Pure Perfomance vs Preference of Safety

[NCmtnman]

At what point do you sacrifice pure performance for a preference in gun type and safety? I'm thinking the HK LEM vs that of a Glock. Is this even an issue or is the solution to invest substantial time and effort into dry fire and practice? What if that time is better served on a faster and less forgiving platform like that of a Glock?

FYI, I'm between a G26 (with PMAG 12 round mag) and HK P30/P2000sk for appendix carry. I'm very familiar with the LEM as I carried it in my last agency but it took substantial effort to begin to scratch my abilities that I had with a Glock 34 albeit my 10-8 sights certainly helped. Thoughts?

[Kennydale]

I carry a G17 AIWB I love this firearm. After seeing quite a few videos on DA/SA for AIWB, it has given me something to think about. (Beretta PX4 Storm G Model or CZ P07). Only you can answer that safety issue question. In the meantime I train with my G17.

[JHC]

At what point do you sacrifice pure performance for a preference in gun type and safety? I'm thinking the HK LEM vs that of a Glock. Is this even an issue or is the solution to invest substantial time and effort into dry fire and practice? What if that time is better served on a faster and less forgiving platform like that of a Glock?

FYI, I'm between a G26 (with PMAG 12 round mag) and HK P30/P2000sk for appendix carry. I'm very familiar with the LEM as I carried it in my last agency but it took substantial effort to begin to scratch my abilities that I had with a Glock 34 albeit my 10-8 sights certainly helped. Thoughts?

I'm not that swayed by "forgiving platforms" other than DA revo's and I don't view Glocks as inherently dangerous. I prefer to carry what I shoot volumes through. So "meh".

[PNWTO]

At what point do you sacrifice pure performance for a preference in gun type and safety?

I would ask that you define performance; I see that as a rather broad metric dependent more on training/time/exposure than platform.

I would also say the marriage of performance and safety is done by the man, not the machine. That said, ifyou are more comfortable with the LEM and your agency and budget allow it then it makes sense to keep on keeping on.

[NCmtnman]

I would ask that you define performance; I see that as a rather broad metric dependent more on training/time/exposure than platform.

I would also say the marriage of performance and safety is done by the man, not the machine. That said, ifyou are more comfortable with the LEM and your agency and budget allow it then it makes sense to keep on keeping on.

I'm currently out of an LEO position for the next foreseeable year so this is a personal purchase. You are right in that it is broad, but I didn't want to get too tied down with performance specks. It's more of, "am I thinking in the correct context and making a decision based on that". I for one do not view Glocks as inherently dangerous but as a person who was holstering and stopped an ND/AD due to feeling the movement of the LEM trigger, I'm a believer.

On a Border Patrol qualification I would shoot in the low 340s with a high of 351 out of 360. Usually it was the 25yd line that would get me or struggling with the stock Mepro sights. I also struggled with on demand hits at 10yds on a 3x5 or 4 inch circle. Sometimes I was 'just' outside of the box where as with my G34 I could reliably make hits. Was that acceptable? For some it was and for others it was not. I compare myself to a lot of guys on this forum and that's a pretty high mark if you ask me.

[Kimura]

At what point do you sacrifice pure performance for a preference in gun type and safety? I'm thinking the HK LEM vs that of a Glock. Is this even an issue or is the solution to invest substantial time and effort into dry fire and practice? What if that time is better served on a faster and less forgiving platform like that of a Glock?

FYI, I'm between a G26 (with PMAG 12 round mag) and HK P30/P2000sk for appendix carry. I'm very familiar with the LEM as I carried it in my last agency but it took substantial effort to begin to scratch my abilities that I had with a Glock 34 albeit my 10-8 sights certainly helped. Thoughts?

Regarding your first question; it depends on what role the pistol is going to play and how comfortable you are with the different trigger designs in that role. I've never shot LEM, so I'm not really in a position to comment on it. For me, it's DA/SA versus striker fired. I'm not in the "people management" business and I don't like AIWB, so I don't necessarily need to think about the latter at all and the former much. If it matters, I can actually shoot a DA/SA Sig consistently better than I can a Glock. But as I said in a different thread; for no rational reason whatsoever, I like Glock.

FWIW, if I were in the people management business, like it seems you are and or if I were carrying AIWB; I would think a lot on carrying an DA/SA HK or Sig. Because while safety is on the individual, it also wouldn't bother me to have a larger margin for error as long as I can shoot the safer pistol well.


I'm currently out of an LEO position for the next foreseeable year so this is a personal purchase. You are right in that it is broad, but I didn't want to get too tied down with performance specks. It's more of, "am I thinking in the correct context and making a decision based on that". I for one do not view Glocks as inherently dangerous but as a person who was holstering and stopped an ND/AD due to feeling the movement of the LEM trigger, I'm a believer.

On a Border Patrol qualification I would shoot in the low 340s with a high of 351 out of 360. Usually it was the 25yd line that would get me or struggling with the stock Mepro sights. I also struggled with on demand hits at 10yds on a 3x5 or 4 inch circle. Sometimes I was 'just' outside of the box where as with my G34 I could reliably make hits. Was that acceptable? For some it was and for others it was not. I compare myself to a lot of guys on this forum and that's a pretty high mark if you ask me.

