Talk:Safety (firearms)

An unusual safety failure

I didn't find a good place to insert this into any Wikipedia articles yet, and don't know enough about firearms to write one, so I figured I'd drop a reference in here for some more firearm-savvy editor to use. Here's a case wherein a Colt 1991 A-1 pistol fired while its thumb safety was still engaged on account of the powerful magnetic field inside an MRI machine pulling the firing pin out of its normal position: Beitia, Anton Oscar (2002). "Spontaneous Discharge of a Firearm in an MR Imaging Environment". American Journal of Roentgenology. 178: 1092–1094. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Bryan Derksen 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! What an interesting case. Reading the hypothesis of what happened and why, I think that they are exactly correct in this reasoning.

This was not a result of any highly egregious negligence, but rather a series of unfortunate conditions lining up. I think that there needs to be standardized protocol at MRI sites for checking weapons at the door, and keeping them secured until pickup—the same sort of protocol that courthouses already have in place to serve the many police officers who come in and go out each day. The biggest challenge here is that courthouses already have guards on-site, so the "keeping secured" part is not a problem, whereas it'd be expensive to keep a guard around at every MRI site. However, I'm not sure that not bothering is an option, when you consider how many patients could be police officers or CCW civilians. (Could be 1-4 of every 100 patients I would guess). One more piece of the healthcare expense mountain, but not really an avoidable one, it seems to me at the moment.

As for where to cite this in Wikipedia, it doesn't require a lot of words, maybe just a section in Gun safety called "Environments requiring protocols for weapons-check at the door", with "courthouses", "hospitals", and "outpatient MRI" being bullet points beneath that heading. I think I will go add that as a subhead under "Gun safety for firearms not in use". — Lumbercutter 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing that ANY kind of metal will interfere with an MRI, I'm sure that a firearm would surely not be immune to elecromagnetic forces that impact any other metallic object. If your not supposed to bring a belt buckle into an MRI, than why would you bring a firearm? That's like giving a diabetic a bag of sugar when he is under doctor's orders to avoid candy.

How clueless does a Technician need to be for this to happen? As a biochemist who uses 400Mhz, 9.8 Tesla NMR I'm shocked that any MRI tech could consider several POUNDS of steel within the manufacturer's safety distance. The distance of magnetic and Pulsed-field effects fall off significantly with distance, especially with a weaker unit like the 1.5 Tesla unit (probably an older 100MHz structural MRI) in this story. It doesn't take much to put plastic stanchions and caution tape around the unit, or at least some bright red tape on the ground with a warning sticker on the floor and entrance door. Idiot. That said, this really has nothing to do with gun safeties. The magnetic field of the earth is ~0.00002 and 0.0001 Tesla, and even the strongest speaker magnets are only about 1 Tesla, but over a VERY small bore... I doubt you could ever replicate this with an expensive speaker magnet from a KISS concert, but it "might" be possible.

In relation to guns, this story may justify the use of nonmagnetic (most composites and plastics), dimagnetic (gold, silver, copper, etc which have small repulsions from magnetic fields), and paramagnetic material (Titanium, Aluminum, Magnesium, Uranium, etc.. which have very small attractions to magnetic fields) for all hammers and strikers. Anything BUT ferromagnetic materials (most steels, iron, cobalt, etc...). As with any gun safety though, proper education and safe gun handling makes this a moot point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.165.22 (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge: "Grip safety" into this article

• AGREE - I think Grip safety would be better off as part of this article. Arthurrh 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. I thought about doing this a while ago, but have never gotten around to it. A good idea. — Lumbercutter 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs work

Wow, this page needs a lot of work. I was thinking about structure first. It looks like there are two basic lists. One would be the types of safeties, the other (the one currently in the article) would be what kinds of gun use each kinds of safeties. Something like this:

==Safety types==
===Grip===
===cross-bolt===
===yada yada===
==Firearm types==
===Single action revolver===
===lever-action rifle===
===shotgun===
===yada yada===

Or maybe we just need the list of safety types, rather than the current article organiztion, now that I think about it. Thoughts, comments, suggestions? I don't want to jump on it till I have a good idea of where to go. Arthurrh 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your first suggestion is best, IMO—that is, what you show in the sample outline. I would have started working toward that kind of outline, but have never had time to start. It will be a lot of work to fill out such an outline, but that's what would be needed to create a proper article on the topic. I think you should definitely go ahead. Even if you don't have time to complete it all, it would be an improvement to make progress toward the goal. At revolver there used to be a really cool animated diagram that showed the action as the pawl turned the cylinder. (Not there anymore, I guess it wasn't GFDL-compatible.) If I had the skills to make one of those animated diagrams, I would make one for each type of safety and put it under each heading. A brainstorm for the future. — Lumbercutter 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph

I changed the first sentence of the first paragraph from:

"In firearms, a safety or safety catch is a mechanism used to prevent the accidental firing of a weapon, to ensure safer handling." to "In firearms, a safety or safety catch is a mechanism used to help prevent the accidental firing of a weapon, helping to ensure safer handling, as no firearm should ever be considered safe, even when unloaded with the safety on."

