Industry standards for safety off direction.

[Verndog]

I'm looking into pocket 9 options and came across a Kahr PM9 that has a safety similar to my SR9c. I prefer to keep both semi autos similar for training, draw- click - shoot to carry with safety feature on.

I was reading on another board that some complained the PM9 was "up" direction to safety off, the exact opposite as my SR9c. Is this for real, there isn't even a standard direction to turn a safety on and off? This is very sad, what possible reason is there that safeties would not all work the same?

Too bad as I really like the features and size on the Kahr, but something like that is surely a deal breaker. I guess I could go to the non safety model...not sure at this point without working the DA trigger. There was just a fool a while back that shot his pecker off in a Lowes hardware store with a pocket pistol...very bad visual.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012026554_shooting04m.html

 

[Ale-8(1)]

There is no industry-wide standard.

Some are "safe" when up, others when down. Some of the "decockers" further confuse the situation.

For a long time, there was no industry-wide standard on the automobile automatic transmission selector sequence, either. Many early versions were "P-N-D-L-R" instead of the now common (and essentially standard) "P-R-N-D-2-L". My Subie is "P-R-N-D-3-2-1".

Glocks and a couple others, of course, have no safety switch at all.

Just gotta get used to what you have.

 

[khutch]

Just gotta get used to what you have.

That is impossible unless everything you have operates the same way. There should be an industry standard, since there isn't you should adopt a personal standard -- if you really believe you will ever be in a life and death situation. As it is there is not even a Ruger standard. On the SR9 safe is up, on the P95 safe is down.

Ken

 

[Ale-8(1)]

"you should adopt a personal standard"

That's kinda what I meant. You have no other choice.

If you don't have the presence of mind to be aware of the operating characteristics of the weapon you're using at the moment, you perhaps shouldn't be handling firearms in the first place. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

 

[Verndog]

...There should be an industry standard, since there isn't you should adopt a personal standard --

Exactly what I'm dealing with. I will not own 2 similar guns with safety off in opposite direction...period! I've had my security six 20+ years and just started getting into semi auto's for concealment. Stuff like this is amazing to me it hasn't been ironed out...especially within the same manufacturer...there is no excuse for this...and will get someone killed someday if it already hasn't.

Well...back to looking at the Kimber Solo, looks like safety is the same direction on that....I think. :?

 

[Ale-8(1)]

"I will not own 2 guns with safety off in opposite direction"

Not a bad plan, particularly if you are carrying for defense. Keeping it simple is always best.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

That's why some get so adamant about training with what you carry, and not trying to be "fashionable" by changing carry guns all the time (like I'm one to talk on this subject...).

"There ought to be a standard" is awfully close to "there ought to be a law". Do you really want more government regulation of the firearms industry? Because that's what you're asking for.

-- Sam

 

[Verndog]

"There ought to be a standard" is awfully close to "there ought to be a law". Do you really want more government regulation of the firearms industry? Because that's what you're asking for.
-- Sam

Nope, I'm not asking for more government...I'm asking for more logical decisions from manufacturers. You imply nothing can be done or decided in the world without government intervention....how bout the industry shock us and figure it out on their own...it's their freakin business!

Most industry standards are designed by businesses, not government.

 

[khutch]

If you don't have the presence of mind to be aware of the operating characteristics of the weapon you're using at the moment, you perhaps shouldn't be handling firearms in the first place. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

Easy to say but consistent human interfaces reduce human error. Presence of mind, personal responsibility, and training can only do so much if you are forced to use systems that operate inconsistently. It is just good engineering to take human mistakes out of the picture as much as possible. Having controls go every which way makes everyone more error prone.

An industry standard is just that, it has nothing to do with the government. Industry standards are as common as dirt and in fact your gun would be all but worthless if there were no standards associated with ammunition for example. This particular standard would benefit gun owners who buy a gun that has a safety and use it. There is not even a hint of governmental interference here. Industry standards often stave off governmental regulation yet at the same time they respond to consumer demands by changing with a speed and competence that is never seen in government.

Ken

 

[crispy]

I was playing with the Beretta PX-4 Storm. I could not believe that not only does the safety go the wrong way (up) to go to fire mode, but that you could not even do it easily while drawing. You have to bend your thumb all the way back and push up. Most times I had to look at what I was doing.

A far cry from taking off the safety on my SR9c. Which I can do with the base of my thumb, even while drawing from my holster. Without so much as a second thought.

