Walther Forums banner

Would you buy a PDP with a manual safety?

  • Yes, I would like to see a manual safety lever option

  • No, I would not be interested in a manual safety lever

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
PDP Full Size 4.5"
Joined
·
205 Posts
I don’t want one on my ”duty” sized PDP, but I’m thinking of buying a P365X and with no trigger safety, the idea of a manual safety on a pistol that I might occasionally stick down my pants has its appeal. :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
I don't think it's a bad idea. For duty use, there are still some entities and agencies that specify manual safeties. I think there's room in the civilian market to offer the option, though for IWB or Appendix carry I think I'd rather have the PPS-style striker indicator than a manual safety, personally. Also, if you're marketing towards women, there may be a greater desire for a manual safety. I remember hearing something from a S&W rep about their "EZ" series of handguns that the manual safety version outsells the no manual safety by some significant margin. How much difference would that make in F-series sales? Who knows.
 

·
Registered
PDP Full Size 4.5"
Joined
·
205 Posts
Aren't there some states like Massachusetts that require it?

I'm not from there, so I'm not an expert by any means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I’m certainly not aware of any States than mandate safeties, manual or otherwise, on firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redcat94

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,360 Posts
I’m certainly not aware of any States than mandate safeties, manual or otherwise, on firearms.
I had to Google it.

Massachusetts requires a manual safety for any pistol with a trigger pull under ten pounds.

However it is legal to modify your trigger after you buy the gun to be under 10lbs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,229 Posts
I'd buy one immediately, granted it is a design similar to the 1911 thumb safety that has a shelf wide enough to be swiped reliably.

Unnecessary if following the firearm safety rules.
It's not a SA 1911 but I try to understand those that want it.
By that logic, there wouldn't need to be safety rules at all if people were perfect.

Does there need to be one on a 1911, if following the firearm safety rules?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I'd buy one immediately, granted it is a design similar to the 1911 thumb safety that has a shelf wide enough to be swiped reliably.


By that logic, there wouldn't need to be safety rules at all if people were perfect.

Does there need to be one on a 1911, if following the firearm safety rules?
The 1911 doesn't have the internal safeties that striker-fired pistols have. If it did, it would be okay without the external safety.

As it stands, the PPQ has a trigger that's about as clean as a 1911's trigger, but it is safe to carry because of its internals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,229 Posts
The 1911 doesn't have the internal safeties that striker-fired pistols have. If it did, it would be okay without the external safety.
?

They have for a while now. They now come with firing pin blocks, and they always had a grip safety to block the trigger. It would be difficult to fire a modern 1911 without pulling the trigger. The P99, PPQ, and PDP will drop the sear if impacted hard enough from a fall, so I'm not sure what internals you are speaking of.

But are we speaking mechanical safety, or unintentional discharges?

The fact that there are four safety rules when there could be only one, or none, indicates to me that whoever came up with those rules came up with a security stack. The four rules are layered so that even if a person fails to follow one, the others should help to keep people safe.

As it stands, the PPQ has a trigger that's about as clean as a 1911's trigger, but it is safe to carry because of its internals.
Would the people who say that the safety rules are all that is needed, be fine carrying a pistol with a .1mm trigger travel, with a .1gram trigger break, while being completely mechanically safe? I'm obviously using an extreme here to prove a point, but I think that point is obvious.

Everyone is just fine with manual safeties on long guns. For some reason I don't understand, people don't understand why others either don't mind, or actually prefer to have them on pistols. Travis Haley had an ND with an AK with the safety off. Who here is better trained than him?

I'd like an option from Walther. I think pistols with manual safeties are more inherently safe, and would cut back on a lot of ND's that occur when holstering a pistol, which may be life saving to those carrying AIWB, or people going with aftermarket triggers, springs, and modifications on these pistols that seem to be heading towards that ridiculous and extreme example that I stated above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
?

