pre cocked striker fired pistols with safeties?

Discussion in 'General Firearms Forum' started by esh325, Jun 14, 2012.

  1. I'm seeing this trend of M&P shield,FNS-9 with manual safeties. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of glock type pre cocked trigger that it doesn't need a manual safety to be safely carried? Having a manual safety defeats the whole purpose of it.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Safe to carry 1911 cocked with safety off? 1911 Forums Aug 6, 2015
    Cocked & Locked in Public General Firearms Forum Mar 4, 2015
    Amazon Original Series "Cocked" The Okie Corral Jan 23, 2015
    Keeping a Glock cocked long term? General Glocking Jan 14, 2015
    WTS DeSantis Cocked & Locked Holster 5" 1911 Holsters & Related Items Dec 20, 2014

  3. Some people and some departments prefer having the option of a manual safety with the thought that should someone disarm you of your firearm, they may not be able to use it against you if they are unfamiliar with the safety on your gun.

    I think it is more prevalent among police departments than civilians as LEO carry openly, whilst civilians generally (not always) carry concealed. You may wish to ask Mas Ayoob over on the GATE Self Defense Forum about this.

  4. fnfalman

    fnfalman Chicks Dig It

    Having a manual safety defeats a lot of purposes.

    Take the current M1911A1 from Colt for example. It has both a grip safety AND a firing pin block safety. What exactly does the thumb safety do to improve the overall "safeness"?

    Or the Beretta M92FS with the safety detent on the decocker. What's the point? You already dropped the hammer down AND it also has a firing pin safety.
  5. I trained for years on weapons with safeties, it is a natural transition to use one on a striker fire. Also, that is the way I train with that weapon (Shield in this case).
  6. I may not have explained it very well. I'm talking about manual safeties that apply to only Glock pre cocked striker fired pistols. My understanding is that the whole point of these mechanisms is that they suppose to be safe to carry without the need for a manual safety, yet many arms makers these days put them on. You might as well be carrying a SAO only pistol with a better trigger. For example, the M&P pistol has the strange two piece trigger safety. That's totally pointless if you have version with the thumb safety.

    What's funny is a lot of those people deem it necessary to have a manual safety on a DA/SA pistol, but carry revolvers with no safeties.

    If I were to redesign the 1911, I would take away all the safeties on it and replace them with just a decocker, and firing pin block if necessary.
    #5 esh325, Jun 14, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
  7. That would make it very difficult to shoot as you would then need to manually cock the gun before firing.
  8. M&P15T

    M&P15T Beard One

    There's no better answer than "it's what the market is demanding". It's all about sales numbers.

    Honestly, you're over thinking this.
  9. Yes, you're probably right.

    They didn't really complain about that back in the days of the Single action Army. Perhaps it might be slower, but I think the extra safety it adds is well worth it.
    #8 esh325, Jun 14, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
  10. A closer examination of the nature of the safeties built within the design of the newer plastic pistols ... such as the Glock, M&P and different 99 series models ... would probably help some folks better understand the thinking behind the designers.

    The addition of an external manual safety, such as the thumb safety on the M&P, is usually driven by the perceived needs of LE/Mil/Gov users.

    The M&P's thumb safety was originally created for the M&P 45, to satisfy the anticipated specifications for such in the canceled military pistol trials. It wasn't until S&W released the .45 thumb safety model to the public that a demand for a thumb safety option in the rest of the model line became strong enough for them to decide to include it as a commercial option.

    The G21SF was redesigned for the anticipated military pistol trials to include a cross-bolt type thumb safety for the same reason, but it wasn't added to the regular production models when the trials were canceled.

    Glocks have been available with a thumb safety in Europe for gov sales for some time.

    Engineers include features in their designs for reasons, even if those reasons aren't necessarily apparent, or desired, by prospective private person buyers..

    When it comes right down to it, the proper manipulation and use of any pistol design is a training issue.
  11. That's a very good explanation. I suppose some features are more out of demand than for practical purposes. Wouldn't buy it myself, but if Glock was smart, they would offer a thumb safety version of the Glock in the US. I have no doubt that would make more people buy Glocks.
  12. Nakanokalronin

    Nakanokalronin JMB & MTK

    Only thing stopping the trigger from getting pulled on a Glock or M&P is a tiny trigger tab in the middle of the trigger. I'm not relying on that if something were to get caught in the trigger guard no matter how remote that possibility is. Those striker fired triggers aren't as heavy or hard to pull as people claim and if you want to modify it to make it lighter/ a better trigger, a thumb safety is even more prevalent.