My Beretta Neos is the same way as the PX4. Safety off is up. But that doesn't bother me nearly as much on a target pistol.

Some people can screw up the simplest of things.

 

[Verndog]

...It is just good engineering to take human mistakes out of the picture as much as possible....Ken

That is EXACLTY what this boiles down to. Eliminate the variables, and you reduce error. They talk about adding all this safety crap then do it to "protect" the consumer, and leave rediculous practice like this within their own product lines...makes absolutely no sense. :x

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Well, like I mentioned earlier, some semi-autos, like Glock and others, simply do not use safeties. If you can use a double-action revolver, these should be quite easy to transition into.

I will by all means agree that the manufacturers "should" come up with a uniform standard for the operation of safties. It's not too surprising that they haven't already, as doing so might "admit" that earlier guns are "unsafe" and drive a huge recall or class-action lawsuit.

In the meantime, we're on our own.

 

[Pinecone]

The "direction" the safety goes on/off usually depends on the design/engineering of the gun to begin with. Where and how many parts there are in the design and the "type" of safety desired. Hammer blocking, sear blocking, trigger blocking, striker blocking, etc. Since each factory seeks to produce guns that will "outsell" their competitors, your very unlikely to ever see a "standard" in this area!................Dick :wink:

 

[Verndog]

The "direction" the safety goes on/off usually depends on the design/engineering of the gun to begin with. Where and how many parts there are in the design and the "type" of safety desired. Hammer blocking, sear blocking, trigger blocking, striker blocking, etc. Since each factory seeks to produce guns that will "outsell" their competitors, your very unlikely to ever see a "standard" in this area!................Dick :wink:

I'll give them that, but it takes just 2 extra parts to reverse a direction with either gears or 2 extra small bars. So it likely boils down to they just dont care enough to want to do it.

 

[Tam 212]

1911-style FTW!

 

[Rabon]

OK which designs do you want to get rid of first ? I'm all for getting rid of striker fired pistols with thumb safties. :lol: J/K

 

[Verndog]

1911-style FTW!

Is that a vote for the Kimber Solo? I'm liking that more and more. :wink:

FWIW here is a simple sketch I made of how easy to reverse direction on the safety.

 

[Tam 212]

Alas, you forget that we cannot legally carry here in IL.

For me, only full-size guns in the house. For now.

I have my doubts about the ultra-compact 9s... Shelley at Gun Nuts sums it up. http://gunnuts.net/2011/01/19/the-curse-of-the-itty-bitty-9/

That said, I have no doubt they fulfill a very useful role.

EDIT: SR9 and the M&P model I shot with the manual thumb safety are 1911 style in that they are located or operated the same or similarly.

Although the safety itself on the SR9 is a bit on the small side, Up is Safe and Down is Fire. It even locks the slide in Safe, a la 1911.

 

[Mike J]

As far as what I understand it is sort of standardized. A slide mounted safety goes up for fire/down for safe. Frame mounted safeties Up for safe/down for fire at least that's my understanding. Of the 2 guns I usually carry one has a grip safety so taking the safety off is accomplished by taking a firing grip. The other has a very long, heavy, DAO trigger pull that is its safety. I don't usually carry my P944. I have carried it safety off. I am comfortable with this but there is still that nagging though about what if it gets bumped on while carrying. I have worked some on taking the safety off while drawing but as I usually don't carry that gun it seems somewhat impractical to spend too much time on it.

 

[Verndog]

I have my doubts about the ultra-compact 9s... Shelley at Gun Nuts sums it up. http://gunnuts.net/2011/01/19/the-curse-of-the-itty-bitty-9/

Well, she didn't take much time in her quick little review that appears doesn't include firing the guns.

Her quote.

It really wasn’t a bad gun, it just wasn’t a good gun either. It had a nice double action trigger and is over a quarter inch wider than the LC9, making it less convenient for deep concealment carrying – which I’m still pretty sure is the point.

That 1/4" difference is a non issue IMO because the measurement is at the outside of the dual safeties, the actual slide width is the same at .900 wide on both. Also she failed to mention its 1/2 shorter and over 1/2 shorter in height, that gives it the ability to pocket carry which I highly question is practical with the LC9.

 

[Verndog]

As far as what I understand it is sort of standardized. A slide mounted safety goes up for fire/down for safe. Frame mounted safeties Up for safe/down for fire at least that's my understanding.

