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

21 - 40 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
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.
Let me throw out an olive branch here and suggest that maybe we both should have been more descriptive with our words. I never mentioned modern and you never mentioned traditional in the first interaction. "1911" covers a vast amount of manufacturers, pistols, and designs.

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.
You may have a point in regard to which design would be more durable over time with repeated impacts. I don't know, but I'd say that they both serve the same purpose in a similar way.

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.
If it was tested, the information was never brought to my eyes.

But on the 1911, the thumb safety blocks the sear. There is no sear block on the P99, PPQ, or PDP. Taking the thumb safety out of a modern 1911 with a firing pin block leaves both pistols with the same amount of safeties to prevent a mechanical failure that could cause a discharge with two fully cocked pistols, For that, I'd put them both as being equally mechanically safe if everything works as it should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
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.
I fully understand the purpose and operation of the blade safety in the trigger but that doesn't change the fact that I do not trust a striker fired pistol with the only safety being that trigger blade. I would NOT carry one with a round in the chamber. Period. If it had a manual safety in addition to the blade safety, I'd have a different attitude about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,360 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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, the example is extreme, so it is pretty irrelevant. No one with any sanity is carrying a pistol with that kind of trigger.

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.

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.
I have no dog in this fight, but FWIW the Sig MCX series, HK416, and most if not all of the 416 clones do have firing pin safeties that require the hammer to trip a latch to allow the firing pin to move forward. I would assume other designs do as well.

Just offering a data point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
I have no dog in this fight, but FWIW the Sig MCX series, HK416, and most if not all of the 416 clones do have firing pin safeties that require the hammer to trip a latch to allow the firing pin to move forward. I would assume other designs do as well.

Just offering a data point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Those are certainly valid data points. Those features are all too rare in rifles, though. Maybe more manufacturers should follow suit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
I fully understand the purpose and operation of the blade safety in the trigger but that doesn't change the fact that I do not trust a striker fired pistol with the only safety being that trigger blade. I would NOT carry one with a round in the chamber. Period. If it had a manual safety in addition to the blade safety, I'd have a different attitude about it.
That's fine. I was putting that out there just in case you didn't. It's hard to know people's level of knowledge or experience sometimes on forums like this.

I think everyone should draw their own line on what they feel is inherently safe enough for them. Personally I think most of the designs available today from the factory are safe enough for me, but my preference is cocked and locked carry, so a manual safety on a PDP would be an instant buy for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
That's fine. I was putting that out there just in case you didn't. It's hard to know people's level of knowledge or experience sometimes on forums like this. I think everyone should draw their own line on what they feel is inherently safe enough for them. Personally I think most of the designs available today from the factory are safe enough for me, but my preference is cocked and locked carry, so a manual safety on a PDP would be an instant buy for me.
It would for me as well. My normal EDC pistol is a DA/SA semi-auto with one in the chamber. I have two that I carry and both have de-cockers. A PDP with a manual safety could be carried just as a 1911 in condition one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
It would for me as well. My normal EDC pistol is a DA/SA semi-auto with one in the chamber. I have two that I carry and both have de-cockers. A PDP with a manual safety could be carried just as a 1911 in condition one.
I used to carry my M9 outside the wire with one in the chamber, hammer down and safety on fire. That way, the first-round double-action was a solid way to mitigate any mishaps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
No way its great as is
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
It would be an absolute "NO GO" for me. Even if it is in your battery of arms, it becomes one more thing in an emergency. Which is why we carry. Every one ought to do as he/seems right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
Serious Question to get people to think and put brain in gear.

Is there any difference between handling or carrying a loaded revolver with the hammer cocked back in single action mode and carrying a striker fired loaded pistol with no manual safety????

Honest Answer: No, because if you accidentally snag the trigger both weapons accidentally go off with a short light accidental snag of the trigger. There is no second chance.

Famous Darwinian quote: "It will never happen to me because I never made a mistake in my life and I never will so I do not need a manual safety".

