that catching a 'corner' of the trigger on the holster or some clothing can not cause the pistol to fire. The grip safety should have also prevented firing unless a 'firing grip' is being used. As noted, without knowing what type of holster was involved it is hard to second guess what happened, most holsters (other than 'old style, fast draw, western ones) are designed to cover the trigger. I see far too many people who immediately apply their finger to the trigger when they grasp a firearm, the concept of keeping your finger OFF the trigger until ready to shoot would solve a large percentage of accidental discharges. Short of absolute mechanical failure, it is pretty hard to cause a discharge of any modern (the last hundred years or so) semiautomatic pistol without your finger on the trigger

The concept of "cocked and locked" applies pretty much exclusively to single action pistols with hammers and manual safeties like the 1911, Browning High-Power, H&K USP (variant 1 makes it an option, not sure which others), etc. It doesn't apply to striker fired pistols like the Springfield XDm (pictured), Glock, S&W M&P, etc. which are only 'partially cocked' in their 'normal, loaded' state and pulling the trigger completes the cocking of the striker and releases it, thus they are not 'cocked' until the trigger is 'pulled'.

Guess I need to learn to type faster, your question was answered while I was searching for letters on my keyboard!


Bruce

[High Country Herb]

Would a hammerless gun with striker cocked be considered "cocked and locked"? I think the LEO thought so, which apparently isn't appropriate with this weapon.

They haven't said so publicly, but he will probably be doing some additional training.

[Fire Escape]

Originally Posted by High Country Herb

Would a hammerless gun with striker cocked be considered "cocked and locked"? I think the LEO thought so, which apparently isn't appropriate with this weapon.

They haven't said so publicly, but he will probably be doing some additional training.

It is neither cocked nor locked. The striker is not cocked far enough to set off a primer by the cycling of the action. Without PULLING THE TRIGGER, it does not become cocked, if the trigger is released before reaching the point at which the pistol fires-the striker returns to it's partially cocked condition and lacks the energy to fire. Very few striker fired guns have manual safeties to LOCK, if they are locked-you can NOT pull the trigger to cock them.
The whole family of striker fired Glocks and their copies (XDs, M&Ps, etc.) are designed so that (lacking a major mechanical failure) they can't fire without the trigger being depressed. The deficient safety device is 99.99% of the time located between the operator's ears.


Bruce

[AZbiker]

Originally Posted by High Country Herb

Can someone explain the idea behind this trigger safety? It seems completely useless to me, since all safety mechanisms are disabled as soon as you grab the gun.

I ask because a LEO had an accidental misfire in a movie theater last week with one of these. He said he went to re-adjust the gun in its holster (not sure what style) and the gun went off. I assume he was carrying "cocked and locked", which isn't locked at all as far as I can see. The round hit an armrest, and nobody was hurt. Someone did call the theater after it hit the local news to say they were hit with fragments, but I think it was a scammer. We are kind of a gun friendly community, so it dropped out of the news in about 2 days.

I personally prefer no safety on a self defense gun. A cross bar safety is handy on a hunting rifle when hiking rough terrain with the gun cocked.

Maybe this guy knows the LEO that put an unholstered sub-compact Glock in his front pocket along with his car keys?

Or maybe he is a graduate of the Tex Grebner school of gun handling...

[Cumminsman76]

Originally Posted by High Country Herb

Can someone explain the idea behind this trigger safety? It seems completely useless to me, since all safety mechanisms are disabled as soon as you grab the gun.

It's like putting the emergency brake release on the gas pedal.

[Tripl Nikl]

Originally Posted by Fire Escape

T
he deficient safety device is 99.99% of the time located between the operator's ears.

This.

Glock's design is just fine IF the user isn't a mouth breather. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're pointing the gun at what you want to shoot and--drumroll--it works just fine and is "on safe" 100% of the time the user's finger isn't manipulating the trigger. Pure user error--period. And... Just because they're a LEO doesn't mean that they know a damned thing about firearms. Many, many, many cops are NOT "gun people" and the gun is mearly a badge of office and/or a paperweight.

BTW, poster, be careful of the thinking that goes along the lines of "as soon as you grab the gun the safety is off." That'd imply putting one's finger on the trigger as a matter of routine when picking up the firearm. I don't care if it's a 4lb trigger or a 24lb trigger--relying on the trigger's weight to "prevent" a negligent discharge is just bad, bad practice. If this is something that anyone here does--break yourself of this habit now and before someone gets hurt or killed "by accident."

[Cumminsman76]

Originally Posted by Tripl Nikl

This.

Glock's design is just fine IF the user isn't a mouth breather. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're pointing the gun at what you want to shoot and--drumroll--it works just fine and is "on safe" 100% of the time the user's finger isn't manipulating the trigger. Pure user error--period.

