View Full Version : Law Enforcement and "no manual safety" philosophy
When did this anti-thumb safety mentality start becoming the norm across LE agencies?
As I simplifiy the situation, it was all revolvers and something about how 1911 were not approved duty weapons for LEO's, then all of a sudden, glocks, glocks, and more glocks.
Ruger GP100
Beretta 96D
SIG P229 DAO
HK USPc
SIG P229
HKP2000SK
SIGP229DAK
A sampling of the pistols I have been issued and carried, or personally owned and carried professionally as LE over the past dozen years. Not one has had a manual safety. Not one has ever needed a manual safety.
As a person who transitioned from wheelguns, I never understood the need for a safety on a modern autoloader. If there is a firing pin blocking mechanism of some sort, as most semi-auto pistols have been equiped with the past 40 years ,what is a safety going to do for you?
gtmtnbiker98
06-20-10, 18:16
My department will not allow manual safeties, period.
Cagemonkey
06-20-10, 18:35
Since when they carried double action revolvers. Its my opinion that the average Police Officer is not very proficient with firearms. Keeping it as simple as possible is the norm.
John Hearne
06-20-10, 19:09
I've never understood it myself. A properly designed manual safety ala the 1911, is activated as a byproduct of the drawstroke. I'd have no problem carrying a duty pistol with a manual safety provided it's well designed. For an LE gun, I've always liked the idea that Jeff Cooper pushed, a spring loaded manual safety that returns to "safe" automatically and must be held down to make the piece fire.
I've never understood it myself. A properly designed manual safety ala the 1911, is activated as a byproduct of the drawstroke. I'd have no problem carrying a duty pistol with a manual safety provided it's well designed. For an LE gun, I've always liked the idea that Jeff Cooper pushed, a spring loaded manual safety that returns to "safe" automatically and must be held down to make the piece fire.
The safety is only manipulated as a byproduct of a proper drawstroke...how many LEO's can properly draw a firearm? How many officers even think about that sort of thing? Seems to me a lot of officers treat their gun as a simple hand tool, like a hammer or maybe cordless drill. 'Just pull the trigger'.
I've always liked the idea that Jeff Cooper pushed, a spring loaded manual safety that returns to "safe" automatically and must be held down to make the piece fire.
I like that idea too. It's the main reason I was contemplating buying an XD/XDM, until I learned about other issues.
Since when they carried double action revolvers.
I suspected that had something to do with the current type of semi autos the police carry, but you would think with the lighter trigger pull weight on these new single action pistols, a manual safety would be a requirement to prevent ND's.
So it's more of a training issue as to why the trend is toward pistols with no manual safety?
duckinthebox
06-20-10, 19:21
I think alot of it has to do with perception. For example even though the 1911 has more safetys than a glock, the "cocked and locked' look and perception is quite overwhelming to the majority. However the glock doesn't look as intimidating there for its acceptable by admins and the few in the public that look for the hammer.
Since when they carried double action revolvers. Its my opinion that the average Police Officer is not very proficient with firearms. Keeping it as simple as possible is the norm.
This has absolutely nothing to do with it, at all. As they keep pounding into our heads at the academy, you need a gun that is ready to fire instantly, period. You might have to draw your weapon while holding someone off you with your weak hand on the ground and any safety at all is simply a liability.
GLOCKMASTER
06-20-10, 20:45
We have carried three different pistols with decockers/safeties and never had a problem. We also had two documented cases where the decocker/safety saved a trooper's life because the BG could not figure out how to fire the pistol.
I just cannot see how having a safety on a duty pistol a liability.
In most deadly force situations, an officer is forced to react to it....not initiate it. Therefore, the officer is already behind the speed curve. A lot of officers are shot before they can get their gun in the fight too. There are a lot of variables that effect an officer's performance before he can even make that first trigger pull. I believe that the best way to enter a fight is to keep it simple......just pull the trigger and don't worry about disengaging safeties.