They have for a while now. They now come with firing pin blocks,
Really? My 1911 doesn't have one. Anything equipped with a firing pin block isn't a 1911. It's a 1911 derivative, just like my Sig P938.
and they always had a grip safety to block the trigger. It would be difficult to fire a modern 1911 without pulling the trigger.
Because the 1911 doesn't have a firing pin block, it can, indeed discharge if dropped at the right angle--despite the fact that it has a grip safety.
The P99, PPQ, and PDP will drop the sear if impacted hard enough from a fall, so I'm not sure what internals you are speaking of.
That sounds like a pretty manufactured claim. They have the same kinds of internal safeties a Glock has, and the Glocks have been thrown from towers multiple times to prove their drop-safe characteristics.
But are we speaking mechanical safety, or unintentional discharges?
Given the fact that I discussed internal safeties, I am only talking about mechanical safety. That point will come up again in a minute...
The fact that there are four safety rules when there could be only one, or none, indicates to me that whoever came up with those rules came up with a security stack. The four rules are layered so that even if a person fails to follow one, the others should help to keep people safe.
And that's pretty irrelevant to a discussion relating to mechanical safety. Your question was why anyone would be comfortable carrying a striker fired pistol with no safety but would expect a 1911 to have a safety.
Would the people who say that the safety rules are all that is needed, be fine carrying a pistol with a .1mm trigger travel, with a .1gram trigger break, while being completely mechanically safe? I'm obviously using an extreme here to prove a point, but I think that point is obvious.
Yeah, the example is extreme, so it is pretty irrelevant. No one with any sanity is carrying a pistol with that kind of trigger.
Everyone is just fine with manual safeties on long guns. For some reason I don't understand, people don't understand why others either don't mind, or actually prefer to have them on pistols. Travis Haley had an ND with an AK with the safety off. Who here is better trained than him?
Have you handled a long gun outside the confines of a bench at the range? When carrying a loaded long gun for any length of time, it becomes necessary to sling it from time to time or to negotiate obstacles while carrying it. The trigger has a habit of getting itself caught on things that way. There is no holster to cover the trigger when it's being carried. That's why long guns have external safeties. Oh, and they don't typically have firing pin blocks. In fact, there really aren't any prominent ones with them.
I'd like an option from Walther. I think pistols with manual safeties are more inherently safe, and would cut back on a lot of ND's that occur when holstering a pistol, which may be life saving to those carrying AIWB, or people going with aftermarket triggers, springs, and modifications on these pistols that seem to be heading towards that ridiculous and extreme example that I stated above.
That's YOUR preference. Your original question, as stated earlier, was why anyone would think it was okay to have a striker fired pistols without an external safety while finding an external safety to be necessary on a 1911. I answered that question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,229 Posts
Really? My 1911 doesn't have one. Anything equipped with a firing pin block isn't a 1911. It's a 1911 derivative, just like my Sig P938.
What nonsense is this?

If you want to go down this road, show me a picture of your 1911. I'll take a look at the original design and let you know if yours is REALLY a 1911, or just a "derivative".

Or, we could end this tangent here and I'll rephrase the question.

Would you be fine carrying a modern 1911 with a FPB without a manual safety?

Because the 1911 doesn't have a firing pin block, it can, indeed discharge if dropped at the right angle--despite the fact that it has a grip safety.
Not with a firing pin block.

That sounds like a pretty manufactured claim. They have the same kinds of internal safeties a Glock has, and the Glocks have been thrown from towers multiple times to prove their drop-safe characteristics.
I don't even know where to start here.

It is not manufactured. Most modern polymer pistols have "the same kinds of internal safeties" a Glock has. That in itself does not make them the same. You shouldn't think of similar designs as being the same. A Glock will not have this happen:


Given the fact that I discussed internal safeties, I am only talking about mechanical safety. That point will come up again in a minute...
And that's pretty irrelevant to a discussion relating to mechanical safety. Your question was why anyone would be comfortable carrying a striker fired pistol with no safety but would expect a 1911 to have a safety.
Ah, so you are speaking of mechanical safety and not inherent safety.

Fine. But others on this thread mentioned the four rules for firearm safety, so you can inform them as well that they are off topic here.

