One in the chamber?

azcdlfred said:

I couldn't agree with you more. I've seen plenty of lawyer-designed guns bought by naïve gun owners that have weird and non-ergonomic external safeties.

But for someone serious about safe gun handling and proper skill at arms, the solution is to own a pistol that allows proper access and function of the external safety and not work around a poorly designed lever with unsafe gun handling.

The external safety on my Glock (yes, there is one) is always engaged until after rotation during presentation :dude:

Fred

Click to expand...

What of those handguns that MAC mentioned earlier (DA decocker only, no external safety)? Would you deem those as not safe to carry with a chambered round? If so, why?

I only ask out of personal interest, and mean no offense.

b0neZ said:

What of those handguns that MAC mentioned earlier (DA decocker only, no external safety)? Would you deem those as not safe to carry with a chambered round? If so, why? I only ask out of personal interest, and mean no offense.

Click to expand...

No offense taken.

Whether a gun has or doesn't have an external safety isn't the issue. Revolvers don't have external safeties and no one seems to notice, probably because they are lulled into the mistaken belief that the 12-15 pound revolver trigger pull will prevent bad things from happening.

If a pistol has no external safety and only a decocker, then that is how the gun was designed to operate. Again, no problem.

However if a handgun has an external safety, whether it is part of the decocker or not, that is how it is designed to operate. That means that for consistency in safe gun handling, the safety should be engaged when the gun is not ready to be fired (pointed at target).

I believe MAC702's position is that since some guns are poorly designed so that disengaging the safety becomes a challenge (I've seen a few like that) during presentation that it's not necessary to engage the safety all the times.

My position is that if a gun has a poorly designed external safety lever and impedes proper disengagement/engagement during presentation, then it's time to trade it for a gun where all the controls are ergonomically accessible and work without difficulty.

Fred

azcdlfred said:

...Whether a gun has or doesn't have an external safety isn't the issue. Revolvers don't have external safeties and no one seems to notice, probably because they are lulled into the mistaken belief that the 12-15 pound revolver trigger pull will prevent bad things from happening.

If a pistol has no external safety and only a decocker, then that is how the gun was designed to operate. Again, no problem.

However if a handgun has an external safety, whether it is part of the decocker or not, that is how it is designed to operate. That means that for consistency in safe gun handling, the safety should be engaged when the gun is not ready to be fired (pointed at target).

I believe MAC702's position is that since some guns are poorly designed so that disengaging the safety becomes a challenge (I've seen a few like that) during presentation that it's not necessary to engage the safety all the times.

My position is that if a gun has a poorly designed external safety lever and impedes proper disengagement/engagement during presentation, then it's time to trade it for a gun where all the controls are ergonomically accessible and work without difficulty...

Click to expand...

No, that is not my position.

No amount of poundage on the trigger pull is a substitute for keeping the finger off the trigger until sights are on target. Ask the NYPD.

I'll ask again. Where does the manufacturer/designer of the gun say that a DA's safety is intended to always be used when the gun is carried? If this were so, why would they make the exact same model without the safety?

The ergonomics of the safety was a side point. I did not intend for it to distract you from my real point. Indeed, there are some DA autos with very good safety ergonomics (CZ-75 and Taurus PT-92, for examples), and my point remains the same that the safety is optional to engage when the hammer is down and it is carried in a proper holster.

azcdlfred said:

SNIP...If a pistol has no external safety and only a decocker, then that is how the gun was designed to operate. Again, no problem.

However if a handgun has an external safety, whether it is part of the decocker or not, that is how it is designed to operate. That means that for consistency in safe gun handling, the safety should be engaged when the gun is not ready to be fired (pointed at target)....

Click to expand...

MAC702 said:

No amount of poundage on the trigger pull is a substitute for keeping the finger off the trigger until sights are on target. Ask the NYPD.

I'll ask again. Where does the manufacturer/designer of the gun say that a DA's safety is intended to always be used when the gun is carried? If this were so, why would they make the exact same model without the safety?
SNIP... my point remains the same that the safety is optional to engage when the hammer is down and it is carried in a proper holster.