I could give pages full of real life horrifying examples but why bother it will fall on deaf ears.

I have had many friends who did not wear helmets on a motorcycle, did not wear seat belts, disconnected chain saw safeties, disconnected back up lawn mower safeties, did not wear safety glasses, did not wear hearing protection and of course carried striker fired guns without manual safeties and on and on. None of them escaped the consequences of their actions, I repeat, none. Its called "Darwinism".

I remember vividly the famous line from the "Dirty Harry" Movie: "Do you feel lucky punk"? The punk was not lucky.

The law of averages always catches up to you, usually much sooner than later.

Murphy's Law: What can happen will happen.

Now you know why I carry a HK P30s and P30sk. Both guns have a manual visible hammer, both have a manual safety that can be left in the "on" position when loading or unloading or carrying the gun, with hammer down or cocked. Both guns have a decocker. Tell me that this is not the safer way to design a much, much safer pistol. A child finding this gun (which should never be not locked up) but if a child did find one he would have to know how to push off the manual safety and be big enough and strong enough to pull the trigger all the way through its heavy double action trigger cycle. Two mechanical features that just might avoid a tragedy, you get neither with a striker fired pistol with no manual safety. Let that sink in for a moment but of course it probably will not sink in "because it will never happen to me".

My conscience is now clear, I have given the warnings.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
206 Posts
Serious Question to get people to think and put brain in gear.

Is there any difference between handling or carrying a loaded revolver with the hammer cocked back in single action mode and carrying a striker fired loaded pistol with no manual safety????

Honest Answer: No, because if you accidentally snag the trigger both weapons accidentally go off with a short light accidental snag of the trigger. There is no second chance.

Famous Darwinian quote: "It will never happen to me because I never made a mistake in my life and I never will so I do not need a manual safety".

I could give pages full of real life horrifying examples but why bother it will fall on deaf ears.

I have had many friends who did not wear helmets on a motorcycle, did not wear seat belts, disconnected chain saw safeties, disconnected back up lawn mower safeties, did not wear safety glasses, did not wear hearing protection and of course carried striker fired guns without manual safeties and on and on. None of them escaped the consequences of their actions, I repeat, none. Its called "Darwinism".

I remember vividly the famous line from the "Dirty Harry" Movie: "Do you feel lucky punk"? The punk was not lucky.

The law of averages always catches up to you, usually much sooner than later.

Murphy's Law: What can happen will happen.

Now you know why I carry a HK P30s and P30sk. Both guns have a manual visible hammer, both have a manual safety that can be left in the "on" position when loading or unloading or carrying the gun, with hammer down or cocked. Both guns have a decocker. Tell me that this is not the safer way to design a much, much safer pistol. A child finding this gun (which should never be not locked up) but if a child did find one he would have to know how to push off the manual safety and be big enough and strong enough to pull the trigger all the way through its heavy double action trigger cycle. Two mechanical features that just might avoid a tragedy, you get neither with a striker fired pistol with no manual safety. Let that sink in for a moment but of course it probably will not sink in "because it will never happen to me".

My conscience is now clear, I have given the warnings.
….welcome back….long live the P88 Compact!!
seriously…and I swallowed a few times and took a deep breath….I agree with you!
indeed never be safe enough, not only for yourself but also in case somebody else accidentally gets their hand on it.
My approach is…depending on the environment I am in or enter I adjust not only what I bring with me or how I carry it, I believe there is no one single approach for all possible scenarios. Being at home, driving, shopping at the grocery store….friends lunch, mall, etc, etc…..
But a safety is a must for my PPK, P88C and TPH…..even my Beretta 950BS and my big boy P88 (my backup in baggy) that has no safety has nothing in the chamber.
Don’t get me wrong, I will load up and take safety off when I believe the “environment” demands.
My son and I am sure you all have son’s too all know how they like to walk the edge and keep falling off there just to piss you off……in this case safety…dont think only about yourself…accidents could also impact others.
Does this all makes sense, maybe not but I feel happy and confident….always be aware, stay safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
My thing is, if you don't want a manual safety on your pistol, that is your preference, and that is fine.