Yeah, the example is extreme, so it is pretty irrelevant. No one with any sanity is carrying a pistol with that kind of trigger.
Why not if it is mechanically safe?

Everyone knows the answer to that question. Most will not admit it, because it hurts their argument when discussing inherent safety.

Have you handled a long gun outside the confines of a bench at the range? When carrying a loaded long gun for any length of time, it becomes necessary to sling it from time to time or to negotiate obstacles while carrying it. The trigger has a habit of getting itself caught on things that way. There is no holster to cover the trigger when it's being carried. That's why long guns have external safeties. Oh, and they don't typically have firing pin blocks. In fact, there really aren't any prominent ones with them.
Yes, I have.

People don't seem to have an issue swiping the safety off, on a long gun.

But for some reason on threads like this, on a pistol, it is a training issue that can't be overcome even thought keeping your finger off of the trigger is a training issue that can.

That's YOUR preference. Your original question, as stated earlier, was why anyone would think it was okay to have a striker fired pistols without an external safety while finding an external safety to be necessary on a 1911. I answered that question.
Quote where I said that.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I've carried a PPQ for 11 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
What nonsense is this?

If you want to go down this road, show me a picture of your 1911. I'll take a look at the original design and let you know if yours is REALLY a 1911, or just a "derivative".
It's a Springfield Armory GI model. Other than the Hillary Hole that was installed in 2003/4 when it was made, it's pretty pure 1911.
Or, we could end this tangent here and I'll rephrase the question.

Would you be fine carrying a modern 1911 without a manual safety?
If they made a 1911 without the external safety, and it was as mechanically safe as my Glocks, I would have no issues carrying it cocked and locked.
It is not manufactured. Most modern polymer pistols have "the same kinds of internal safeties" a Glock has. That in itself does not make them the same. You shouldn't think of similar designs as being the same. A Glock will not have this happen:

Well, I guess Walther has an issue make their PPQ as mechanically safe as a Glock. With that being said, I don't anticipate having a mallet strike the back plate of my wife's PPQ while it's holstered. Truly, the biggest concern for a pistol safety is that it won't fire itself while it's holstered or without the finger touching the trigger when it's unholstered.
Ah, so you are speaking of mechanical safety and not inherent safety.

Fine. But others on this thread mentioned the four rules for firearm safety, so you can inform them as well that they are off topic here.
You're the one who put it in terms of PPQ versus 1911. I responded to YOUR post.
Everyone knows the answer to that question. Most will not admit it, because it hurts their argument when discussing inherent safety.

People don't seem to have an issue swiping the safety off, on a long gun.
You haven't addressed the reasons I just gave you for why people are inclined to expect external safeties on long guns. No amount of training can properly mitigate the lack of a holster covering the trigger of a long gun.
But for some reason on threads like this, on a pistol, it is a training issue that can't be overcome even thought keeping your finger off of the trigger is a training issue that can.
That is entirely irrelevant to the point you made and to which I responded.
Reading Comprehension.

Quote where I stated that "why anyone would think it was okay to have a striker fired pistols without an external safety while finding an external safety to be necessary on a 1911".

Quote that first in your next response, and don't put works in my mouth.
Reading comprehension, indeed. Here is your original post. Please explain how your post doesn't mean what I said it does:

Font Screenshot Rectangle Number Parallel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
I would like to have a manual safety on my PPQ and PDP pistols. Why? Because I simply do not trust that the blade safety in the trigger is actually safe enough. That's my opinion and others are free to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,229 Posts
I would like to have a manual safety on my PPQ and PDP pistols. Why? Because I simply do not trust that the blade safety in the trigger is actually safe enough. That's my opinion and others are free to disagree.
That "blade" in the trigger is there to serve only as a drop safety. It is not there for any other reason. If the pistol were to drop in a "muzzle-up" position, the mass of the trigger and trigger bar would cause them both to move to the rear, lift the firing pin block, and release the sear.