Unfortunately not on the gun I was looking at. The Kahr PM9 is a frame mounted safety and "UP" to fire.

http://www.kahr.com/Pistols/Kahr-PM9-w-External-Safety-and-LCI.asp

 

[Richbaker]

The PM-9 doesn't have a safety...... As far as I know, none of the Kahr's have a safety.

Caliber: 9mm
Capacity: 6+1, 7+1 (magazine with grip extension)
Operation: Trigger cocking DAO; lock breech; "Browning - type" recoil lug; passive striker block; no magazine disconnect
Barrel: 3.0", polygonal rifling; 1 - 10 right-hand twist
Length O/A: 5.3"
Height: 4.0"
Slide Width: .90"
Weight: Pistol 14 ounces, Magazine 1.9 ounces
Grips: Textured polymer
Sights: Drift adjustable, white bar-dot combat sights
Finish: Black polymer frame, matte stainless steel slide
Magazines: 1 each: 6 rd flush floorplate & 7 rd extended grip

From: http://www.kahr.com/Pistols/Kahr-PM9.asp

 

[Verndog]

The PM-9 doesn't have a safety...... As far as I know, none of the Kahr's have a safety.

Rich---Click the link right above your post I gave. They do, it's now an option.

 

[Sal1950]

John Browning got it right over 100 years ago, could go back even further for all I know. It's in the right place and switches off with the thumb moving in the natural direction it's already moving as you grip the gun.
If your gonna have a safety, do it that way, any other is just WRONG.
My Beretta 96 will always remain just a range for that exact reason, too bad.
Sal

 

[dacaur]

My first pistol was a p95... back then I didn't know nearly what I do now or I wouldn't have gotten it, as the safety is backward (up for fire, down for safe.) For that reason I simply dont use the safety on that gun, and wouldn't carry it (even if it weren't huge heh) Its my home defence gun. The upside if there is one is that if a BG ever gets it from me for some reason, they just might switch it to safe before they try to shoot me.... :shock:

All the guns I buy in the future will have a down to fire safety, if its backward, I just wont get it, simple.

 

[Mike J]

I had forgotten about that Verndog. IIRC Kahr added that safety not too long ago so they could sell in Mass. Since it is optional if you like everything else about the pistol why don't you just get one without a safety. With a DAO trigger I would consider a safety unnecessary anyway.

 

[Verndog]

I had forgotten about that Verndog. IIRC Kahr added that safety not too long ago so they could sell in Mass. Since it is optional if you like everything else about the pistol why don't you just get one without a safety. With a DAO trigger I would consider a safety unnecessary anyway.

I'm considering the non safety version, but in a pocket pistol and being potentially moved quite alot, I'd prefer the safety...even if it may be overkill. I've trained with the SR9c and flipping the safety off at draw has become a habit I prefer to keep. Also I will carry the 9c often as well, so that has me looking at the Kimber Solo for pocket 9.

Can anyone give me an idea in quality / reliability in Kahr vs Kimber? I also was interested in the Sig 290...but now I think it's a bit too heavy.

 

[Rabon]

John Browning got it right over 100 years ago, could go back even further for all I know. It's in the right place and switches off with the thumb moving in the natural direction it's already moving as you grip the gun.
If your gonna have a safety, do it that way, any other is just WRONG.
My Beretta 96 will always remain just a range for that exact reason, too bad.
Sal

If you prefer a S/A autopistol why did you get a DA/SA with decock?

 

[leejack]

We all have an opinion on this, here's mine:

The best safety in the business is on my PT92. Frame mounted, 3 position; up is safe, fire in the middle and down is decock. This is why I like it better than the M9.

Second choice is on or off, 1911ish style.

I also like no safety at all DAO in the poly guns.

 

[Sal1950]

John Browning got it right over 100 years ago, could go back even further for all I know. It's in the right place and switches off with the thumb moving in the natural direction it's already moving as you grip the gun.
If your gonna have a safety, do it that way, any other is just WRONG.
My Beretta 96 will always remain just a range for that exact reason, too bad.
Sal

If you prefer a S/A autopistol why did you get a DA/SA with decock?

Because I really like all the rest about the weapon and felt I just HAD to have a Beretta Brigadier 96 Inox in my collection.

And leejack is correct, Taurus almost got it right with their update of the Beretta design. Moving the safety lever to the frame was a huge step in the right direction. What they should have done was make the decock a push full up to drop the hammer, with the middle safe and down on.
Sal