Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

External safety on a Striker fired pistol


.45 ACP nut

Recommended Posts

I used the search function and couldn't find what I was looking for. The S&W M&P can be had with either a manual safety or not.  Does the external safety, of a firearm so equipped, have to be engaged on a striker fired pistol (at the "Make Ready" command) used in Production?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no requirement for the safety to be engaged.  It's the same as if it was a Beretta 92FS.  The hammer is decocked, and the safety is taken back off to make ready.

 

There is no further requirement than what you find in Appendix D4's Special Conditions.

Edited by MAC702
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ... You don't think the wording of 8.1.2.4 applies?  As worded, does it not require that if an gun has an external primary safety that it MUST be applied?

 

Your comparison of the M+P to the Beretta doesn't hold up.  The Beretta has a traditional hammer and a decocker lever.  (It is not intended as a safety.)  The M+P has a striker type firing pin which is held back (ready to release) until the trigger is pulled.

 

IF the M+P is equipped with an external primary safety, then why do you not think 8.1.2.4 requires it to be applied? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll play Mike.  8.1.2.4 refers back to 8.1.2.1 Single Action Firearms and 8.1.2.3 Selective Action Firearms.  

 

Specifically:

Quote

8.1.2.1 “Single action” – chamber loaded, hammer cocked, and the safety engaged.

and 

Quote

8.1.2.3 “Selective action” – chamber loaded with hammer fully down, or chamber loaded and hammer cocked with external safety engaged (see Divisions in Appendix D).

 

So, yes 8.1.2.4 will apply, as soon as the M&P has a hammer. Until then I'd argue that its primary safety is the one built into the trigger face.  Are you advocating that the primary safety is one thing for one type of M&P and another for a different version?

 

See also Section 8.1.5, specifically:

Quote

8.1.5.2 “Double Action” means activation of the trigger causes more than a single action to occur (i.e. the hammer or striker rises or retracts, then falls).

 

I think the intent is pretty clear, when I read the entire chapter.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Nik ... Let's chase this down the rabbit hole.  No guarantees I'm spot on here, but this is how I'm reading it at the moment ...

 

Unfortunately, 8.1.2 does not expressly address striker fired guns such as the M+P or the Glock.  Hence it becomes awkward to make comparisons.  Many have argued that such guns are either (in effect) SA or DA.  Some imply that all pulling the trigger does is to release the already "cocked" striker to fly forward, while others insist pulling the trigger finishes "cocking" the striker before releasing it.  (This is somewhat addressed in 8.1.5.)  For the purpose of this discussion, I consider those arguments to be irrelevant.  Let's look at the specific language of 8.1.2.4:

 

"[...] the term "safety" means the primary visible safety lever on the handgun (e.g., the thumb safety on a "1911" genre handgun.  [...]  This safety must be on while the firearm is loaded in the holster or loaded in any other location stated in the WSB [...] in order to be in compliance with 10.5.11."

 

What I'm thinking here is this states pretty much straight forward, that if the gun HAS a thumb safety, it MUST be used.  (If one of the Instructors or Troy wishes to express a different opinion, I'll happily yield to their point of view ...)

 

Going back to the OPs original post, and your comment, there are (for the purpose of this discussion) two variants of the M+P:  One WITH a thumb safety and one (the more common one) WITHOUT a thumb safety.  I understand your comment on 8.1.5.2 ... Some striker-fired guns probably qualify as DA.  But note also 8.1.5.1 ... Some striker-fired guns do not and hence are SA.  Being that I do not know the internal workings of ALL striker-fired guns on the market (nor should I be expected to know that as an RO, CRO, or RM ... Can you go down the list of such guns, and, off the top of your head, tell me which ones do what?) I find myself having to rely on something I CAN observe:  If the gun HAS an external thumb safety, it MUST be used.  Philosophically speaking, this is no different from the requirement that IF a holster or magazine pouch HAS a retaining strap, it MUST be used.  (5.2.5.3)

 

I don't want to get into the design necessity of why some models have thumb safeties and others do not.  Kind of beyond my pay grade!  I'm content that if it has one, it must be used.  If it does not have one, well ... I guess it cannot be used!

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8.1.2.4 defines the "safety" as used in 8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.3.  It does not add another rule about when to use the safety, especially for a pistol under 8.1.2.2.

Edited by MAC702
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Your comparison of the M+P to the Beretta doesn't hold up.  The Beretta has a traditional hammer and a decocker lever.  (It is not intended as a safety.)

