Stop and Think Series

[Erick Gelhaus]

What are your thoughts on manual safeties? Such as on the M&P.

I prefer them, but I "grew up" shooting pistols with them. I grip a Glock or other soulless, plastic guns and thumb doesn't know what to do.

Seriously, I finished the academy with a 1911a1 and carried one for 20 years on duty, and I've carried an M&P with a thumb safety for 6 1/2 of the last ten years. I think Pannone recently discussed this and positively compared using the selector/safety on the M16/AR15 family with one's ability to use a frame-mounted thumb safety on a handgun.

As @jlw pointed out, Off-target/On safe or On-target/Off safe. If drawing, presenting from the holster to the shot, then the safety comes off once the shoot decision has been made and the sights are on the target (not you having a sight picture). If drawing to a ready position, the safety stays on until both criteria from the last sentence are met.

The thumb rides on top of the safety when it's on & off, except for the instant one is putting it back on safe. Otherwise, one risks bumping it on unintentionally.

When does it go back on? "As @jlw pointed out, Off-target/On safe or On-target/Off safe."

After years of Glocks being the most common pistol, it's interesting to see people migrating (for various reasons) to the 2011s and 1911s while being quite unfamiliar with their manual of arms.

The use of the safety is trainable.

[Mas]

I think I read this from Mas, apologies if I get it wrong or it was from someone else.

1. One idea for the heavier TDA first pull was that it might counteract folks keeping a finger on the trigger and some accidental pull, from some factor like a startle, sympathetic squeeze, etc. We do know that such factors can overcome the heavier pull though. Does it cut down the rate? I don't know if that has been quantified.

2. Because of the perceived safety of the DA pull, folks were keeping their finger on the trigger after the first shot and now have a lighter short pull, when they should have moved the finger to a safe position.

3. They, thus, had an illusion of safety, and more more likely to fire a second shot as a ND due to various factors has mentioned above.

4. One might argue that you would notice the trigger is back but perceptual narrowing under stress, might cause the person to miss that or just forget the trigger pull difference.

Any evidence for this?

Glenn and Lee, I don't recall writing exactly that, but might have quoted some other instructor who felt that way. Taking your points in order:
1. The long, heavy double action pull has always been one safety net against unintended discharge due to things like startle response, but has never been a bulwark against it.

2. I can think of more than one case when an unintended DA shot was immediately followed by a second from SA, due to startle response.

3. See 2., above.

4. I think a lot of that is simply forgetting to decock, as Lee and Greg have pointed out.

[UNM1136]

I taught our Glock transition course back in the day, and I've taught plenty of newbies on the Glock and other striker fired pistols, and it certainly is 'easier" without the de-cock step. Students seem to be especially resistant to de-cocking when coming off of a target to a ready position.

Way back in the day I was criticized by the head of my agency's FTU for decocking "too often" and "too soon". He wanted the decock to preceed holstering. Your hard break and scan and addressing additional targets should be SA. My answer was always "off target, hammer down." If I am going to start/restart "observe-decide-engage if necessary cycle ", paricularly if it involves moving, or going hands on or manipulating things in the environment like radios, doors, etc, I want the hammer down.

I have seen more than one ND when officers were climbing in windows, kicking doors, doing reloading drills etc. I very firmly believe and teach "off target, hammer down"...

Besides, everyone knows that DA/SA triggers are harder to run, so I wanted more practice with the transition...

I have never believed TDA gave any additional margin of safety: when the trigger moves to the rear, a loud noise is the predictable result. I do recall, due to the nature, seeing the hammer move to the rear in my peripheral vision, before changing my mind, and getting off the trigger. I do buy that the process, depending on circumstances, can allow one last opportunity to exit this ride.

This may be relevant to me in the future. If Gadgets are going to be hard to get I am eyeing the CZ P-07 for off duty appendix carry. Spent 6 years with a P229 in .40 and .357. 14 years with a Kimber Warrior that Uncle Pat helped me source, a year with an issue M&P9, and coming up on 2 years with a G17. I don't NEED a gadget to carry a Glock appendix, but I prefer it. The only reason I dropped the issue M&P was MOS, RMR, and Gadget, in that order. MOS no longer matters that much.

pat

[TheNewbie]

Way back in the day I was criticized by the head of my agency's FTU for decocking "too often" and "too soon". He wanted the decock to preceed holstering. Your hard break and scan and addressing additional targets should be SA. My answer was always "off target, hammer down." If I am going to start/restart "observe-decide-engage if necessary cycle ", paricularly if it involves moving, or going hands on or manipulating things in the environment like radios, doors, etc, I want the hammer down.

I have seen more than one ND when officers were climbing in windows, kicking doors, doing reloading drills etc. I very firmly believe and teach "off target, hammer down"...

Besides, everyone knows that DA/SA triggers are harder to run, so I wanted more practice with the transition...

I have never believed TDA gave any additional margin of safety: when the trigger moves to the rear, a loud noise is the predictable result. I do recall, due to the nature, seeing the hammer move to the rear in my peripheral vision, before changing my mind, and getting off the trigger. I do buy that the process, depending on circumstances, can allow one last opportunity to exit this ride.

This may be relevant to me in the future. If Gadgets are going to be hard to get I am eyeing the CZ P-07 for off duty appendix carry. Spent 6 years with a P229 in .40 and .357. 14 years with a Kimber Warrior that Uncle Pat helped me source, a year with an issue M&P9, and coming up on 2 years with a G17. I don't NEED a gadget to carry a Glock appendix, but I prefer it. The only reason I dropped the issue M&P was MOS, RMR, and Gadget, in that order. MOS no longer matters that much.

pat

Where I think the DA/SA gives some safety margin is in holstering, if you thumb the hammer. While not exactly easy, I could overcome the SCD. With a NY1 trigger, the SCD was much harder, if not impossible, to overcome.


I’m really thinking a M&P might be in my future. The bit of take up on the trigger is something I actually like, and the real issue is if I can convince myself to like the safety. If I get one it will be a manual safety version, but it does mess my grip up. Surely training and practice can eliminate that issue.


I do hope we get more SCDs and I hope all is good with Tom.

[BehindBlueI's]

I've really come to appreciate the Glock/SCD combo. Invisible when you need to shoot, mimics a hammer for holstering, and if you forget to use it you are no worse off than you would be without it. Just an extra layer.

I still *really* like a TDA gun as well.

Personally won't carry a manual safety handgun for reasons I've detailed elsewhere several times.