This is what you wrote while I was writing the above. So you're not in the people management business right now, but you do carry AIWB.

In your present circumstances, it only matters whether you feel comfortable carrying a Glock or whether you want the extra margin for error. If you don't shoot LEM well and you want that extra margin, consider da/sa as an alternative. One thing though, a Glock 26 is not a Glock 34. I've shot both; I have a Glock 17 and one of the guys I shoot with has a 26, so I shoot it regularly. The 26 is a terrific gun for its size, but IMO, its not a 17 or 34 or even a 19 for that matter.

[olstyn]

The word "Gadget" comes to mind as a potential solution, and I'm surprised that nobody said it before me on this forum.

[imp1295]

Been through this myself a few times.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12978-What-should-take-precedence-Carry-Method-or-Firearm-Platform&

I've settled on an platform that gives me risk mitigation over negligible performance increases.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hauptmann]

I like DA/SA with decocker. DA condition allows for one of the safest carry conditions available, and I also feel perfectly fine carrying it without a holster if the need is there. Is the DA first shot a little slower than a Glock trigger?......technically yeah. Although, I tend to beat many Glock guys in practical courses of fire for time and accuracy with a DA/SA Sig. In my mind shooting competition style improves muscle memory and speed in a highly controlled safety environment. In a combat/defensive situation, those external safety parameters are not present.....therefore you as the shooter are pressed much further in a shoot/don't shoot environment with a host of other unpredictable stresses. "Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6" is a little outdated today when the guy you shot has a very good chance of putting you in prison with sodomites, or winning a civil suit against you which will put you and your family in poverty. Therefore, it is probably wise to maintain several layers of equipment safety that go beyond just keeping your finger off the trigger.

[DocGKR]

I strongly prefer a pistol with a manual safety.

The Gadget is nice for re-holstering, but does not offer the benefits of a manual safety.

[YVK]

At what point do you sacrifice pure performance for a preference in gun type and safety?

100% individual preference, don't know if you could extrapolate from other people. Risk aversion is so personal. I have, besides regular insurances that everyone has, a life insurance, a disability insurance, and an earthquake insurance. Would it surprise anyone that I would choose LEM, with an attendant performance decline, over a Glock? I am worried about an ND during a draw more so than during reholstering; most discussions around here don't even bring this up. Yet there are a lot of people here who I respect immensely and who junk carry Glocks, gadget or not, without any reservations. And then there are those like GJM who change their attitudes about every 6-12 months, and I respect that too.

Confidence in your own decision is much more important here than what actual gun you are going to choose. Do whatever feels right for you, as lame of an advice this is, it is the only right choice.

[NCmtnman]

I like DA/SA with decocker. DA condition allows for one of the safest carry conditions available, and I also feel perfectly fine carrying it without a holster if the need is there. Is the DA first shot a little slower than a Glock trigger?......technically yeah. Although, I tend to beat many Glock guys in practical courses of fire for time and accuracy with a DA/SA Sig. In my mind shooting competition style improves muscle memory and speed in a highly controlled safety environment. In a combat/defensive situation, those external safety parameters are not present.....therefore you as the shooter are pressed much further in a shoot/don't shoot environment with a host of other unpredictable stresses. "Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6" is a little outdated today when the guy you shot has a very good chance of putting you in prison with sodomites, or winning a civil suit against you which will put you and your family in poverty. Therefore, it is probably wise to maintain several layers of equipment safety that go beyond just keeping your finger off the trigger.

I have thought about going down that road but I would be forced to learn an entirely different platform and that's just something I'm not interested in currently. In a few years, maybe. Currently I'm thinking that my first shot accuracy should drive my decision between platforms and surprisingly that is the LEM for me. I can really get on the trigger hard and early. The Glock is faster and more simple to clear a plate rack with for me but that isn't exactly real life. Practice maybe, but not what I want to base my decision on.

So maybe more training is what I should be after and buy my platform of preference. I guess that would be the mature decision after all. Both guns need sights so the cost is nearly identical.

[NCmtnman]

And then there are those like GJM who change their attitudes about every 6-12 months, and I respect that too.

Confidence in your own decision is much more important here than what actual gun you are going to choose. Do whatever feels right for you, as lame of an advice this is, it is the only right choice.

Yeah, I read GJM's stuff and he can't make up his mind. I for one am thankful so I can read through the ramblings of a constantly recovering and relapsing HKaholic.

Your advice is good. For me it's not HK vs Glock as I can learn either. I was hoping that I'm thinking outside of just having the fastest split times and actually making a rational thought process since I finally have the option to carry my preferred weapon.

Thanks!

[SLG]

OP,

Using your qual scores as a metric for pistol performance, any gun out there is capable of a 100%. Same with the 10 yard stuff, etc. You won't know if one gun is capable of more than another, IN YOUR HANDS, until you start cleaning the course with them. A G34 may simply work better for you because of the sights and sight radius, IDK. Since you're not concerned with winning a USPSA match with this gun, I would buy the one you prefer, and just leave it at that. Performance comes from proper practice, not buying the "right" model. I vote HK in this instance, but that is me, not you.