But I sometimes get the feeling when reading certain comments on topics like this, over years, that people are actively against manual safeties. I'm not saying that I've gotten this feeling from anyone in this thread, but at what point does it become a belief system rather than just a preference? Why would someone be "against" an option that they didn't need to choose, that wouldn't effect them negatively, that could arguably make a pistol safer for someone else? Why?

I remember a thread in another forum around the time that the "gadget" for Glock pistols was released. The "gadget" is a replacement for the slide plate that you can push in to block the striker's travel, to make for safer reholstering. It amazed me the amount of people who were fervently against this modification, when the best argument I heard from their side was simply that it wasn't needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
I don't want a manual safety on any of my striker fired handguns. What I do want is a holster for each that covers the trigger until the handgun is drawn.

I was taught by my father to use a manual safety, but do not trust it. It can fail. I've had the manual safety on my 1911 disengage simply from riding in a holster. It was a leather holster, but it reinforces that manual safeties cannot be trusted.

I wouldn't have a manual safety on a pocket pistol. If I carried a pistol in my pocket, it would be DAO.

I do use the manual safety on my longarms. The trigger is more exposed and isn't covered by a holster. Yes, I've had the safety get disengaged while hanging from a sling.

I'm not anti manual safety. They have their place and their limitations. I just don't want or need them on my striker fired handguns.

Would I carry a 1911 without a manual safety? I've carried a 1911 with the manual safety disengaged without my knowledge several times and without mishap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
I'm not anti manual safety. They have their place and their limitations. I just don't want or need them on my striker fired handguns.
I can respect that. You've made points that apply to yourself and others that I'm not going to argue against.

I see a manual safety as just another layer of safety, including a holster for a pistol and keeping your finger off of the trigger, in the same way that there are four firearm safety rules. After reading threads on this topic for years, I sometimes feel like people are TELLING everyone that IT IS NOT NEEDED rather than putting their arguments out there with an open mind. It would be similar to arguing that the "all guns are always loaded" rule IS NOT NEEDED if you keep your finger off the trigger. Agreed, but I see a benefit of it being there.

I'm not speaking of anyone on this specific thread with this, but it is more of a general observation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
I don't want a manual safety on any of my striker fired handguns. What I do want is a holster for each that covers the trigger until the handgun is drawn.

I was taught by my father to use a manual safety, but do not trust it. It can fail. I've had the manual safety on my 1911 disengage simply from riding in a holster. It was a leather holster, but it reinforces that manual safeties cannot be trusted.

I wouldn't have a manual safety on a pocket pistol. If I carried a pistol in my pocket, it would be DAO.

I do use the manual safety on my longarms. The trigger is more exposed and isn't covered by a holster. Yes, I've had the safety get disengaged while hanging from a sling.

I'm not anti manual safety. They have their place and their limitations. I just don't want or need them on my striker fired handguns.

Would I carry a 1911 without a manual safety? I've carried a 1911 with the manual safety disengaged without my knowledge several times and without mishap.
Your post is very similar to the one I wrote earlier. I have had the manual safety on my P938 disengage while it was holstered in my pocket, too. A holster does for a handgun what a manual safety does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
A holster does for a handgun what a manual safety does.
I'd say there are a few benefits of a manual safety that are not there with just a holster.


Imagine if he carried AIWB.

There are also plenty of people who put their thumb on the back of the hammer while holstering their hammer fired pistols to prevent things like drawstrings and clothing from touching the trigger, just in case. This is impossible on the vast majority of striker fired pistol. I'd argue that a thumb safety would make for safer reholstering, especially with the latest trend of shorter and lighter triggers.
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
Top