sear safeties

[jeb111]

Question I understand the concept of the sear safety and how it worked but why did the police outfits see the need and the military didn't? Preventing a discharge while the pistol's receivers are separated, well who doesn't check to make sure the chamber is empty? Was it a lack of training on the part of the police? Was it the habit of German overengineering? I can see the use of mag safeties but the sear safety seems totally unnecessary.

[Mac Cat]

That's a really good question !!

Military arms often have no safety devices, particularly military pistols. I think the theory is the military doesn't want anything keeping a soldier or sailor from quickly using the firearm.

Police are generally working with civilians and their own people - not an enemy, so they have a duty to be more careful. Thus, police and commercial firearms have safety devices and sometimes more than one.

Other considerations may be the environment where a fire arm is kept. Submarine's and ships don't want stray bullets bouncing around inside.

Training is always a challenge, but foremost is the requirement to use a weapon effectively and decisively in hostile conditions.

That's the take away I got after my years in the US Navy.

[Edward Tinker]

Although the german gov't military and the police were tied much closer than say in the USA at the time, as Mac said above, police and military have different duties.
I was issued a 1911a1 in the army and we weren't supposed to have a round in the chamber - in war it would be different, but your point was, 'everyone' checks their chamber. Not always, people are tired after a 14 hr shift, they sometimes make a mistake - I have been in the area 3 times when a round went off in the clearing barrel. The clearing barrel is there for accidental discharges. And yes, each time the soldier got into trouble for using the item that was supposed to keep anyone from popping off a round.
Lots of training after that for everyone.

[jeb111]

Mac and Ed thanks for the insight. Makes sense what you say and I get the value of having safeties on police weapons, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of having a safety to keep a pistol going off after it has bean disassembled. I witnessed a couple of accidental discharges in my life (never from a gun of mine) but anytime I went to clean or put away a firearm, take out mag empty or check chamber, it is second nature and like you guys I'm sure do it in our sleep. So I can't help but feel that maybe could there have been a lack of training on the part of the German police? I find that hard to fathom.

[Ron Wood]

Lack of training isn't something that is unique to the German police. I served as payroll officer a few times and one time when I went to pick up the cash a guy who had arrived just before me went up to the clearing point outside the finance building. You guessed it...he cleared his .45 by shooting 7 rounds into the barrel that you were supposed to use to make sure your weapon was unloaded after you had cleared it. It got a lot of attention from the folks inside the building, plus a couple of MPs that weren't particularly amused.

[Kiwi]

Unloaded guns somehow shoot a lot of people
Just like distracted driving does

I use a chainsaw as an analogy - great tool - but pay attention.
Clearing or cleaning a firearm - ditto - pay attention

[Doubs]

Just my opinion but the sear safety and ALL magazine safeties are poor ideas.... especially the mag safety. Good periodic training is a better solution. The open loop hammer on the SIG-P6 used by the West German, and later unified German, police is another example of a poor idea.

The Astra 600 I once owned had a thumb safety, grip safety and a magazine safety... massive overkill and the absolute worst trigger of any pistol I've ever shot. I didn't keep it long.

Another pet peeve of mine are those who quake at the thought of carrying a 1911A1 in condition two: loaded chamber and the hammer down. Their concern is that lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber is dangerous. Having done that literally thousands of times without a mishap, I've concluded that a person who can't should never own a 1911 or 1911A1. I'm not a big fan of the Series 90 firing pin safety either.

Again, these are my opinions.

[Mac Cat]

Vlim posted a great demonstration under the "Shooting & Reloading" topics.
"Shooting the upper"

[STEINBVG]

I can somehow see a fearful point of those who insist on multiple layers of safety installed in guns.

Training or not, accidents happen even with the best.

But I would like to be able to see the point of the opposition to having safety devices installed, especially those a shooter can chose to not to engage.

For instance”perfect Glock” and I believe an elegant extra manual safety device called Siderlock.
What is a reasonable argument against having it on the gun?