Some people argue that having a manual safety on your weapon will slow down a bad guy that has taken your weapon from you. My opinion is that most bad guys have general knowledge of firearms operation and manual safeties, however, most of them do not study the various holster retention systems on the market. The key is keeping your weapon in your control and not in control by the bad guy. I'm still surprised how many officers use single retention systems and get their weapons taken from them in a scuffle. I don't support using ultra 3-4 retention systems, but single just isn't enough in my opinion. I had a perp try to take my gun a couple of months ago, but he didn't know my retention system and he got an ASP across the face for it.
We have carried three different pistols with decockers/safeties and never had a problem. We also had two documented cases where the decocker/safety saved a trooper's life because the BG could not figure out how to fire the pistol.
I just cannot see how having a safety on a duty pistol a liability.
Just what I have been told repeatedly in training.
Absence of a manual safety isn't a liability in general.
One could argue that in certain scenarios, such as a gun-grab, the lack thereof could be. There have been cases of officers saved by the extra seconds an activated safety gave them.
Presence of a manual safety (and/or a decocker, for that matter), adds a dimension to instructional and proficiency issues. A liability on that end, some might say.
I've never understood it myself. A properly designed manual safety ala the 1911, is activated as a byproduct of the drawstroke. I'd have no problem carrying a duty pistol with a manual safety provided it's well designed. For an LE gun, I've always liked the idea that Jeff Cooper pushed, a spring loaded manual safety that returns to "safe" automatically and must be held down to make the piece fire.
i can't say for certain of the accuracy of this quote, as i just got it from a quick google search... but:
"A grip safety is just another excess moving part. I have never known one to prevent an accident, and moreover, it is difficult to postulate a circumstance in which it might." --Jeff Cooper
John_Wayne777
06-21-10, 16:07
So it's more of a training issue as to why the trend is toward pistols with no manual safety?
The most likely explanation is the glock-ization of firearms preferences. Glocks don't have manual safeties, glocks are awesome, thus manual safeties must be bad.
Etc.
The economics of the Glock pistol changed the pistol market in a lot of ways. It's gotten a bit out of hand now to the point that some believe that a Glock's features are the features for a duty gun.
I think there is a lot of truth to what John_Wayne says. When law enforcement switched to pistols, there were four major competitors for the market: Glock, SigSauer, Beretta, and S&W. Glocks and SigSauers have no manual safeties. Conventional DA/SA Beretta 92's and Third Generation S&W's had the safety placed that off-safing the weapon can be a challenge to some. Many agencies decided the manual safety was really a decock lever. As time went on, no manual safety became the norm.
I wonder if things would be different if Beretta or S&W had offered a frame mounted safety.
I just cannot see how having a safety on a duty pistol a liability.
Granted this is anecdotal but it illustrates the thinking of how a safety on a duty pistol could be viewed as a liability...
I knew an officer who carried a Glock on duty and a 1911 off-duty. He was a dedicated 1911 guy who only carried a Glock on duty because his department made him. While off duty, he once had to use his 1911 to fend off an armed robber. He drew and forgot to flip off the safety. He realized his mistake after a few attempts to squeeze the trigger with no positive result. He survived the encounter but it really scared him.
Basically, it was a training issue. He had trained and acclimated to the Glock so he was not in the habit of flipping off the safety. That said, I believe some agencies are concerned that if something happens and the officer needs to draw, his skills may degenerate rapidly. Any extra steps may be perceived by some to be just another place for things to go wrong.
After the incident, the officer I knew switched away from 1911 pistols and chose to carry a Glock whether on or off duty.
Granted this is anecdotal but it illustrates the thinking of how a safety on a duty pistol could be viewed as a liability...
I knew an officer who carried a Glock on duty and a 1911 off-duty. He was a dedicated 1911 guy who only carried a Glock on duty because his department made him. While off duty, he once had to use his 1911 to fend off an armed robber. He drew and forgot to flip off the safety. He realized his mistake after a few attempts to squeeze the trigger with no positive result. He survived the encounter but it really scared him.
Basically, it was a training issue. He had trained and acclimated to the Glock so he was not in the habit of flipping off the safety. That said, I believe some agencies are concerned that if something happens and the officer needs to draw, his skills may degenerate rapidly. Any extra steps may be perceived by some to be just another place for things to go wrong.
After the incident, the officer I knew switched away from 1911 pistols and chose to carry a Glock whether on or off duty.