[YVK]

FWIW, I was just trolling my buddy GJM a bit, but the rest is serious. That said, GJM's is a good example of my main point, confidence in own decisions reignong supreme. Last year he did some experiment with drawstrings etc and decided that DA/SA was the best for him. Today he sent me a pic of carrying a G23. It is all good as long as he's confident in his choices.
As far as thought process, I think we've seen people to be able rationalize everything. I personally prefer the first shot advantage over split time advantage in a carry gun too, and I also consider this aspect with one handed shooting. LEM wins for me over DA/SA and striker. Game guns, my preference is largely reversed. Same thing, whatever makes sense to you is what you go with.

[GJM]

FWIW, I was just trolling my buddy GJM a bit, but the rest is serious. That said, GJM's is a good example of my main point, confidence in own decisions reignong supreme. Last year he did some experiment with drawstrings etc and decided that DA/SA was the best for him. Today he sent me a pic of carrying a G23. It is all good as long as he's confident in his choices.
As far as thought process, I think we've seen people to be able rationalize everything. I personally prefer the first shot advantage over split time advantage in a carry gun too, and I also consider this aspect with one handed shooting. LEM wins for me over DA/SA and striker. Game guns, my preference is largely reversed. Same thing, whatever makes sense to you is what you go with.

I switched from my 19 to a 23 for in town, as a .40 feels more comforting than 9 with our size creatures. Also, I read somewhere a 23 is hard to shoot well. Haven't noticed that yet.

[M2CattleCo]

If you're more comfortable with a hammer fired gun for AIWB, get the H&K because the Glock is going to be in the back of your mind all the time.

I'm a Glock flip-flopper too but my longest and favorite AWIB pistol is a Sig P239 and I feel much more comfortable bringing it in and out of the holster vs a G.

I'll take a slight speed loss any day.

[Handy]

I'm a big advocate of safe pistols - non-LE are much more likely to have an ND than ever get in a gunfight.

Aside from the hammer, I don't know if I would say LEM is "safer" than Glock. You can change the pull weight of either, and I used to like having a NY1 trigger. In comparable trigger pull weights they don't seem incredibly different. DA would be different


I also think that the shooting performance of a pistol has more to do with things other than the trigger style/quality/weight. I'd rather learn to shoot a trigger on a gun that shoots/reloads well for me other than the trigger.

[HCM]

I carried an issued HK USP Compact LEM 40 with factory Meps for 8 years. I currently carry a personal owned agency approved G17. Glock is our only 9mm option, if I could carry a DA/SA SIG or an HK LEM 9mm instead I would.

- trigger aside, comparing a P2000 to a G34 is not a reasonable comparison. P2000 to G19 or P30L to G34. This is compounded by the fact the G34 is a 9mm and your issued BP P2000 was a 40, until recently loaded with very hot 155 and 135 grain 40 loads.
-sights matter if you like the 10-8 sights a P30 might be worth a look.
- like you I was taught to thumb check when re-holstering. I would not personally want to carry a Glock AIWB. If you have that doubt in your mind now it's not going to go away.
- YVK's concern about ND's on the draw are valid. The ND data from Front Sight training center showed about 40 % of their recorded NDs occurred on the draw.
- I don't believe the performance difference between the LEM and the Glock trigger is significant in the real world.

[Wendell]

...concern about ND's on the draw are valid. The ND data from Front Sight training center showed about 40 % of their recorded NDs occurred on the draw...

I'm doubtful that their 'data' has anything to do with us.

[HCM]

I'm doubtful that their 'data' has anything to do with us.

Why? because the PF "we" are too good to have an ND on the draw?

I'm not a big fan of Front Site for a variety of reasons and I'll admit 40% is higher than I would expect based on what I've seen in LE training but it's not unheard of. Assuming "we" are too good for that strikes me as dangerous - pride before the fall.

[Dagga Boy]

A couple things. Most has been covered on a topic I generally best to death. First....GJM isn't like most. He shoots a lot, near daily, and is insanely disciplined about he and his wife's training. He is not like most, and can get away with a whole lot more changing of guns on the quest for perfect fit to the moment than most.

The second you think you are too good to screw up, have a moment of in attention, distraction or that piece of brass down your neck on your draw, please get a hold of me so I can take some insurance out on you. One of the hardest things to come to grips with as we get deep in the shooting game is that we are still very fallible and this stuff is not forgiving.

[GJM]

I'm doubtful that their 'data' has anything to do with us.


I carried an issued HK USP Compact LEM 40 with factory Meps for 8 years. I currently carry a personal owned agency approved G17. Glock is our only 9mm option, if I could carry a DA/SA SIG or an HK LEM 9mm instead I would.