[gunbugs]

The reasonable argument, if you have been trained on Glocks, or gone to Glock Armorers class, is that Glocks have plenty of safeties already. And, as we are taught in the most basic safety classes, at the beginning, to NEVER have our finger on the trigger unless we are going to discharge the weapon. If you don't pull the trigger on a Glock, it won't go off. Conversely, if you pull the trigger on a Glock, you can rest assured that it will discharge, if there is a live round in the chamber. No additional safeties are needed on a Glock, unless you are stupid enough to pull the trigger on a live round, when you don't intend to, which I don't understand. But an additional mechanical safety won't keep you from doing that.

And I will note that while I think a Glock is a fine firearm, and generally VERY reliable, I do not own one, because I just don't care for them. Much the same as I don't care for Pepsi.

[Kiwi]

Each "Safety" is to prevent the gun from firing

If a gun is needed it is normally needed immediately under operator stress
Under stress people forget things, things that may make the gun inoperable for its primary function.

Also more parts, more things that can go wrong
If any one of the "safeties" fails to release the operator has a very short iron bar, not a gun.

Note that the German military removed the (Swiss) grip safety.


Trap shooting - I have forgotten to switch the safety off when calling for a clay. I realize as soon as I fire and it doesn't. But clay targets is not critical.

[Doubs]

Originally Posted by gunbugs

And I will note that while I think a Glock is a fine firearm, and generally VERY reliable, I do not own one, because I just don't care for them. Much the same as I don't care for Pepsi.

Agree completely. My son likes Glocks but, like you, they do nothing for me.

The only handguns I own that are striker fired are my Lugers. Every other handgun I own has a hammer, most exposed but a few with them internally.

[gunbugs]

I'm not sure I understand the heartache over the sear safety on a police luger. It is what is known as a "passive" safety and requires no manipulation by the user, you don't have to turn it on, or turn it off, plus it is dead simple, just a piece of spring steel and a rivet. If it bothers you a WHOLE bunch, you can remove it without much trouble.

[Doubs]

Originally Posted by gunbugs

I'm not sure I understand the heartache over the sear safety on a police luger. It is what is known as a "passive" safety and requires no manipulation by the user, you don't have to turn it on, or turn it off, plus it is dead simple, just a piece of spring steel and a rivet. If it bothers you a WHOLE bunch, you can remove it without much trouble.

No heartache whatsoever. Just expressing an opinion that it's the solution to a problem that would have been better addressed with training. I own a couple of Lugers with the sear safety and have no intension of removing them. They're part of the gun's history.

[DonVoigt]

It is pretty clear that the German Police decided that they could not "train away" the problem;
I can see why- recognizing the level of firearm "expertise" in the average policeman then- or now.
JMHO

[MikeP]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

Lack of training isn't something that is unique to the German police. I served as payroll officer a few times and one time when I went to pick up the cash a guy who had arrived just before me went up to the clearing point outside the finance building. You guessed it...he cleared his .45 by shooting 7 rounds into the barrel that you were supposed to use to make sure your weapon was unloaded after you had cleared it. It got a lot of attention from the folks inside the building, plus a couple of MPs that weren't particularly amused.

When I was out processing at Bien Hoa, I had to go to finance and jump through their hoops.
There was a bucket to clear weapons at the gate like most places.
I removed my .45 mag and fired the chambered round into the bucket-just for effect.
The results were absolutely hilarious. Getting tears on my keyboard thinking about it.
I think they were afraid I was going to try and clear one of the little Swedish grenades I had, too.

Regarding the previous remark on many service pistols having no safeties.
I know about Tokarevs, but never saw any others.
Am I missing something?
Relatively few GIs ever had to handle pistols very much.
I do think we were in a much more safety oriented profession than a cop off the streets, though.

[Heinz]

Sauer dropped the safety on the 38H later in WW2