To add to this, see page #322 of 'Street Survival' by Adams, McTernan and Remsberg. A picture of dead officer (gunshot to throat/neck), with his pistol laying on the floor a couple feet away (pistol looks like a BHP or 1911). Officer forgot to disengage safety.
An incident that happened to a friend with Beretta 92F, he pulled (more like "yanked") his pistol out of holster. The retaining strap caught just enough of the decocker/safety to engage it. Due to the circumstances, it ended well ( very long story that requires a lot of background first).
Personal incident for me: At my previous department, we were issued S&W 4006s. Me and several other officers had numerous problems with the decocker/safety falling and engaging during rapid fire drills (it was not accidental with officer riding the safety, we videotaped it to show the command staff). The solution was to tighten up the decocker/safety so much, it take a massive amount of brute strength to engage and disengage it.
As I have written before, I am currently qual'd the Glock and 1911. I strongly prefer 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...
Likewise, over the past 2 decades, I've witnessed several ND/AD's when objects (most often holster thumb breaks and jacket draw strings) snagged the trigger during reholstering--frequently on striker fired weapons where there is no exposed hammer to feel; obviously this is not such an issue when a manual safety is present. Likewise, when carrying AIWB, a manual safety is a nice feature...
When properly trained, there is NO downside to a pistol with a ergonomic manual safety and several potential advantages.
ThirdWatcher
06-21-10, 21:56
To add to this, see page #322 of 'Street Survival' by Adams, McTernan and Remsberg. A picture of dead officer (gunshot to throat/neck), with his pistol laying on the floor a couple feet away (pistol looks like a BHP or 1911). Officer forgot to disengage safety.
I lost track of my copy of Street Survival a couple of marriages ago so I can't readily look at the pic, but I heard it was staged. IIRC, it was S&W M-59 pistol.
Could it be the case of the handgun leading the specification rather than the other way around. If, for example, a department wants to go with Glock but also has to have a competitive bid, they can stack the deck in their favor by tightening the spec to achieve the desired outcome by writing it around their pistol of choice... Just a thought.
Sure, an agency can require whatever they want to knock out the other options and get a desired result or at the very least a drastically narrowed field.
For example, if they specify they want a consistent trigger pull from first shot to last shot, the DA/SA pistols get knocked out of consideration.
As I have written before, I am currently qual'd the Glock and 1911. I strongly prefer 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...
Likewise, over the past 2 decades, I've witnessed several ND/AD's when objects (most often holster thumb breaks and jacket draw strings) snagged the trigger during reholstering--frequently on striker fired weapons where there is no exposed hammer to feel; obviously this is not such an issue when a manual safety is present. Likewise, when carrying AIWB, a manual safety is a nice feature...
When properly trained, there is NO downside to a pistol with a ergonomic manual safety and several potential advantages. Two instances come to mind. A local county police officer was engaged and beaten near senseless by large felon who had two other large felons as backup. This occured in the early eighties. As he lay in a bank parking lot in the middle of the night,almost unconscious,he was relieved of his Browning Hi Power.
The felon could not figure out how to fire the pistol,and dropped the magazine thinking the release was a crossbolt safety similar to a shotgun. With the mag disconnect ,this rendered the pistol incapable of firing at all so they pistol whipped him with it.
I was rolling around in the back dirt parking lot of a local bar with a drunken and very strong roofing contractor who tried to grab my S&W Mod. 39-2. We struggled over the gun for what seemed an eternity until I was finally able to drop the magazine,once again rendering it incapable of firing at all. I then went to work on his bones with the edge of a slapjack. In both instances the manual safety,and the magazine disconnect were positive presences for lone officers with no backup. Gun grabs were more common then,than now.
This is reality. These types of fights are much more common than outright gunfights. I'll take a manuel safety on a uniform duty pistol based on my own experiences. Otherwise ,I want a Glock.
Most but not all LEOs are not gun people.
I worked as a Correctional Officer where
we were restricted to a Glock model 22.
The department had a butt load of NDs & ADs
I want to say it was lack of sufficient training.
Most but not all LEOs are not gun people.
It depends on the agency, and the type of people hired for the agency. Some agencies seek out savvy proactive officers and by the nature of that, most of them are fairly gun savvy too.
