handguns, safety-catchPrior to entering the realm of firearms I was under the impression that all firearms (specifically hand guns) had external safeties (by this I mean a switch of some kind on the outside of the gun that prevents you from firing, not a trigger safety, etc.). Clearly this isn’t the case. Was it ever SOP for hand guns to have external safeties and what are the reasons for including/not including one?
The general idea is that it should be possible to put the loaded gun into a state where it would be reasonably difficult to discharge accidentally so that it can be carried safely. This isn’t 100%, but it’s followed for most gun designs.
Manual safeties are pretty much standard for single-action firearms (handguns and long guns), where the gun is meant to be carried with the hammer cocked and a short and light trigger would be all that prevents it from discharging. I’m not aware of any firearms like this that don’t have a manual safety.
Double-action revolvers, where a long and heavy trigger pull cocks and then releases the hammer, almost never have safeties, as the long and heavy trigger pull is considered to be enough safety.
Single-action revolvers also generally have no safeties, as they are meant to be carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber, so that you would have to manually cock the hammer to fire it.
Autoloaders with double-single actions (the hammer can be cocked manually or by the gun’s action, giving a single-action pull, or it can be cocked and released by the trigger with a double-action pull) may or may not have a manual safety. They generally have a way to drop the hammer and return it to double-action mode safely (see Sig-Sauer decockers), and some have a manual safety that decocks the hammer and can be left on (such as most Beretta handguns). Double-action only autoloaders, where the trigger is always longer and heavier than a single-action, usually don’t have manual safeties.
Autoloaders with double-action only or variations on that blur the line a little. True double-action only guns, where the trigger fully cocks and releases the hammer every time, and it can be pulled again without cycling the action, don’t usually have safeties for the same reason as double-action revolvers. Newer striker-fired guns like the Glock, M&P, and XD aren’t true double action guns as the striker must be cocked for each trigger pull, but the trigger pull is much longer and heaver than single-action guns, if not as much as a true double-action. Because of this, they usually omit the manual safety just like the double-actions.
Handgun trainers generally consider these striker-fired guns with no manual safety to be no less safe than any other handgun provided the same basic safety rules are followed. However, some of them (S&W M&P, for example) have an option for a manual safety to satisfy any departments, militaries, or corporations that have policies requiring manual safeties, or individuals that prefer them.
For some time it was SOP for automatics to have manual safeties. Revolvers did/do not, as the long trigger pull necessary to cock the hammer (or the requirement of manually cocking the hammer) was considered sufficient safety. It wasn’t until the Glock was popularized that it became common to see an auto pistol without a manual safety.
On the pro- manual safety side, having a manual safety means you can have a better (single action) trigger pull.
On the con side, you must ‘remember’ to switch the safety off. IMO, this isn’t a problem with properly trained shooters as they will rest their thumb on the safety as part of a normal firing grip, eliminating the need to ‘remember’ anything. It can be an issue for duffers however.
To complement the other good answers already present here, I’d like to add that this topic is very closely linked with the topic of a good and reliable holster.
If you have a good holster and pay attention every time you holster/draw your gun, guns without manual safeties (and without a hair-trigger) are perfectly safe. Most of the accidents attributed to the missing safeties on modern handguns were caused by bad holsters or simple negligence during manipulation with the firearm.
The question whether or not to have to have a manual safety on a handgun depends entirely on the user’s shooting and/or carry style.
Historically, I think the reason why most of the handguns had manual safeties was simply because gun safety was taught that way in the police/military (and most handguns are developed with law enforcement and military in mind), so it was considered a standard. I think Glock was the first to mass-produce a gun completely without manual safeties (I don’t count the “safety” on the trigger) and made it popular. Today, many handgun designs offer the option “with” or “without” a manual safety (e.g. CZ, GP / STI-GP, H&K, …).
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.