It is possible that something other than a finger can hit the trigger during holstering a gun with only a trigger safty and cause a ND.

[Tripl Nikl]

Sure, use a crap holster and be surprised when an "accident" happens. Or, use poor pistol handling technique and be surprised when an "accident" happens. There is nothing wrong with Glock's design. If people don't feel comfortable with it, great, don't carry it. But the design is not faulty as long as the user has their brain in gear.

FWIW, I've had and carrried Glocks and 1911s since the early 90s and ya know what? Keeping my finger off the trigger--and using decent holsters--has worked great.

It's not a race to get the gun into the holster, right? If the holster has reasonable integrity, the trigger guard will not have sufficient material intrusion to actuate the trigger. If the holster is a floppy noodle and/or just plain worth out--replace it. As for a race to get the gun out of the holster--don't go faster than one's skillset allows. Tex Grebner is the perfect example of why one needs to know one's limits and practical speeds.

Here's what it looks like when one runs out of talent half way through the corner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3kJ6SU3ycs

[Cumminsman76]

Originally Posted by Tripl Nikl

FWIW, I've had and carrried Glocks and 1911s since the early 90s and ya know what? Keeping my finger off the trigger--and using decent holsters--has worked great.


Here's what it looks like when one runs out of talent half way through the corner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3kJ6SU3ycs

The different between a 1911 cocked and locked and a Glock is you can pull the trigger on the 199 and nothing happens.

Pulling the gun out has less liklyhood of something besides a finger hitting a trigger.

[Tripl Nikl]

"Dangerous" single action 1911s have been scary to many people for many years.

"Dangerous" Glocks have been scary to many people for many years.

If a person doesn't like the platform, great, get and use what one likes. But in both cases, the single action trigger and the Glock safety have been blamed for a lot of poor handling that resulted in negligent discharges. IMHO, if a person cannot safely handle a 1911 or Glock, then they cannot safely handle anything else either. In fact, they may be even more dangerous with something else because they feel more comfortable with it and then treat it with less respect than they should.

Along those lines, Glock's need to pull the trigger in order to begin field stripping has led to NDs because the user failed to ensure there was no round in the chamber before doing so. Some feel this is a design flaw. It's not, it's a user flaw. 1911s having to be taken off safe in order to cycle the slide as also resulted in NDs over the years. Again, some feel that it is a design flaw, I am of the opinion that it is a user flaw. But again, people can get and handle whatever they like.

But I don't really have a dog in the fight for what others do. It is my opinion--and everyone has one, right?--that there is nothing wrong with the design as long as the user does their part. And there's a reason I like the far right lane at a public range--I'm safer (emphasis on "-er") from most right handed shooters down there.

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by Cumminsman76

It is possible that something other than a finger can hit the trigger during holstering a gun with only a trigger safty and cause a ND.

I don't know if Glock offers this but the S&W M&P has a trigger safety like the Glock's but if someone is concerned there's an option thumb safety.

[AZbiker]

Originally Posted by Cumminsman76

The different between a 1911 cocked and locked and a Glock is you can pull the trigger on the 199 and nothing happens.

Pulling the gun out has less liklyhood of something besides a finger hitting a trigger.

So IOW it can be a crutch for shitty technique. Unless you also disengage the safety like the intrepid Mr. Grebner.

For me it's a DA with one in the pipe and the hammer down until I start carrying my Shield and that will be carried one in the pipe, safety off.

[CodyY]

Originally Posted by AZbiker

So IOW it can be a crutch for shitty technique. Unless you also disengage the safety like the intrepid Mr. Grebner.

For me it's a DA with one in the pipe and the hammer down until I start carrying my Shield and that will be carried one in the pipe, safety off.

And that's why I train with an empty pipe, cycle slide, engage target. I'm not a LEO, nor am I a secret Squirrel. And in a home defense situation or in my vehicle I will have time to cycle a round in place because I pay attention to my surroundings.

[Fire Escape]

So why is it that no one worries about those hundreds of thousands of double action handguns without manual safeties out there? They are pretty simple; if you cock the hammer and pull the trigger - they fire, if you don't cock the hammer and pull the trigger - they fire.

Shooters, LEO, Military and Civilian have managed to AD those for over a hundred years. Non-hoplophobes seem to have no problem with them nonetheless.

The gun is always blamed when the operator has failed. A great many of the "safety features" added to firearms are a direct result of trying to have the firearm cover for operator failure. It isn't a big surprise, you can see it in every field but the unfortunate side is that in general people pay less attention when things are 'more safe' so the incidence of 'accidents' does not improve much.

As one of my engineering professors once remarked - when you make something fool proof you end up with bigger fools!


Bruce