- trigger aside, comparing a P2000 to a G34 is not a reasonable comparison. P2000 to G19 or P30L to G34. This is compounded by the fact the G34 is a 9mm and your issued BP P2000 was a 40, until recently loaded with very hot 155 and 135 grain 40 loads.
-sights matter if you like the 10-8 sights a P30 might be worth a look.
- like you I was taught to thumb check when re-holstering. I would not personally want to carry a Glock AIWB. If you have that doubt in your mind now it's not going to go away.
- YVK's concern about ND's on the draw are valid. The ND data from Front Sight training center showed about 40 % of their recorded NDs occurred on the draw.
- I don't believe the performance difference between the LEM and the Glock trigger is significant in the real world.


Why? because the PF "we" are too good to have an ND on the draw?

I'm not a big fan of Front Site for a variety of reasons and I'll admit 40% is higher than I would expect based on what I've seen in LE training but it's not unheard of and assuming "we" are too good for that strikes me as dangerous - pride before the fall.


A couple things. Most has been covered on a topic I generally best to death. First....GJM isn't like most. He shoots a lot, near daily, and is insanely disciplined about he and his wife's training. He is not like most, and can get away with a whole lot more changing of guns on the quest for perfect fit to the moment than most.

The second you think you are too good to screw up, have a moment of in attention, distraction or that piece of brass down your neck on your draw, please get a hold of me so I can take some insurance out on you. One of the hardest things to come to grips with as we get deep in the shooting game is that we are still very fallible and this stuff is not forgiving.

I have looked hard at the Front Sight data, and think it is good that they keep track of this info. In that it reflects a bunch of people trying to perform, under stress to perform, with some supervision, we should all learn from it. That data shows people shoot themselves about as much drawing as holstering, and the accidents are well distributed between various platforms -- striker, 1911, DA/SA. If you think PF folks are immune, consider that we had a former PF member that shot himself in the pelvis drawing a M&P from an appendix holster.

Triggers that are easier to shoot targets with are easier to shoot yourself with. Different people define the trade off between safety and shootability differently, and some folks move that analysis depending upon mood or other circumstances. It is pretty easy to think our own analysis is not only correct, but the right analysis for everyone else.

[JustOneGun]

At what point do you sacrifice pure performance for a preference in gun type and safety? I'm thinking the HK LEM vs that of a Glock. Is this even an issue or is the solution to invest substantial time and effort into dry fire and practice? What if that time is better served on a faster and less forgiving platform like that of a Glock?
FYI, I'm between a G26 (with PMAG 12 round mag) and HK P30/P2000sk for appendix carry. I'm very familiar with the LEM as I carried it in my last agency but it took substantial effort to begin to scratch my abilities that I had with a Glock 34 albeit my 10-8 sights certainly helped. Thoughts?


IMHO,

It's not how you feel but how fast you can shoot the pistol. Putting it on a timer for each pistol using a standard test will allow one to test progress. Shooting yourself isn't good. Getting shot due to poor performance kind of sucks too.

Most people have a fixed amount of time that they will train and practice, no matter the platform. This translates into delayed performance or if there isn't enough training and practice time to begin with, then ongoing subpar performance becomes standard.

We had AD/ND's before striker fired weapons were invented. There is a strong need to know why they happen with any pistol. Don't let changing to a LEM make you feel safer, because it is not. It's just different.

If the length of travel for the pistol into the holster is equal or more than the LEM or any trigger then it can go bang for the same reason the Glock can.

If you can go through a safety mechanism that you practice such as putting your thumb on a hammer or a Glock Gadget then you can have the presence of mind to look the pistol into the holster while canting it away from your body, no matter where or what you carry. If you forget to look it into the holster as a safety system then one will usually skip a second step such as putting the thumb on the hammer. i.e. the entire safety mechanism/checks/procedure gets skipped. I haven't seen people just skip one aspect of there holstering safety checks/mechanisms. It is usually all or nothing.

[L-2]

Here we have another person who needs help deciding what gun to carry, and perhaps buy, with some added complexities.

1. First, have a gun; or don't even have a gun and this entire problem goes away (jk, as this is a gun forum).
2. Complicating Issue. AIWB. This is a personal choice and will have pros & cons. Some believe it has additional dangers which involve unintentional discharges/NDs/ADs. Some folks believe certain types of handgun mitigate that danger with a mechanical safety. Why carry AIWB vs. another method?
3. Complicating Issue. Mechanical safety, type/degree, and is-it-necessary? This is another personal preference. Glocks have mechanical safeties, but they're really drop-safety oriented. There are some devices on the market (Gadget; Siderlock; & Saf-T-Blok; NY1 & NY2 trigger springs come to mind). Is the Glock, and which model, the original poster (OP) is most proficient? I couldn't really determine that from the posts. To what degree is the OP more proficient if so?
4. Complicating Issue. Other handgun platforms. Personal preference. Coupled with #3, can the OP become acceptably proficient with another platform? What does that take, time & how much practice and rounds downrange?

I also shoot a lot. It may be ~1K/week. This may be spread out between Glocks, SIGs, 1911s, revolvers, and some shotgun. Mostly, I'm carrying Glock. A G17Gen3 is issued and what I must carry for uniformed work. I carried Glock even before it was mandated. This has been ~20 years, now. I generally conceal IWB at 4 o'clock with a G19gen3, but do have other Glocks and have carried my other handguns. A fraction of a second faster is nice, but doesn't mean as much if you shoot oneself either drawing or re-holstering.