Click to expand...

It seems like you guys are splitting already split hairs?

Let me see if I understand what you guys are arguing:

AzCDLFred is saying that safeties should be engaged whenever possible because it is probably how it was designed for safety reasons since some people can be stupid and unsafe (I would imagine a good example is the number of YouTube videos of reckless gun owners).

MAC702 is saying that these safeties are not critical to firearm function (making it go "bang"), and so the focus should be on proper handling of firearms (teaching people to keep their booger hook away from the bang switch).

Maybe we're arguing slightly different things here?

Am I close? Yes, no, maybe so? Tel me please, I wanna know? (said in rhyme)

Rusty Young Man said:

...MAC702 is saying that these safeties are not critical to firearm function (making it go "bang"), and so the focus should be on proper handling of firearms (teaching people to keep their booger hook away from the bang switch).

Maybe we're arguing slightly different things here?

Am I close? Yes, no, maybe so? Tell me please, I wanna know? (said in rhyme)

Click to expand...

Not quite, but close. After all, I do recommend using the safety on a single-action, including one with a grip safety.

I'm saying a DA automatic does not need to have a thumb safety engaged while being carried loaded in a proper holster. It can (and in my opinion should) be treated as a double-action without a safety, just like most revolvers and many pistols that are double-action but have never had safety levers, like the Sig Sauer P220 series.

This is independent of keeping your finger off the trigger until sights are on the target.

MAC702 said:

Not quite, but close. After all, I do recommend using the safety on a single-action, including one with a grip safety.

I'm saying a DA automatic does not need to have a thumb safety engaged while being carried loaded in a proper holster. It can (and in my opinion should) be treated as a double-action without a safety, just like most revolvers and many pistols that are double-action but have never had safety levers, like the Sig Sauer P220 series.

This is independent of keeping your finger off the trigger until sights are on the target.

Click to expand...

+1

Rusty Young Man said:

It seems like you guys are splitting already split hairs?Let me see if I understand what you guys are arguing:

AzCDLFred is saying that safeties should be engaged whenever possible because it is probably how it was designed for safety reasons since some people can be stupid and unsafe (I would imagine a good example is the number of YouTube videos of reckless gun owners).

MAC702 is saying that these safeties are not critical to firearm function (making it go "bang"), and so the focus should be on proper handling of firearms (teaching people to keep their booger hook away from the bang switch).

Click to expand...

Not quite. I'm confident that we both agree that firearms safety isn't merely whether or not a mechanical lever is placed on a pistol. If I buy a firearm with a safety lever on it, for consistency in safe gun handling, I will use it. If I find that the features are not to my liking I will not engage in a workaround, however I will get rid of the gun and buy one that meets my needs.

As a perpetual student, I have been in several classes where other students were using those decocker/safety monstrosities. I saw one gun so poorly designed that it was way too easy to engage the safety when you wanted to do the opposite. I've also seen others where the safety lever was so flat and hard to move that it could not be flicked without using both hands. So, I can understand why others would choose to avoid having that happen. However, from my perspective that leads to unsafe gun handling because it induces the reasoning of "normally I'm a safe gun handler but in this case with this gun, I'll make an exception." That's not a mindset I want to get into.

Personally, I want as few external levers as possible that's why I carry a Glock. For a long time I carried a 1911 (in Condition 1) and always wondered why there were redundant safeties (grip and slide) when I knew that all I needed was to keep my finger off the trigger until I was ready to shoot. However, after taking a 1911 armorer's class I now understand that that combination of safeties had more to do than get the gun ready to fire.

Bottom line - Safe gun handling is independent of the features on the pistol. Its starts in the brain and should be consistent. Making exceptions for certain firearms with built in safeties, breaks that inconsistency from my perspective. I watched a man with a 1911 shoot himself in the leg because he was not consistent about his gun handling.