Do not both pistols fall under 8.1.2.2?

 

Beretta calls it a safety-decocker: http://www.beretta.com/en-us/92-fs/

Indeed, the reason for the S in the model number is because the safety was moved from the frame to the slide.  Yes, it starts with an "s" in Italian, too.

 

And they have specifically made different models that have spring-loaded decockers that are not safeties.

Edited by MAC702
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MAC702 said:

Beretta calls it a safety-decocker: http://www.beretta.com/en-us/92-fs/

Indeed, the reason for the S in the model number is because the safety was moved from the frame to the slide.  Yes, it starts with an "s" in Italian, too.

That's not what the "S" is for. The "S" is for the stop they added to the gun to prevent the slide from flying off the frame and hitting the shooter in the face. Both the 92F and 92FS have manual safety/decockers. The decocker only model is the "G", (e.g., 92G).

 

And yes some striker fired guns are DA, some SA, and others DA/SA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MAC702 said:

8.1.2.4 defines the "safety" as used in 8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.3.  It does not add another rule about when to use the safety, especially for a pistol under 8.1.2.2.

 

Absolutely correct ... sort of.  It does expressly state that for firearms which fall under 8.1.2.1 or 8.1.2.3 when said safety must be employed in order to comply with and avoid the consequences of 10.5.11.

 

As I pointed out to Nik, however ... Can you tell me, model by model, make by make, off the top of your head WHICH striker fired guns fall under which rule?  I can't ... And I've been in this game since WAY before striker fired guns (and PD) became popular.  Hence, when working as the RM, I have little choice but to rely on what I can see and verify.  If it has a thumb safety, use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could it be that on a striker gun such as the M+p that the thumb safety when equipped is a secondary safety and as such is not required to be used? I would say just because on a 1911 the primary safety is the thumb safety does not meat that is the case on all guns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules that rely on action type have always been a grey area when it comes to striker pistols.  I suspect that's why there's no blanket "No SAO allowed in Production" rule anywhere.  It's specifically stated in some of the manufacturer sections of the Approved List, but it's not anywhere in App D4.

 

If they make versions of any gun with and without a manual safety, and that gun is on the Approved List, I don't see how you can define the manual safety as the primary safety since not all of them have one.  The trigger safeties (or internal safeties for P320s, etc) are considered the primary for striker guns.

 

Consider this.  If a striker gun is on the Production list and is offered both with and w/o a MS, it has been determined to be legal to run one completely lacking the safety.  Therefore, it should be legal to run a MS version w/o applying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have emailed Troy on this exact subject.  The M&P, XD, SR9, and on  other pistols like these with safety, the safety does not have to be engaged. If it is striker fired the thumb safety does not have to be on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Southpaw said:

That's not what the "S" is for. The "S" is for the stop they added to the gun to prevent the slide from flying off the frame and hitting the shooter in the face. Both the 92F and 92FS have manual safety/decockers. The decocker only model is the "G", (e.g., 92G).

 

And yes some striker fired guns are DA, some SA, and others DA/SA...

Can you point us to a source for your S variant?  All of the sources I find, agree with this one: Beretta-92-chart01.jpg

I apologize for the big chart.  I tried to do a link to its page, but a spam ad came up instead, then the link to the chart itself automatically embedded it.  I remember researching this issue quite a bit before I bought my Italian surplus 92S.

 

I thought the slide reinforcement was during the late 80's, or are you referring to something else?

 

The rest of what you wrote I would agree with, and I didn't say otherwise.  But you are now calling it a safety, whereas previously you said it wasn't.

 

An M&P has a camming action to finish the full cocking of the striker before it fires.  Until a magic line is drawn somewhere in the sand or someone in recognized authority says: "because I said so," I'm considering the M&P to be a DAO like a Glock even if more cocked than one.  Do we have an authority who says otherwise?

Edited by MAC702
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MAC702 said:

Can you point us to a source for your S variant?  All of the sources I find, agree with this one: http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/guide-beretta-92/

 

The rest of what you wrote I would agree with, and I didn't say otherwise.  But you are now calling it a safety, whereas previously you said it wasn't.

 

An M&P has a camming action to finish the full cocking of the striker before it fires.  Until a magic line is drawn somewhere in the sand or someone in recognized authority says: "because I said so," I'm considering the M&P to be a DAO like a Glock even if more cocked than one.