From what I gather, it seems the greatest danger is re-holstering back into the AIWB position. If so, how about treating the AIWB holster as a pocket holster, meaning, pull the holster out, put the gun back in, then reattach the holster back into position? I'm just brainstorming here. There can be a tendency to re-holster faster than safety allows.

[Hot Sauce]

I'm currently out of an LEO position for the next foreseeable year so this is a personal purchase. You are right in that it is broad, but I didn't want to get too tied down with performance specks. It's more of, "am I thinking in the correct context and making a decision based on that". I for one do not view Glocks as inherently dangerous but as a person who was holstering and stopped an ND/AD due to feeling the movement of the LEM trigger, I'm a believer.

How likely are you to go back and work as an LEO for the same agency after this year is up? If chances are pretty good, then for simplicity's sake I'd stick with the LEM.

While we all on the forum appreciate the opportunity for discussion (in fact, this is probably THE most frequent discussion had in this subforum), it may be that your question has a relatively simple answer.

[NCmtnman]

How likely are you to go back and work as an LEO for the same agency after this year is up? If chances are pretty good, then for simplicity's sake I'd stick with the LEM.

While we all on the forum appreciate the opportunity for discussion (in fact, this is probably THE most frequent discussion had in this subforum), it may be that your question has a relatively simple answer.

It does have a simple answer but I was looking for validation which was given by several here. More or less I was looking at my thought process and the WHY of buying a certain type. Not exactly what gun, as I'm familiar with what I shoot better, but more of why for make a decision on what gun in particular. Might have been a better discussion for an in person conversation.

Going back into LE with my agency would be a Glock to answer your question.

[SteveB]

To me, this is a mindset issue as much as it's a training issue. Over the last 30 years, I've moved from SA to SFA to TDA as primary carry guns, but shoot all of them at roughly the same level. Objectively (timed drills) I currently shoot a TDA pistol (CZ) faster than anything else, but it has a ridiculous trigger. Point is, it is important to me that I am able to switch between action types without a significant drop off in performance. I own (and shoot) a lot of different pistols. I realize that many competent folks believe strongly that it is important to train with, compete with and carry the same pistol; I was one of them. When I moved from IWB to AIWB, I moved from a G19 to an HK P2000 V3. For me, the advantage of the DA first trigger pull, both for AIWB and for potential defensive use outweighs the very small speed advantage to the first shot that I see with the Glock. Having said that, it has long been a primary goal of mine to shoot different action types well, and that determination drives my training.

[JHC]

If so, how about treating the AIWB holster as a pocket holster, meaning, pull the holster out, put the gun back in, then reattach the holster back into position? I'm just brainstorming here. There can be a tendency to re-holster faster than safety allows.

That is how I treat them in everyday life with a variety of holsters I've found to be excellent from Dark Star, FIST and RCS (VG2).

I get training reps in dry fire. Heavy volume live fire training is OWB. I've never had an issue going concealed AIWB or IWB cold on the live fire tests like the FAST. Lots of reps over a lot of years though.

[psalms144.1]

- trigger aside, comparing a P2000 to a G34 is not a reasonable comparison. P2000 to G19 or P30L to G34. This is compounded by the fact the G34 is a 9mm and your issued BP P2000 was a 40, until recently loaded with very hot 155 and 135 grain 40 loads. Truth. The BP 155gr JHP is STILL what we issue as duty ammo, and I hate shooting it in ANY .40 S&W platform. You're comparing apples to Volkswagens here...
-sights matter if you like the 10-8 sights a P30 might be worth a look. Again, agreed. I've given up begging Ameriglo to make CAPS/Operators for HKs, because I suck, and Ameriglo hates me
- like you I was taught to thumb check when re-holstering. I would not personally want to carry a Glock AIWB. If you have that doubt in your mind now it's not going to go away. +10,000 for this. I have, repeatedly, tried and abandoned AIWB because I've been a Glock shooter forever. Part of that is as my weight fluctuates, my comfort with this mode does as well, but mostly is I just don't like holstering a striker fired gun AIWB, NO MATTER HOW MUCH I follow all the best practices. It just gives me an uncomfortable feeling, and it hasn't gone away despite trying to make it go away for several years.
- I don't believe the performance difference between the LEM and the Glock trigger is significant in the real world.There is a difference, and, for me, it was measurable. The real question is, in the real world does the difference between .16ish accurate splits and .20ish accurate splits mean anything. I know, logically, the answer is "no," but hanging out on here trying to "keep up with the Jones'" shooting performance can make one believe that .04 difference matters. Maybe it does in speed intensive competitions...

[GJM]

If the difference was between .16 and .20 accurate splits, there would be no heartburn. And it isn't just speed, it is accuracy at reasonable speed -- the LEM just takes more effort than other trigger systems, with a greater propensity to really yard a shot.

[Earlymonk]

Just Noobiford McNewb wearing out the "Like" button at the depth of insight/level of discourse in threads like this.

I so appreciate such a "thinking shooter's" forum. Thanks, P-F.

[The Apprentice]

I strongly prefer a pistol with a manual safety.