Other agencies "take what they can get", or their hiring practices are more focused towards quotas or other non LE performance criteria(the bureaucratic BS agencies). In these cases, then half or less than half of the officers are gun savvy.
Then there are the other officers that are good cops, but they treat their firearm as another tool on the belt. It symbolizes "work" for them, and thus the firearm is out of sight and out of mind at the end of the shift.
I have pistols with decockers and manual safetys and love to shoot them all. But my bump in the night pistol is a Glock.....one less thing to think about.
When attempting to rapidly recover from sleep inertia, I don't mind having "one more thing to think about" before my pistol goes bang...
My agency is Glock, almost all the way, and issues the Glock 22.
Why Glock, and why striker fired in general?
They're by and large cheaper, easier to maintain, repair, and replace if necessary, and more forgiving of sloppy/offhand/wet/bloody/weak grip (a reality of street fights with guns) than manual safety guns. Mind you, this is for classic manual safety guns, like the 1911, and guns with slide mounted safeties. Maybe the M&Ps can turn this around.
What has been said before about fewer cops being gun people is true. Its not a "tool in the toolbox" thing though. Its more of a 'I have so many other things to maintain and train with" thing. If that makes sense.
My $0.02
The only gun I will buy that has a manual safety is a 1911. Just personal preference is all...
Does anyone's preference differ when they apply a choice to other people rather than themselves? It's easier to identify merits and liabilities of given widgets and variables applied to ourselves, because we know ourselves best. I have found that sometimes, what I choose for myself is different than what I choose for others.
What about your lowest common denominator officer? The one who handles and carries a gun begrudgingly, and who responds to training slowly. Is the manual safety a benefit or liability to them?
For the LCD officer, a manual safety is one more thing to do, and to do under stress, in the deployment of his sidearm.
For that LCD officer, that manual safety is also one added layer of protection against a moment of negligent handling with or without stress.
It's also highly likely that his agency hasn't spent the time on any additional external controls like safeties and decockers that they should.
Any changes in your opinions?
John_Wayne777
06-23-10, 09:34
Does anyone's preference differ when they apply a choice to other people rather than themselves? It's easier to identify merits and liabilities of given widgets and variables applied to ourselves, because we know ourselves best. I have found that sometimes, what I choose for myself is different than what I choose for others.
Indeed. I carry a striker-fired pistol with no manual safety in the appendix position. I would never encourage anyone else to do it.
What about your lowest common denominator officer? The one who handles and carries a gun begrudgingly, and who responds to training slowly. Is the manual safety a benefit or liability to them?
I was on the range last week with an Army NCO who obviously had very little time on the M9. The safety buggered him on a number of occasions coming out of the holster.
For the LCD officer, a manual safety is one more thing to do, and to do under stress, in the deployment of his sidearm.
For that LCD officer, that manual safety is also one added layer of protection against a moment of negligent handling with or without stress.
It's also highly likely that his agency hasn't spent the time on any additional external controls like safeties and decockers that they should.
Any changes in your opinions?
For uniformed/patrol carry, if I were police chief I would greatly prefer to issue my officers M&P's with manual safeties.
In the past 5 to 10 years I've actually seen a large increase in the number of uniformed officers carrying 1911s. I work with law enforcement agencies all over the state and I would estimate that 1911s are probably 2nd to Glocks in the number being carried on duty in Texas right now (I don't have numbers or facts this is just based on my observations). This has been a relatively recent trend as I remember not too long ago I would hardly ever see a 1911 in a uniformed officer's holster. When I went to firearms instructor school about 3 or so years ago #1 was Glock, a close #2 was 1911. There was one Smith and two SIGs.
I don't know what it means but there it is.
I've never understood it myself. A properly designed manual safety ala the 1911, is activated as a byproduct of the drawstroke. I'd have no problem carrying a duty pistol with a manual safety provided it's well designed. For an LE gun, I've always liked the idea that Jeff Cooper pushed, a spring loaded manual safety that returns to "safe" automatically and must be held down to make the piece fire.
H&K P7M8 - though executed via the firing grip. I like the idea of it but would prefer the safety to act just like it does on a current 1911.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.