Ah I think you were referring to the changes to the Beretta from the 92 to the 92S. I was referring to the changes from the 92F to 92FS and I meant the added "S" in 92FS isn't for the manual safety, but the catch/stop added to prevent the slide from flying off the frame in case of slide failure. 

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything else, I never said it wasn't a safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops.  My bad.  I forgot to double-check the conversation stream.  Thanks.

 

It never occurred to me that the S in 92FS wasn't the same S in 92S.  And now looking at the chart that flows from 92 -> 92S -> 92 SB -> 92F; I see my error in that.

 

Still a safety, of course. :)

Edited by MAC702
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Absolutely correct ... sort of.  It does expressly state that for firearms which fall under 8.1.2.1 or 8.1.2.3 when said safety must be employed in order to comply with and avoid the consequences of 10.5.11.

 

As I pointed out to Nik, however ... Can you tell me, model by model, make by make, off the top of your head WHICH striker fired guns fall under which rule?  I can't ... And I've been in this game since WAY before striker fired guns (and PD) became popular.  Hence, when working as the RM, I have little choice but to rely on what I can see and verify.  If it has a thumb safety, use it.

I don't need to know every make/model's exact armorer's knowledge.  If you don't know otherwise, you should be relying on the owner's explanation and trust that he has learned his pistol.  If you suspect he's trying to pull one over on you, then you need to go to the books or higher match authority.  When a pistol is available with and without external safety levers, and everything else being the same, the matter seems quite obvious.

 

If the safety-equipped M&P pistol was required to have the safety engaged, I think we would have an argument that the version without the safety would be an unsafe firearm for the sport.

Edited by MAC702
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RJH said:

I have emailed Troy on this exact subject.  The M&P, XD, SR9, and on  other pistols like these with safety, the safety does not have to be engaged. If it is striker fired the thumb safety does not have to be on. 

 

If you could, I would love to see the specific question asked and the answer Troy gave ... As I said before, I would yield to one of the RMIs and/or Troy if their opinion differed from my own.

 

I have searched the conversations among my fellow RMs for discussion on this topic ... I couldn't find that it has ever come up.

 

1 hour ago, MAC702 said:

I don't need to know every make/model's exact armorer's knowledge.  If you don't know otherwise, you should be relying on the owner's explanation and trust that he has learned his pistol.  If you suspect he's trying to pull one over on you, then you need to go to the books or higher match authority.  When a pistol is available with and without external safety levers, and everything else being the same, the matter seems quite obvious.

 

If the safety-equipped M&P pistol was required to have the safety engaged, I think we would have an argument that the version without the safety would be an unsafe firearm for the sport.

 

I do not rely on the shooter's assertions that something is legal ... I rely on definitive rules or evidence provided that I can verify.  Remember, the basic concept in PD is that unless the shooter can PROVE something is authorized, it is NOT.  Generally speaking, I do not have all the technical books for every firearm available with me at a match.  I doubt ANYONE does!  As to referring to higher match authority ... Remember that 8.1.2.4 specifies the RM is the final authority on this subject.  I have outlined to you how I, as the final authority, would make my decision.

 

(Troy:  If I'm missing the mark on this, let me know and I will change my tune ...)

 

6 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

The Para LDA also has an external thumb safety that does not have to be engaged. 

 

Gary ... Unless I'm grossly mistaken, the LDA series has an external hammer and is specifically listed as a DAO gun.  (LDA = Light Double Action, per Para)  That would place the LDA under 8.1.2.2 and therefore not subject to 8.1.2.4.  (Unless of course, it's cocked ... which I'm not certain is even possible on the LDA.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

... Remember that 8.1.2.4 specifies the RM is the final authority on this subject.  I have outlined to you how I, as the final authority, would make my decision....

Yes, but 8.1.2.4 details specifics for 8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.3.  It is my reasoning that the pistol falls under 8.1.2.2, and therefore has clear rules not needing the arbitrary authority of an RM, though I certainly respect the authority that you have and thank you for your service to the sport.

 

It seems to me that if the pistol isn't a DA, and therefore not under 8.1.2.2, then we have this discussion.

 

You are saying that if you don't know a pistol's operation, you are going to choose to move the pistol into a category where THEN you get to decide what constitutes a safety.  I don't think that's part of your authority.  There should be a clear definition as to what category the pistol is.  I'm surprised this isn't clear and settled, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

If you could, I would love to see the specific question asked and the answer Troy gave ... As I said before, I would yield to one of the RMIs and/or Troy if their opinion differed from my own.