The Gadget is nice for re-holstering, but does not offer the benefits of a manual safety.

Doc would you mind expounding on the benefits of a manual safety or point me to somewhere it is discussed. The only benefit I've ever really heard about are a few instances where in a gun grab the attacker got ahold of the gun but didnt deactivate the safety. Mostly the unwashed masses say they'll get you killed on da streets. Just looking for a little wisdom please.

[RevolverRob]

Safety is paramount. End of story. You can be safe with a Glock, an LEM, a DA revolver, or a gun with an external safety. Circumstances can and should dictate which you use.

I'd rather sacrifice a few hundredths of split times for being comfortable not thinking my I'm gonna blow my bollocks off when I reholster. That said one should not be carrying a gun, no matter how good/bad they are if they are thinking their bollocks are gonna be blown off. Change your holster, carry mode, or whatever you need to, to be safe.

[Handy]

Safety is paramount. End of story. You can be safe with a Glock, an LEM, a DA revolver, or a gun with an external safety. Circumstances can and should dictate which you use.

I'd rather sacrifice a few hundredths of split times for being comfortable not thinking my I'm gonna blow my bollocks off when I reholster. That said one should not be carrying a gun, no matter how good/bad they are if they are thinking their bollocks are gonna be blown off. Change your holster, carry mode, or whatever you need to, to be safe.

This is more a measure of how different people evaluate risk, rather than a yardstick of their likelihood to have an accident. Confidence kills, too.

Gun people are REALLY confident.

[DocGKR]

I really like having a manual safety on a pistol that is used for uniformed LE use; I have twice seen officers' lives potentially saved when another person gained control of an officer's pistol, but the engaged manual safety prevented the weapon from firing--I don't like to think about the outcome if the pistols involved had been a Glock, Sig, XD, revolver, etc... A manual safety can also help avoid inadvertent discharge if something unexpected occurs when drawing, re-holstering, and when moving. Having a safety on a CCW pistol is also not a bad idea, for the same reasons.

[Luke]

Do people who carry guns for a living take the saftey off after they have made the decision to shoot, or when making the master grip?


The only experience I have with a saftey was a 1911 in a match setting where I de activated the saftey on the master grip slightly before the draw. I've often been curious how it's done in a LE type setting.

[Handy]

Do people who carry guns for a living take the saftey off after they have made the decision to shoot, or when making the master grip?


The only experience I have with a saftey was a 1911 in a match setting where I de activated the saftey on the master grip slightly before the draw. I've often been curious how it's done in a LE type setting.

I can't say what people actually do, but I know anyone interested in safety at all is going to say that the safety stays on until you're clear of the holster, if not sights on target.

[GJM]

Do people who carry guns for a living take the saftey off after they have made the decision to shoot, or when making the master grip?


The only experience I have with a saftey was a 1911 in a match setting where I de activated the saftey on the master grip slightly before the draw. I've often been curious how it's done in a LE type setting.

Luke, that is a really bad thing!

I have discussed manipulation of the thumb safety with Robbie Leatham seconds after he made a .70 something draw to a ten yard steel. He says everyone worries about the thumb safety when they shouldn't. He says to get a great grip, which also will take care of the grip safety, and there is plenty of time to move the thumb safety later in the draw.

[BehindBlueI's]

Do people who carry guns for a living take the saftey off after they have made the decision to shoot, or when making the master grip?


The only experience I have with a saftey was a 1911 in a match setting where I de activated the saftey on the master grip slightly before the draw. I've often been curious how it's done in a LE type setting.

When you decide to shoot. If you're holding someone at gun point, safety comes off as you move trigger finger from index to trigger, for example.

[Luke]

I'm not sure when it comes off, but it is before I'm on the sights. I don't even think I could get a good grip on a 1911 in a OWB holster without my thumb hitting it. I'm not saying it's off before it leaves the holster, but it is off before I'm on the sights. Granted this has ALL been in a competition environment. I have no other experience with guns with safety's


I've never drawn a saftey 'D gun without the intention to shoot.

[Luke]

When you decide to shoot. If you're holding someone at gun point, safety comes off as you move trigger finger from index to trigger, for example.

For the sake of argument, let's say you've made the decision to shoot, you draw your weapon, when does the saftey come off.

[BehindBlueI's]

For the sake of argument, let's say you've made the decision to shoot, you draw your weapon, when does the saftey come off.

The easiest answer is at the same time your trigger finger should get on the trigger. Most of my "with safety" training is long gun related these days, but it's the same general idea.

[DocGKR]

"When you decide to shoot. If you're holding someone at gun point, safety comes off as you move trigger finger from index to trigger"

This, very much this...

[GJM]

I believe Luke is asking where in the presentation does the thumb safety come off.

I do it after both hands come together and you are extending the pistol. Same place your finger enters the trigger guard.

[RevolverRob]

Nyeti had a great thread on when to decock/safety a gun about three years ago. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9463-When-to-Decock-Safe-a-Pistol&highlight=running+thumb+safety

I searched for this about six-eight months ago when I switched to a Hi-Power as my primary from DAO revolver. I initially had been taught to release the thumb safety when the gun is clear of the holster, but subsequent work for years with TDA guns had me decocking every time the gun came off target. As a result it felt much more natural to unsafe/safe as the gun comes on and then off a target.