Fred

azcdlfred said:

...As a perpetual student, I have been in several classes where other students were using those decocker/safety monstrosities. I saw one gun so poorly designed that it was way too easy to engage the safety when you wanted to do the opposite. I've also seen others where the safety lever was so flat and hard to move that it could not be flicked without using both hands. So, I can understand why others would choose to avoid having that happen. However, from my perspective that leads to unsafe gun handling because it induces the reasoning of "normally I'm a safe gun handler but in this case with this gun, I'll make an exception." That's not a mindset I want to get into.

Personally, I want as few external levers as possible that's why I carry a Glock. ...

Click to expand...

I see a lot of what you are saying, but let's assume we are dealing with high-quality DA pistols, like a Beretta 92FS. You are saying that not engaging the safety when carrying a weapon of this type is an exception to being a safe gun handler? I've been reading a few manuals since this conversation started, and I'm still not finding any manufacturer of a modern DA pistol who says the safety lever is designed to always be engaged when being carried.

MAC, you talking hammer back or hammer down? With something like a CZ-85B with its DA/SA capability and no decocker, the only option for engaging the safety is with the hammer back. If you manually lower the hammer, the safety cannot be engaged. With that pistol, I think I'd be most comfortable carrying hammer down and safety not engaged (since it can't be engaged at that point). With the hammer back, however, I'd most certainly want the safety on.

mzbk2l said:

MAC, you talking hammer back or hammer down? With something like a CZ-85B with its DA/SA capability and no decocker, the only option for engaging the safety is with the hammer back. If you manually lower the hammer, the safety cannot be engaged. With that pistol, I think I'd be most comfortable carrying hammer down and safety not engaged (since it can't be engaged at that point). With the hammer back, however, I'd most certainly want the safety on.

Click to expand...

Oops. I did not know that. I don't have a CZ-75. I could have sworn I'd read it could be engaged either way. My apologies. I must have been thinking of a different pistol. Okay, ignore my inclusion of the CZ-75 in that example. We are discussing hammer down carry on a DA-capable pistol.

Personally, I would carry a CZ-75 cocked and locked.

Personally IMO I like driving with the top down on a convertible, but sometimes when it is cold the top up, or raining. Just because a gun has multiple safeties, does not mean they should always be employed. After all I hope most of us do not drive around town with the emergency brake on.

A gun like the PPK, S&W 39,59(no longer production) or guns with similar safeties are quite safe to carry condition 2 with the safety in the fire position. The guns are essentially no different than a DA revolver when carried. Except that new DA revolvers have a safety key on some. Who thinks it is smart to carry a DA revolver with a key on the key chain to unlock the revolver when it is needed. Or carry the gun with the gun lock the manufacturer supplies.

What the hell happened to common sense in this country?

MAC702 said:

I see a lot of what you are saying, but let's assume we are dealing with high-quality DA pistols, like a Beretta 92FS. You are saying that not engaging the safety when carrying a weapon of this type is an exception to being a safe gun handler? I've been reading a few manuals since this conversation started, and I'm still not finding any manufacturer of a modern DA pistol who says the safety lever is designed to always be engaged when being carried.

Click to expand...

Personally I would not own the Beretta because of its features, but if did I own one I would keep the safety always engaged unless I was ready to fire the pistol. It's how I train and how I practice - if a pistol has an external mechanical safety, I use it. However the only pistol I would carry with a traditional external safety would be a 1911. I'm not a fan of DA/SA pistols or those with decockers. Been there. Done that. Have the t-shirt.

Those are my personal preferences. As a friend of mine says "Your Mileage May Vary." Safe gun handling is a mindset, not a mechanical device.

Fred

azcdlfred said:

Personally I would not own the Beretta because of its features, but if did I own one I would keep the safety always engaged unless I was ready to fire the pistol. It's how I train and how I practice - if a pistol has an external mechanical safety, I use it. However the only pistol I would carry with a traditional external safety would be a 1911. I'm not a fan of DA/SA pistols or those with decockers. Been there. Done that. Have the t-shirt.

Those are my personal preferences. As a friend of mine says "Your Mileage May Vary." Safe gun handling is a mindset, not a mechanical device.