The reason I did this is because the first paragraph said in no uncertain terms that once a weapon's safety has been put in the on position it will not fire and the weapon is "safe." This is not true at all. Most people who are trained or have experience with firearms will tell you that a gun is never considered safe (unable to shoot), even when the weapon has no chambered rounds, the magazine is out, the action is open and locked, and the safety is on. Medic8613 06:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tang Safety

In the section on shotguns there is a mention of a "tang safety" but no definition of what a tang safety is, and it is not mentioned before or after this instance in the article. Most of my shooting is with handguns and post modern assault rifles, and not shotguns. I assume its a switch on the top of the stock right at the end of the action that is toggled with the thumb, but I am just guessing, and don't know for sure. If anyone knows the definition it should probably be added to the list of various different types of safeties, or explained in the section on shotguns. Medic8613 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what a tang safety is. It's simply one form of manual safety, different from a button safety in the trigger guard (another popular shotgun/rifle safety). 71.158.181.131 (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Barrel Safety?

I seem to recall that the Colt 45 had a safety at the end of the barrel so that it would not fire if pressed against something. If this is correct, should this be added in the right place to the is article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.6.135 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's simply a byproduct of recoil actions. When you press the end of a cocked Browning-action semi-auto against a surface, the slide moves rearward out of "lock-up" which generally prevents the hammer from contacting the pin with enough force to send it into the primer. It also generally moves the firing pin block, if it exists, out of line with the mechanism that disengages it. This can actually be considered an annoyance, but as most gun owners don't need to press a gun's muzzle against a surface it's not a big deal. 71.158.181.131 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is simply interference with the action... not a designed safety device. In fact, such a design will fire more than not simply due to the slide pushing back on the gun to push itself "free" or into a soft surface itself. you "could" intentionally do this with a high power if you had a solid surface that wouldn't give, and the gun was locked in a vice... but in the real world this is NOT a safety. This is likely such a small issue that you won't find any real discussion about it other than being an unsafe "flaw" in the design or operation of the weapon (viewpoints vary on that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.165.22 (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

When the muzzle of most recoil operated "automatic" (actually semi-auto or autoloading) pistols are pressed against a surface, the barrel or slide is often but not always pressed back far enough to engage the internal disconnect which prevents full-automatic fire and which prevents the gun from firing at all until the slide or bolt is completely closed. This works on recoil operated handguns with slides (Colt 45, Browning HP35) and recoil operated handguns without slides (Mauser C96, Luger). This does not work with blowback handguns without slides like the Ruger or HiStandard .22 and may or may not work with a blowback operated handgun with a slide (Browning M1910, Beretta M1934) since their barrels are rigidly mounted in the frame and dont move with the slide. It is not an intentional feature and is a byproduct of the trigger disconnect design. I would not call it a safety. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Safety Notches on single-actions?

This page neglects to mention the relief cuts present on certain single action revolvers that make it safe and permissible to carry them with a fully loaded cylinder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to the "half-cocked" notch that holds the hammer spur away from the primer and can only be released by the sear. Yes, this is a form of safety, and was present on Series 70 and previous M1911s. I will add a paragraph to the Drop Safeties section on these.