ETA: Another benefit for manual safety guns, particularly slide mounted ones like on Berettas or the HK-style thumb safeties is the ability to administratively manipulate the gun with the safety activated. A huge bonus if administrative handling is frequently required.

[DocGKR]

Frame mounted safeties like on the M&P also allow manipulation of the pistol with the safety on...

[SoCalDep]

As with everything else, the answer to these questions depends on lots of factors.

Safety: I hear people say that the DA guns need more training. OK. Then I hear people saying the striker guns need more training for safety. OK. Then I hear people saying safeties will get you killed. Other people say not having a safety will get you killed by yourself.

Damn.

I've seen WAY more people forget to de-activate a safety (primarily with Berettas and HK USPs) than have any sort of unintentional discharge with a striker gun. This includes in multiple actual lethal incidents. That said, both are a training issue that can be dealt with by training and just a teeny bit of motivation. I carry AIWB, and moved away from striker platforms for two reasons. First, I can shoot a DA/SA gun about as well and in most cases better than a striker gun. Second, being one of the main guys who has to respond to my department's issues in terms of unintentional discharges, I've developed a bit of paranoia. It's not what I think will happen, it's the extreme possibility. It's not normal but it's my personal situation. I don't think I'm going to shoot myself in the junk with a striker gun... but I feel better with the hammered gun, I practice more with a hammered gun, and thus I've developed confidence, competence, and comfort with that platform.

I have no problem with striker fired duty guns with no safety. Yes, one can have their gun taken and be shot with it. One can draw their gun and not be able to fire it. Both have happened but in my experience more of my co-workers have tried to fire their guns and failed due to inability to deactivate the safety compared to those who have had their guns taken. It's still a training and motivation issue.

So lets talk training and motivation...

My department mandates that any handgun with a safety be carried with the safety on. I like that policy. Many people don't and it gets them in trouble. Instead of learning to use the safety correctly, they simply carry safety off and ignore it. Then, if the safety ends up engaged, either in the holster or after manipulation after a malfunction clearance or reload, they vapor-lock. I have personally seen 8 rounds racked out of a perfectly good gun because the user couldn't figure out the safety had become engaged. I can't go into details of the actual shootings, but it happens there too. So we need to train to effectively manipulate the complexities of a safety equipped handgun. Handguns without safeties need more care with regard to trigger-finger discipline, but are simpler regarding manipulation of safety devices.

So, from a duty standpoint, I ask this... Is trigger finger discipline ever OK to sacrifice? I see so many people argue that the striker fired guns are bad because we all make mistakes, then ignore the inherent and dangerous issues with other action methods. ALL guns are dangerous, and ALL guns require competent use. People forget to disengage the safety... It's safer in terms of unintentional discharges but it can get you dead. Even with guns with safeties... and even with guns with heavy triggers... accidents occur, so I ask... is it EVER OK to sacrifice trigger discipline? In my opinion it's as big a false sense of confidence to feel you're "safer" with a DA gun as to feel you're competent enough to run a striker gun. You are NEVER safe or proficient enough. Choose your poison. (Yes - I get the hypocracy of this statement while carrying a DA gun AIWB... Would it be less hypocritical to carry a striker gun and say I'm competent enough? It's my preference to carry the DA but I fully understand that it is a trade-off... and I've take the necessary steps to mitigate the issue, just as someone who carries a striker gun could for their situation).

Guns are designed to be easy to shoot. They are "ergonomic". Thus, the gun is designed such that the trigger finger naturally falls on the trigger. Regardless of the firearm, keeping one's finger off the trigger is NOT natural. It must be learned, practiced, and repeated consistently to build competency...regardless of the platform. I think it's extremely dangerous to advocate and depend on a DA trigger to prevent an accident when we see that accidents can still happen with DA triggers. It's about proper training and consistency...Not action type.

Some guns allow the user to effectively manipulate the safety in a similar manner as an AR/M4 pattern rifle. I think this is great and it's my preferred method of manipulating a 1911... If the 1911 was the only handgun I used. The safety on the Beretta, while easy to disengage, is much more difficult to engage compared to the AR or 1911 and the level of cognitive effort needed to manipulate it is much greater than the other platforms. Because of the many different handguns I need to use, the safety comes off as the firearm is rotated toward the target, and the trigger finger is the one area I pound into the dirt in training. The safety gets activated immediately prior to the handgun being placed back in the holster.

In short, I advocate the use of DA/SA and striker fired handguns with safeties and not as long as you TRAIN and are MOTIVATED to improve.

If you are not prepared to do the latter... I recommend locking your gun in a safe and programming 911 into your phone.

[That Guy]

I believe Luke is asking where in the presentation does the thumb safety come off.

That is how I understood the question as well.

