quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I'm still wondering why the civilian versions of the P320 come without a manual safety. Why only the military M17/M18 versions?

To me, a fully-cocked striker gun with a single action trigger needs a safety.

The military demands a manual safety on everything because, it’s the military..

A striker gun absolutely does not need a manual safety, if you don’t pull the trigger it won’t go off. And a striker fired pistol is not a single action pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I'm still wondering why the civilian versions of the P320 come without a manual safety. Why only the military M17/M18 versions?

To me, a fully-cocked striker gun with a single action trigger needs a safety.

The military demands a manual safety on everything because, it’s the military..

A striker gun absolutely does not need a manual safety, if you don’t pull the trigger it won’t go off. And a striker fired pistol is not a single action pistol.

Since Sig striker fired guns are fully cocked and a pull of the trigger only goes to disengage the striker blocker and release the sear and not further cock it (like Glocks) I'd say that's what I'd consider SA.

As far as need a safety or not... your needs are apparently different then many others and while you are certainly entitled to your opinions they are just that, opinions no matter the number of people that share your opinion. Me, I only engage the safety when holstering. My opinion is that is a perfectly good reason to have the option of a safety.

You say this based on what? Striker guns tend to have short, light triggers (especially when the very light take up is taken out.) Many now are fully precocked.

Even the Glock design, with it's only partially precocked trigger has much more in common with a single action than a true double action. Rack grade 1911s tend to have 5lb triggers. What's Glock trigger spec, 5.5lbs? That's not enough difference to count.

So if someone accepts that a non-tuned up/lightened SA gun needs a manual safety, the same needs to apply to striker guns.

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
<snip>

A striker gun absolutely does not need a manual safety, if you don’t pull the trigger it won’t go off. And a striker fired pistol is not a single action pistol.

quote:

Since Sig striker fired guns are fully cocked and a pull of the trigger only goes to disengage the striker blocker and release the sear and not further cock it (like Glocks) I'd say that's what I'd consider SA.

Exactly! The only difference between a full-cock striker gun and a traditional DA/SA gun in single action mode is a striker block vs. a firing pin block. In use there's not really a functional difference.

I'm guessing that Sig sort of followed the Glock legacy in omitting a manual safety on a striker gun. For whatever reason they failed to appreciate the differences with their platform. The Glock uses a half-cock striker, and the trigger has a tab safety. And even so, many believe that Glocks should have manual safeties anyway, so even more so for Sig strikers.

I'm really wondering how the current lawsuits against Sig will play out, and whether they'll be found negligent in not providing their guns with minimum safety protocols?

I don't think the tab safety is something that would effect the need for a manual safety. As far as the precocking, that only effects the need for the manual safety insofar as it increases the weight and length of pull to fire the gun. Given that Glock seem to have a 5-6lb pull out of the factory, I don't see much effect from the partial precocking.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I'm guessing that Sig sort of followed the Glock legacy in omitting a manual safety on a striker gun. For whatever reason they failed to appreciate the differences with their platform. The Glock uses a half-cock striker, and the trigger has a tab safety. And even so, many believe that Glocks should have manual safeties anyway, so even more so for Sig strikers.

I'm really wondering how the current lawsuits against Sig will play out, and whether they'll be found negligent in not providing their guns with minimum safety protocols?

Also prefer DA/SA and all my semi autos are that. Own one revolver that is also double action single action but I never cock the hammer on it so it might as well be DAO. It’s just ingrained after decades of training and I just didn’t take to strikers and believe me I tried many times.

Interesting enough, went in to look at a P365-380, considering replacing the Ruger LCP Max 380, the Sig is larger, which isn't a bad thing for my hands.

The only issue, the one in stock has a safety.

I'm not against them as a option, but don't want one on the P365 since nothing I carry has one, and I don't want different methods to operate a carry pistol and have to remember which one is in my pocket.

Still, you can get a safety on the P365, if that's what you like...

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Interesting enough, went in to look at a P365-380, considering replacing the Ruger LCP Max 380, the Sig is larger, which isn't a bad thing for my hands.

The only issue, the one in stock has a safety.

I'm not against them as a option, but don't want one on the P365 since nothing I carry has one, and I don't want different methods to operate a carry pistol and have to remember which one is in my pocket.

Still, you can get a safety on the P365, if that's what you like...

well, you can always keep it safety off. It's very unlikely it will accidently be engaged unless you purposely engage it. (keep your finger off the safety). No remembering here. Do your part and there's no safety.

Still uncomfortable? Just remove it. No gunsmith required.

No-safety lever designs make proper 'holster' management as a 'first-class-citizen' in the side-arm carry routine.

I think this is a good thing, in a big scheme of things.

In my view, a side-arm must not be handled loaded, without a proper holster that safely covers the trigger.

The glock-style strike-fired designs, made trigger-covering holsters, and related skill-training an essential, un-questionable part of the overall carry experience.

Whether the gun is strike-fired, internal hammer, double-action external hammer, or a 1911 -- all must be securely holster and the process of taking it out of the holster and putting it back -- must be part of extensive training.

Certainly there are folks who had not gotten the 'message' that way.
I also have read of incidents where re-holstering caused an un-intentional discharge.
I think it is bad, and those incidents must be analyzed to get better designs of both guns and holsters onto the market. But it does not remove the need of holster management, and it does not create a need for safety levers.

On a personal level, I like to have a frame-mounted safety lever, and making it user-removable is ok too, but this may create legal issues/grounds to sue manufactures somehow.. I don't know...