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with your personal preference. I only pushed the issue because you made it seem that it was standard practice and training.

I absolutely agree with your last statement, but that is independent of using a superfluous mechanical device.

I carried an double/single action semi auto for years on the job Ruger P89, S@W3913 and a Walther ppk. My dept adopted the leaving the safety off and only using it as a decocker.

As an instructor I seen a lot of people forget to take the safety off when the pressure is on.

That said I carry single actions in condition one also and I don't have any trouble taking the safety off when needed.

Its mind set and practice that makes the different. I also find safeties on double action autos not to be as convenient as a good single action safety 1911 or hi-power being the best example of that.

I'm a Glock guy.... so always one in the chamber.

I'll echo what other guys have said, only because it's important. It's on how you train. There are a few cases where you can't carry a certain firearm a certain because it's actually unsafe. Everything else is preference. Either way, train like you fight (or plan to).

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

I carried an double/single action semi auto for years on the job Ruger P89, S@W3913 and a Walther ppk. My dept adopted the leaving the safety off and only using it as a decocker.

As an instructor I seen a lot of people forget to take the safety off when the pressure is on.

That said I carry single actions in condition one also and I don't have any trouble taking the safety off when needed.

Its mind set and practice that makes the different. I also find safeties on double action autos not to be as convenient as a good single action safety 1911 or hi-power being the best example of that.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure how I feel about using those decockers. Tried a few pistols at the range that featured decockers (SIG P226 and Beretta 92FS among them), and even pointed downrange I was expecting a bang everytime I saw the hammer fly forward. I understand manufacturers have gone to extended lengths to ensure they work, but still.

As to forgetting to switch the safety while under pressure, it's simply muscle memory. For any non-believers: find something you carry on your person regularly, but always in the same pocket (e.g. Wallet, keys, Chapstick) and move it to a different pocket for one or two days. You'll find that subconsciously, you will reach for the object's previous location.
That's why I've been carrying my 1911 Condition 1 and in the same position from the start, and my EDC in essentially the same location on my person for the past ~6 years.

@Primus: Glock or otherwise, I see no reason one in the chamber is not the most prudent way of carrying for self defense. And I'm a 1911 guy that can't stand the ergonomics (lack thereof, in my case) of Glocks.

MAC702 said:

I have absolutely no problem with your personal preference. I only pushed the issue because you made it seem that it was standard practice and training.

Click to expand...

"Standard Practice" seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I have taken a few Gunsite classes and regularly attend Front Sight for classes. Their standard practice is that if the gun has a safety it must be engaged unless your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.

Fred

azcdlfred said:

"Standard Practice" seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I have taken a few Gunsite classes and regularly attend Front Sight for classes. Their standard practice is that if the gun has a safety it must be engaged unless your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.

Fred

Click to expand...

So you would carry a S&W new model revolver with the internal hammer lock engaged?

azcdlfred said:

"Standard Practice" seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I have taken a few Gunsite classes and regularly attend Front Sight for classes. Their standard practice is that if the gun has a safety it must be engaged unless your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.

Click to expand...

Not to say I don't believe you, but I've been to Front Sight also. While there are many aspects of their training with which I didn't agree, I don't remember that being one of them. And I find it difficult to believe Gunsite requires it. Hmmm. Let me see what I can find.

Gunsite is much more for professionals and serious carriers than is Front Sight. Many of the things Front Sight does is because of their class size, and the high percentage of novices in each class. I would not consider Front Sight teachings to be "best" or "standard" even when they happen to agree with me.

MAC702 said:

I would not consider Front Sight teachings to be "best" or "standard" even when they happen to agree with me.

Click to expand...

It's a personal preference thing. I've taken Gunsite classes under all 3 owners and have been training yearly at Front Sight for the last 8 years. As matter of personal choice, I prefer Front Sight. That does not mean I think alny less of Gunsite, or am going to disparage them or any other training school. I prefer not to take this discussion down that road.

Let's leave it with personal choice. No need to beat this issue any more.

Fred