That blade in the trigger stops rearward travel of the trigger assembly in a drop. You can test this yourself by removing the slide, and pushing the trigger bar itself to the rear. The blade will stop it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,229 Posts
It's a Springfield Armory GI model. Other than the Hillary Hole that was installed in 2003/4 when it was made, it's pretty pure 1911.
Well if all it takes is one difference to call it a derivative, then...

If they made a 1911 without the external safety, and it was as mechanically safe as my Glocks, I would have no issues carrying it cocked and locked.
That's fine. My point is that they do.

I'd assume that most would not carry a 1911 without a manual thumb safety.

You're the one who put it in terms of PPQ versus 1911. I responded to YOUR post.
This thread is about putting a thumb safety on a derivative of the PPQ.

I responded to your response to that. We could do this all day. I even questioned what you meant by what you stated in your post, nicely, to understand what you were trying to get at so that I could reply with the information necessary.

You haven't addressed the reasons I just gave you for why people are inclined to expect external safeties on long guns. No amount of training can properly mitigate the lack of a holster covering the trigger of a long gun.
I know the reason why long guns have safeties.

My point is that if you can train to swipe a safety off on a long gun, you can do so on a pistol as well.

Reading comprehension, indeed. Here is your original post. Please explain how your post doesn't mean what I said it does:

"The 1911 doesn't have the internal safeties that striker-fired pistols have. If it did, it would be okay without the external safety.
?

You quote yourself, and then want me to explain a negative? I'll try.

The PPQ and PDP have a trigger weight of around 5.5lbs and have a longer trigger travel before releasing the sear. Modern 1911 pistols are just as safe as modern Walther pistols, but with as many changes as they've made to the design over the past 110+ years, I've yet to see or hear of anyone coming out with one without a manual safety. I'd assume that most manufacturers don't believe that most people are like you, and they believe that people are buying these pistols with manual safeties for reasons other than just mechanical safety.

You claimed that 1911 pistols aren't as mechanically safe as Walther pistols. I claimed that modern 1911 pistols with firing pin blocks are. It went downhill from there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Well if all it takes is one difference to call it a derivative, then...


That's fine. My point is that they do.

I'd assume that most would not carry a 1911 without a manual thumb safety.
Go back to my preceding post where I put a screenshot of your post to which I first responded. Nothing in your post to which I responded said anything about modern 1911s with firing pin blocks.
This thread is about putting a thumb safety on a derivative of the PPQ.

I responded to your response to that. We could do this all day. I even questioned what you meant by what you stated in your post, nicely, to understand what you were trying to get at so that I could reply with the information necessary.
And you obfuscated by bringing up modern 1911s, as opposed to traditional 1911s.
I know the reason why long guns have safeties.

My point is that if you can train to swipe a safety off on a long gun, you can do so on a pistol as well.
I never said otherwise.
?

You quote yourself, and then want me to explain a negative? I'll try.
I got in a hurry. Go back and look again. I just screenhot your post in its entirety there.
The PPQ and PDP have a trigger weight of around 5.5lbs and have a longer trigger travel before releasing the sear. Modern 1911 pistols are just as safe as modern Walther pistols, but with as many changes as they've made to the design over the past 110+ years, I've yet to see or hear of anyone coming out with one without a manual safety. I'd assume that most manufacturers don't believe that most people are like you, and they believe that people are buying these pistols with manual safeties for reasons other than just mechanical safety.

You claimed that 1911 pistols aren't as mechanically safe as Walther pistols. I claimed that modern 1911 pistols with firing pin blocks are. It went downhill from there.
Firing pin blocks on some newer 1911 derivatives are great, but until they put hammer blocks on them equivalent to the striker blocks that are on striker pistols, it's debatable as to whether the firing pin block would hold up to the hammer over time.

It's never been tested, so no one knows. Personally, I wouldn't treat the most modern current production 1911 derivative the same way I would a striker pistol unless it was tested to the extent that Glocks have been tested. It would be a huge assumption to conclude that those modern 1911 derivatives are as mechanically safe without thumb safeties as striker pistols without the thumb safeties.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top