    The XD can be had with a thumb safety but the grip safety already does the job in a passive way. It's trigger pull is much less than a stock Glock or M&P, almost SA.

    Grant it, many of the thumb safeties on striker guns are available for LE agencies that require them. For private use, get them set-up any way you want. I also like riding thumb safeties like on 1911s and now the M&P since it gives me a nice high hold. Riding the thumb safety when firing and training makes flicking them off (extended or not) second nature 100% of the time.

    If some people had their way, they'd walk around with no safeties and a 3# trigger pull because you know....your finger will be the only thing possible to make the trigger go back. :upeyes:

    Funny how nobody complains much about manual safeties on a rifle but foams at the mouth if a handgun has one.

    Wait a minute....[​IMG]....okay go.
    #11 Nakanokalronin, Jun 14, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
  13. that's pretty much how it was originally designed. It didn't have a decocker, but it was meant to be manually decocked for carry. The safety was added later because dudes couldn't decock it safely to reholster while riding a horse. Then people just stopped decocking it altogether, and now common practice is to carry cocked and locked. Personally I see nothing wrong with that. The safety works great and is much faster to use than cocking a hammer. I think my only wish would be ambi safeties, just in case you have to grab it with your left hand for whatever reason (oh, and for southpaws too I guess)

    Also, I don't like manually cocking an SA. Can't tell you how many times the hammer has slipped from my sweaty thumb on my .22 revolver. Yup, it goes bang when that happens, just as of I had pulled the trigger.
    #12 Metal Angel, Jun 14, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
  14. Nakanokalronin

    Nakanokalronin JMB & MTK

    People also forget the 1903 which pre-dates the 1911 with a grip safety, manual thumb safety and internal cocked hammer. None of those feature were added at the request of LE or military. Train with a manual safety and it's not a problem. Don't want to train or can't put in the time, then buy a gun without it. It's no so much an argument on why a gun would have one but more along the lines of how and how much someone trains with their firearms.
  15. The tactics and manual of arms are quite different from a handgun.
  16. Nakanokalronin

    Nakanokalronin JMB & MTK

    The argument of the manual safety is that a trigger block is good enough. It's only about the trigger pull and keeping your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire. This is the same weather it be rifle, handgun or shotgun.

    The pistol is the only one that people complain about having a manual safety because it might be hard to disengage, you'll forget to disengage it or you won't disengage it in time which can technically be argued with any other firearm, shoulder fired or not. No doubt a rifle has a different manual of arms, but that safety flicks off one way or the other and still has a trigger to make the gun go boom. If someone thinks a manual safety is a death wish or is to hard to train with, it must be just as hard on a long gun for them as well.

    Your hand is on the grip of an AR15, 1911,M&P, etc. and your thumb is in reach of the thumb safety that goes down to disengage and without doing so, none of them will fire. That is why there is no difference in what the topic is about. If we're talking about everything else, then yes the manual of arms are different.

    Either way, it's good some companies provide options for those who train one way or the other.
    #15 Nakanokalronin, Jun 14, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
  17. That's because it (XD) is single action while Glock and M&P are double action/safe action only.
  18. I'm thinking more and more about getting a carry gun with a manual safety. As long as its quick, positive and ambi, I shouldn't have any trouble with it. Not that I'm having any trouble with my Glock, but when I'm playing with my kids (3 and 1) I think about it. One more thing to keep the trigger from being actuated should it fall out of my holster. Again, I haven't had trouble with it and it doesn't ever fall out, but it's just something I think about. It definitely wouldn't hurt anyway. I would have no trouble training with it.
  19. Nakanokalronin

    Nakanokalronin JMB & MTK

    Yep it sure is and the grip safety is complained about to no end as well. The triggers on the Glocks and M&Ps are not exactly long DA pulls though since they're partially cocked strikers.
    #18 Nakanokalronin, Jun 14, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus