PDN:
Here’s why I don’t even like these devices being called “safeties.” I started shooting at a very young age and took my hunter’s safety course when I was eight years old. In that course we were taught that mechanical safeties are by definition “mechanical devices prone to failure.” We went on to learn the basic rules of firearms safety and that you should not rely on a mechanical safety. This has stuck with me throughout my years of shooting and even more so now that I am an instructor.
Many people have the misconception that these mechanical devices automatically make a gun “safe” and therefore you can let your guard down about the firearms safety rules once they are engaged. This leads to complacency and dangerous behavior, and goes even further when people question firearms not having these mechanical devices when children are around. The thought that this mechanical lever or button is going to prevent a child from firing a gun if they gain access to it is far from reality. But due to the name of these devices, uninformed people assume they instantly make a gun “safe.”
Due to these misconceptions, I believe that calling mechanical safeties a “safety” actually leads to firearms being more dangerous – the idea that once you “turn the safety on” you can ignore the standard rules of firearms handling. I have seen people get upset about being reprimanded for pointing a gun at someone, with the reasoning, “Well, the safety was on.” Some people have even been upset that anyone would question them about safety. Following the rules of safe gun handling does not end because you utilize a mechanical safety. Instead, if you choose to own or carry a firearm that requires the use of a mechanical safety, such as a single-action semi-automatic or double/single one in single-action mode, you should make an even greater effort to follow the basic safety rules of gun handling due to these firearms having more likelihood of an accidental discharge if you forget to engage the mechanical safety.
This argument makes no sense to me. It’s like telling an engineer that he shouldn’t perform his designs with margin, rather, just learn not ever to make any errors or simplifying assumptions or engineering judgments. I’m with him on ensuring that having a “safety” doesn’t lead you to ignore the rules of gun safety. But my emphasis would be to follow the rules of gun safety regardless of the various and sundry mechanical features of your firearm, and if you want a mechanical safety, then have one.
I’ll keep my traditional 1911, thank you very much. To his credit he does address the light trigger when the hammer is cocked on the 1911 and seems, haltingly and begrudgingly, to accept the 1911 safety. But what about striker fired pistols and their light trigger pull? The author spends a lot of time on double-action semi-automatics and the heavy trigger pull for the first shot, but when he addresses the obvious question of the light trigger pull for single-action striker fired pistols, unlike with the 1911 (where he accepts the safety) he simply rehearses the rules of gun safety again.
I think he wants his cake and eat it too. Or not to offend 1911 owners, or something else I don’t understand. Like I said, I’ll stick with my 1911, or an internal hammer pistol (FN makes models that have internal hammers). My FN 5.7 has a safety and is an internal hammer pistol. As for reaching the safeties of either my 1911s or my FN, I don’t see it as a problem since it is right where one of my fingers (or thumb) is. Sure, it’s something to practice, but I don’t see this as a reason to give up guns with safeties.