 

I have searched the conversations among my fellow RMs for discussion on this topic ... I couldn't find that it has ever come up.

 

 

I do not rely on the shooter's assertions that something is legal ... I rely on definitive rules or evidence provided that I can verify.  Remember, the basic concept in PD is that unless the shooter can PROVE something is authorized, it is NOT.  Generally speaking, I do not have all the technical books for every firearm available with me at a match.  I doubt ANYONE does!  As to referring to higher match authority ... Remember that 8.1.2.4 specifies the RM is the final authority on this subject.  I have outlined to you how I, as the final authority, would make my decision.

 

(Troy:  If I'm missing the mark on this, let me know and I will change my tune ...)

 

 

Gary ... Unless I'm grossly mistaken, the LDA series has an external hammer and is specifically listed as a DAO gun.  (LDA = Light Double Action, per Para)  That would place the LDA under 8.1.2.2 and therefore not subject to 8.1.2.4.  (Unless of course, it's cocked ... which I'm not certain is even possible on the LDA.)

8.1.2.4 only gives you final authority if the gun is a single action pistol or a selective action pistol.  So -- this is how I see it playing out.  You require the safety be applied.  The shooter doesn't comply.  You then DQ the competitor -- who promptly files an arbitration, conceding that he declined to activate the safety because he was shooting a double action firearm, ergo not subject to the safety requirement. 8.1.5.2 is pretty generous about defining what constitutes DA; you're not going to convince me that pulling the trigger on a Glock or M&P won't let the striker rise or retract before allowing it to fall.   

 

I'm not sure you find an arb committee to uphold the DQ.  I'm not likely to vote to uphold for this scenario.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

28 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

If you could, I would love to see the specific question asked and the answer Troy gave ... As I said before, I would yield to one of the RMIs and/or Troy if their opinion differed from my own.

 

 

 

 

 

Here you go, you can yield now:-)

 

 

Troy,
 
I have a question on the thumb safeties on some production pistols. On the pistols like M&Ps, XDs, and SR9s that come with a thumb safety but have trigger safeties as their primary safety, does the thumb safety have to be applied when the gun is holstered at make-ready, and also would it need to be applied when put in a dump barrel in a 3 gun match?  On guns that have a safety/decocker like a beretta 92, the safety doesn't need to be applied at make-ready because the gun is decocked, and I would assume the same would hold true with these striker-fired guns, but want to be sure.

 

 

 

On the striker fired guns, the safety does not have to be applied at MR, or when it's dumped, as long as the trigger safety is operable.  For guns with a hammer and a decocker or safety, if the hammer is back, the safety must be applied.  If the hammer is down, no safety.

Regards,

Troy
 

Edited by RJH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RJH - Thank you!  (Really, I mean it.)  Your question to Troy is quite specific enough and his answer is specific enough for me to totaly accept.  I hereby withdraw my argument and cede to the position Troy has stated.

 

MAC702 - If this were cleared and settled, we wouldn't have had the "fun" opportunity to air the subject.  Thanks for your patience!

 

Nik - Everything else is pretty much OBE, based on the above.  However, I suggest you read the first sentence of 11.1.2 closely.  When a rule states the RM is the final authority it means the appeals process stops there.  Filing an arbitration is not an option, per 11.1.2.  In this case I admit I pursued faulty logic.  I'm happy Troy has provided (informal) guidance on the matter and I will file that in my head for future reference.

 

All - Thanks for your indulgences.  Please understand my rationale was based on my reading of the rules as written and an attempt to use them as such.  Nothing personal ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

...MAC702 - If this were cleared and settled, we wouldn't have had the "fun" opportunity to air the subject.  Thanks for your patience!...

Agreed; thanks for listening and helping me think about it in a few more different ways to make sure I still had the same opinion.

 

Sometimes it blows my mind the details in some rules, and the complete lack of detail in other rules that affect things we see everyday in the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike -- I agree with you, if the RM is "within the scope of final authority" in the rulebook.  I wouldn't appeal the ruling that the safety has to be applied -- where the RM is the final authority, if the gun is single or selective action.  8.1.2.4 does not apply to 8.1.2.2 -- hence the opening to slip ann arb through, not to mention that it's legal to appeal a DQ, as long as one isn't appealing the facts of the safety violation.  I'd appeal the match DQ on the grounds of the gun being double action -- in which case the RM isn't the final authority, and the thumb safety doesn't need to be applied.  

 

All that said, it's been an interesting exercise, and I've learned a bit by thinking it through.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...