Actually I think he was referring to the Safety Notch on revolvers (found between hammer rest and the 1/2 back loading notch), not SA auto-loaders. While its "possible" to carry on a live chamber, relying on the safety notch and the gun being SA really isn't a great idea IMO. Manufacturer's probably wouldn't support such an idea. I'm not aware of any revolver, safety-notch SA or otherwise, which is carried on a live round per manufacturer's specs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.165.22 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Some single action cap-and-ball revolvers have notches between the firing nipples of the cylinder where the hammer could be lowered. I belief these are the "relief cuts" meant by User:71.239.229.213. I have a relica 1858 Remington with these relief cuts or notches on the rear of the cylinder and a replica 1851 Colt without. Personally with both single action revolvers, I place the hammer on the uncapped nipple of an unloaded chamber and carry only five loads in these six-shooters: I do not trust that relief cut or notch to hold the nose of the hammer during ordinary carry or use of a traditional single action revolver. As far as the safety notch ("half cock") on the hammer, it will catch the hammer if your thumb slips while cocking the gun; if you drop an old-style single action revolver on its hammer, the gun may fire. (Newer revolver designs are made drop-proof: the modern Ruger revolver for instance uses a variation of the Iver Johnson hammer-the-hammer safety and does not use the half-cock safety notch.) Naaman Brown (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been reminded of a cap-and-ball revolver that had solid pins between the firing chambers that engaged a notch in the hammer nose when lowered between chambers, serving the same function as the notches or relief cuts on the cylinders for the hammer nose of other revlovers. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes most Colt cap-and-ball revolvers have these pins and notches on the hammer face. I'm surprised your Navy Model doesn't. AnnaGoFast (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Magazine safety

Magazine safety (disconnect, interlock) prevents the gun from firing if the magazine is removed. This is one of the debatable "safety" features mandated by some firearms legislation. The drill with a magazine fed firearm should be (a) remove the magazine, (b) clear the firing chamber and (c) visually inspect the firing chamber for an unejected cartridge. Magazine safeties supposedly protect you from the "forgotten" round, but once a magazine loaded or empty is reinserted in the gun, that "forgotten" round becomes an accident waiting to happen. Viewed this way, the magazine safety encourages unsafe gun handling: the safety check with a magazine fed firearm should be (a) remove the magazine, (b) clear the firing chamber and (c) visually inspect the firing chamber for an unejected cartridge. Also, millions of hunters, fishermen, trappers, hikers and campers own guns for protection against predators in the wild: if you drop or lose a magazine from a gun without a magazine safety, at least you have a single shot firearm but with a magazine safety you have an inert blunt object. Also, some models with magazine safeties have the option of disabling the magazine safety, while some models (eg, Raven .25 pistol) have been made with and without a magazine safety during the production history of the gun. The value of a magazine safety is open to debate and arguments can be made for and against. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was always told, and have primarily seen, magazine safeties on former police issue pistols, specifically models by Smith & Wesson. I thought this was primarily a feature for weapon retention situations, or at least marketed as such to police, especially since most of the firearms with them are a bit too large to be used for conceal carry. I was not aware of it being a byproduct of legislation. Perhaps a good starting point would be to find what firearm was the first to include the feature? --72.94.5.164 (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This section says that an extractor failure will leave a live round in the chamber. This is incorrect. The purpose of the extractor is to remove the spent cartridge case. An extractor failure leads to an empty cartridge case in the chamber and, if one or more rounds remain in the magazine, a failure-to-eject jam with a live round trying to occupy the space of the spent round.97.91.254.54 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The section also says that standard unloading practice is to remove the magazine and then pull the trigger. No unloading instructions would ever advise that sequence of steps, because pulling the trigger is never a safe way to confirm the absence of a round in the chamber. (And in many firearms with a magazine disconnect, the ability to pull the trigger is different when the disconnect is operative, so the user will be alerted that the magazine disconnect is in place.) The second step in the unloading process would be to rack the slide with the trigger finger in the safe position - out of the trigger guard and parallel to the barrel. With the magazine removed, racking the slide would empty the chamber if a round is present and, whether a round was present or not, would allow the chamber to be visually inspected. 97.91.254.54 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Decocker section

First time suggesting an edit on Wikipedia, so bear with me if this is not the correct protocol. In the decocker section of this article, it starts out with the statement "Most traditional double-action semi-automatic (DA/SA) pistols..." This makes it sound like the SA stands for semi-automatic in "DA/SA" instead of "Single Action". The term is linked to another page which does correctly state DA/SA means "Double Action / Single Action", but seems a little confusing here. --McCoolJ (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

History?

When where safety catches first used, common, made law, for which firearms, etc...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.82.50 (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to know. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My thought as well. If anything, the Russian article has a nice overview, but without dates and sources.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Trigger disconnect

Why is there two sections covering trigger disconnects? Also seems like it ought to mention the significance of guns like the Model 12 lacking a disconnect mechanism, namely that you can empty the magazine simply by holding the trigger down and racking the slide repeatedly. It's not obvious to a layperson. All it says is that "the gun will fire as soon as the breech is closed if the trigger is depressed. AnnaGoFast (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Safe carry of old DA revolvers