Assuming the decision to fire comes before drawing the pistol: With a 1911, the way I do it, when the gun reaches the end of vertical travel and muzzle rotates towards the target, the safety comes off. (#2 position in SouthNarc's terminology.) The idea here being that the safety always comes off at the same time, whether I need to shoot from retention or not - I'm trying to avoid a situation where I forget to take the safety off because normally I'd do it at a later phase of the draw. Finger goes onto the trigger a bit later during normal presentation, when the gun is moving horizontally.

A question of my own: most sources treat the decocker in a TDA pistol as sort of trivial. Decocking is an administrative function, done after the shooting is done, and so it is not important to have a very ergonomic and easy to use decocker. I tend to disagree. I want to treat the decocker more like a manual safety - if I need to, for example, move to another position over uneven ground (a situation that has come up before in competition), I want to decock the gun before moving. And if I'm doing it on a stage in a match, for example, I do want an easy to use decocker that preferably I don't have to break my grip to use. This has been one of the issues guiding my selection of my next TDA pistol. Do you guys think I am overemphasising the decocker, that I should be more willing to compromise in its location? (So basically, I am asking for a sanity check on my though process, as it runs counter to what a lot of people say.)

[GJM]

A question of my own: most sources treat the decocker in a TDA pistol as sort of trivial. Decocking is an administrative function, done after the shooting is done, and so it is not important to have a very ergonomic and easy to use decocker. I tend to disagree. I want to treat the decocker more like a manual safety - if I need to, for example, move to another position over uneven ground (a situation that has come up before in competition), I want to decock the gun before moving. And if I'm doing it on a stage in a match, for example, I do want an easy to use decocker that preferably I don't have to break my grip to use. This has been one of the issues guiding my selection of my next TDA pistol. Do you guys think I am overemphasising the decocker, that I should be more willing to compromise in its location? (So basically, I am asking for a sanity check on my though process, as it runs counter to what a lot of people say.)

Shooters trying to be competitive in matches do not decock before moving in a stage. The two most competitive DA/SA pistols, the Shadow and Tanfo, don't even have a decocker-- you decock by pressing the trigger while holding the hammer when making ready at the beginning of the stage.

[Clobbersaurus]

Shooters trying to be competitive in matches do not decock before moving in a stage.

This.

Part of the reason I went to Beretta was because of the trigger/decocker/hammer system. In a match I do not decock when I move, but I am sure (and my match videos confirm it) to use a high slide register position when moving. In a course setting when using my G or F, I decock every time my trigger finger goes to register, it doesn't matter if I am moving or not.

These days, when not competing, I've moved to my 92D. I'm really liking DAO autos. They offer an objectively safer trigger system with all the benefits of a hammer fired gun and only a small incremental reduction in performance.

[JTQ]

The two most competitive DA/SA pistols, the Shadow and Tanfo, don't even have a decocker-- you decock by pressing the trigger while holding the hammer when making ready at the beginning of the stage.
While I haven't found any historical evidence to prove it, I'm convinced the manual safety on CZ DA/SA guns is designed for "maneuver". I don't believe they were intended for cocked and locked carry, but as DA guns and then to use the manual safety after you've shot the gun and are moving to another spot to engage another target. Once all the shooting was done, the gun would be decocked as you described and reholstered as a DA shooter. That's my theory at least.

As far as the 1911 safety disengagement goes, here is Ed Head at Gunsite demonstrating the 1911 draw stroke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGxwJrrABY&spfreload=10

[Handy]

While I haven't found any historical evidence to prove it, I'm convinced the manual safety on CZ DA/SA guns is designed for "maneuver". I don't believe they were intended for cocked and locked carry, but as DA guns and then to use the manual safety after you've shot the gun and are moving to another spot to engage another target. Once all the shooting was done, the gun would be decocked as you described and reholstered as a DA shooter. That's my theory at least.

As far as the 1911 safety disengagement goes, here is Ed Head at Gunsite demonstrating the 1911 draw stroke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGxwJrrABY&spfreload=10

That's pretty much how the 1911 was designed. Inertial firing pin for safe hammer down carry, patented grip safety that makes one handed decocking easy, wide spur hammer for cocking, and a late addition of a safety for when things are too harry for decocking.


I think it is interesting that even brand new designs coming out of Europe - like the Grand Power and some of the SAR pistols - still have no decocker with a DA/SA trigger. Just like the old first gen Beretta 92, CZ75, Bernadelli, etc. It doesn't seem to be as big a deal in some parts of the world - even parts that have seen their share of strife.

[EVP]

From what I gather, it seems the greatest danger is re-holstering back into the AIWB position. If so, how about treating the AIWB holster as a pocket holster, meaning, pull the holster out, put the gun back in, then reattach the holster back into position? I'm just brainstorming here. There can be a tendency to re-holster faster than safety allows.

Like you mentioned it does take care of the reholstering part, but not the drawing aspect that some have said.

I have used the idea you mentioned with a vp9. It works and helps mitigate the risk but it is not an ideal solution.


On the OPs topic, I think the only way to know is to give it an honest try. Some people shoot the LEM triggers better then others and the difference in performance for them is not that much. For some the difference can be enough that it is not worth it to them.

I am currently going to give it a go comparing a vp9 to a p30 over a extended amount of time. The guns are similar enough that the differences should come down to my trigger control.