It says that it's not safe to carry old SA revolvers on half cock because they aren't drop safe, but it says nothing about older DA revolvers. Until after WWII, most revolvers had a firing pin fixed directly to the hammer face, or at least lacked any sort of transfer bar. How is it any safer to carry one of these fully loaded than a single action? A SA on half cock should be at least marginally safer, since the sear would have to disengage in order for the hammer to strike the primer. An old DA simply has to be dropped on its hammer, and its likely to go off. Neither is safe, but a half cocked SA is safer, so it ought to tell people that both are dangerous, not just SA's. AnnaGoFast (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

All of this sounds like original research unless it is properly referenced to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not intended to be a user forum, it's intended to be an information reference. 97.91.254.54 (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

5.7

The 5.7 has a disconnect and a tactile chamber indicator, if that we need more exaples. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Decluttering

A newbie to all this, I just added a comment on slide-lock functions of some manual safeties. The article was cluttery to begin with, but the citation was missing. Noting that last additions to this Talk page are 7 years old and many sub-subjects older still, is it time for a major update or reorganization of this voluminous information?

Under the History topic, an overhaul had been suggested years ago. Since then, gun ownership in the US has exploded with record sales increases year by year. So, one can assume, have the numbers of interested parties researching guns pre-purchase and after.

While elsewhere in Talk, contributors are reminded that the Safeties page is not a forum, it cannot escape certain discursive resemblance to forums insofar as intentionally activated safeties differ greatly from so-called 'passive' safeties following the Glock format. These are different subjects conflated by Glock's historically euphemistic "Safe Action" marketing.

The same is true for revolvers - beit SA, DA, SA/DA. There is a gross natural distinction between semi-autos and revolvers.

"Construed or construable to be safe" is not the same as "Equipped with a Safety" - the common effect of which is to turn the gun On or Off by intentional actuation of a mechanical device - if so equipped.

Notably, too, forum-like speak is subtly embedded in the page with the passing comment (marketing recitation) about potential failure of intentionally-set mechanical safeties - the documented prevalence of which amounts to what? If mechanical safeties have proven as prone to failure as the citation implies, this critical information must have further detailed elaboration under a bold heading: "Failure of Safety Mechanisms" - admonitions owed to the public.

Minimally, a hard line distinction in the presentation of Safeties should be made between handguns equipped with positive, user activated mechanisms and those not so equipped. That is to say, Made Generally Safe by intentional actuation or Construed to be Safe Enough under certain narrowed conditions. Simply put: Does the loaded gun have an On/Off switch, or is the loaded weapon only construed to be "safe" when housed in a stout 3rd party holster which covers the trigger?

Gun lore likes to repeat that a guns "real safety" is located between the gun owners ears. While this may be some kind of bottom line slogan, clever sentiment and flubbery euphemism are not appropriate on a page where readers come to find objective answers to their objective questions.

A third safety class comes in common to all modern handguns in the form of drop safety standards which, notably, some earlier weapons did not have. However, the fact that all handguns are now discharge-proof if dropped does not put all handguns with just any modicum of safety into a common class. Distinctions should be distinct.

Rifle safeties are also cited - if briefly - in the write-up. Is this a different subject altogether? Consumers and marketers differentiate expectations/functions of rifle Safeties from the ambiguous expectations or claims of semi-automatic handguns even when sold (or bought) for the same purposes.

My small contribution about slide-lock safety should be supported by the manufacturers' (here, Ruger and S&W) different statements of purpose or benefit. A lot of the observations comprising the article should have similar cross-referenced expressions of industry or a producer's engineering intent particularly as bearing on different users and uses IF that explains the difference. It must be more than happenstance. Glock, again perhaps belabored, but is the definitive deviation from Safety precedent, did not imagine it's guns being carried with a live round chambered initially. They built it for a government that required its users to carry empty-chamber guns and tack them immediately before use. It was only after some users began carrying Glocks in C1 that Glock made the claim that no one could remember to flip a Safety OFF. Hundreds had died? They didn't say. At least we get (or can find) a manufacturer's rationale on its anomalous functionality become its own and an industry standard. Most other safety designs/functions covered on the page are not supported by citation of the manufacturers' alleged benefit or necessity.

This analysis may not make sense or even be valid among the numerous other long-term and authoritative contributors who've made this page so I will apologize in advance for any toe-stepping faux pas my personal confusion may cause.

I believe someone reading it to gain first time information - as many do on Wikipedia - cannot come away from it feeling as well informed on the subject of Gun Safeties as most Wiki pages leave them. Fortunately, its easy & quick to test for any truth to it. Have someone read the page and tell you what they got from it. SwampInhabitant (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)