I like safeties!

[Old Savage]

Ithaca 37 has a cross bolt safety so do a number of other guns - railing against safeties is fruitless - you will never see anything new without them. Just liking the one thing you grew up with whoever you are is ??????????????????? It ain't gonna be that way again. I have a brother in law who can't drive a stick shift - go figure.............

[J Miller]

My final post in this thread:

I have nothing against safeties .... IF they were part of the original design.

However if they are after thought add ons such as the Winchester CB and tang safety, the CB safety on the Marlins, key locks, rebounding hammers that were instigated by lawyers and idiots sitting on juries;
then I absolutely despise them.

I will exercise my right as a consumer to purchase those guns that do not have such abominations / or have easily removed ones.
And I will not accept the "get used to it" mantra of the safety apologists.

And that's the way is Friday December 11th 2009.

Joe

[Old Savage]

Well now - I just can't like those key locks I draw the line on anything like that and will not buy them.

[Griff]

Interesting discussion.

I agree with Joe... for sakes of discussion, I feel all my Winchester 1894s should operate with the same mechanical features. My 1899 production rifle has a trigger block safety... so does my 1979 production rifle. All the ones in-between do also. This is the major reason I don't have a newer one.

However, to imperically state that one holds an opinion without reservation or caveat, is to paint oneself into a corner that might not be beneficial nor desireable in the long term. While I stated above why I do not like the modern versions of the Winchester 94, I do not dislike or even condemn the use of safeties on other arms. The very first handgun I utilized in a situation that necessitated it's potential for instant use, a safety is paramount for the operator's safety. Carrying a 1911 in condition "1" without the thumb safety engaged is asking to have your buttcheek ventilated, (other parts are also at risk, but that came to mind foremost). However, given the nature of the assignments, one-handed operation of the 1911 was essential.

During subsequent assignments, it was deemed that such carry was improper, and a rule was promulugated that mandated no rounds in the "snout." Whereupon, investigation revealed that carrying your 1911 with the thumb safety engaged was detrimental to speedy utilization of the tool. Luckily, I had the time to practice and change habit and routine so that any danger was minimized.

Now, given my druthers... the former was a preferable mode of carry. It was my opinion that the rule change was "stupid." However, I also recognized that like many such "stupid" Naval regulations or operational procedures, it was simply in recognition of the inherent stupidity of the human animal in general and the sailor in particular!

OS: Hope the above meets your standards for discussion.

[El Chivo]

I have never in my life carried a rifle with a round in the chamber and have no idea why anyone would want to do such a thing.

The one reason is noise - I started off hunting with an empty chamber and then I thought about it - alerting game with that "funny little noise". So on the last day of the season I levered a round into the chamber and put on the half-cock when I entered the hunting area. I walked about 75 yards and saw a buck nibbling at the grass in front of me, maybe 15 yards away. He never heard a thing...and if he had been running, who knows if I would have made a clean kill or not.

[Old Savage]

Griff, as I found out one cold and windy night near Frazier Park you are the consummate discusser and - and I do not use the term lightly - a gentleman and a scholar. I can only hope that your travels bring us back into company.

I wanted a 94 from the time I was 12. One sat in friend's hallway as we went through high school - his father's. It was not to be until I was 42 - 30 years later - it is a wonderful arm which I greatly appreciate above all others of it's kind. But alas I find out here, it has some trigger disconnect hammer drop dislocated %&^%*((* hammer trigger that some here eschew. But I love it and it is the way it is and is the one I learned to use and ................. I will defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. Surely theirs cannot be better though they say they are I will not have it not accept it and out shoot them if necessary with its old Weaver reconditioned 4x scope that I like on it. And I like all the others that I bought that are all different. I did buy a pre 64 but I gave it away.

And Griff, my treasured friend, I wish you and your and all my friends here - happy holidays whatever yours are.

[Halfbreed]

My Dad always told me a well trained mind is the best safety.

[Swampman]

I have never in my life carried a rifle with a round in the chamber and have no idea why anyone would want to do such a thing.

I've never known anyone who hunted without a round in the chamber.

[Griff]

...Griff, my treasured friend, I wish you and your and all my friends here - happy holidays whatever yours are.

And likewise. I am in Barstow, getting ready for breakfast. Checked the weather before I got my truck washed, and decided that I can linger or breakfast. I have to be in Woodland, CA tomorrow and then proceed to OR.

[76/444]

What sums this all up for me, is a combination of two above posts.

If a weapon owner can't comfortably operate a safety when handling a levergun,... not only do I wonder if you ought to be using a gun at all,...it makes me wonder about the safety between their ears, they are suppose to have, before picking one up.


Merry Christmas to all, and to all a safe weapon experience!

[jlchucker]

Let's get to the real core of it - you don't like juries who make the awards.

You're right about that but I dislike lawyers that force excessive settlements in lieu of a trial just as much. These days my impression of most members of the bar is that what matters most to them is lining their own pockets, over and above law and justice. The worst of the bunch are those who get themselves elected to office with the obvious intent to protect the financial interests of the tort-lawyer community. Too bad people can be so easily mislead into voting for them.

[Old Savage]

Griff, I am supposed to head to downtown LA today more specifically Koreatown. Why you are just right around the corner. What are you up to today?

[Modoc ED]

Griff, I am supposed to head to downtown LA today more specifically Koreatown. Why you are just right around the corner. What are you up to today?

Koreatown eh! Don't forget to bring some Korean BBQ and Kimchi home with you. Good eats!!

[Old Savage]

A Vietmanese friend is buying me a Korean BBQ lunch. 3600 Wilshire

[Griff]

Griff, I am supposed to head to downtown LA today more specifically Koreatown. Why you are just right around the corner. What are you up to today?

Right now I'm headed for Bakersfield over Tehachapi, just about to Mohave... I really lingered over breakfast! Reafing Clive Cussler's new tome, "The Wrecker." Next up is a new anthology of short stories by Louis L'Amour or a James Patterson. This driving around sure gets in the way of my reading!

Anyway, it's raini' here... hope it ain't snowin' up top!

[BAGTIC]

The problem with disabling the factory safeties is that if the gun is ever involved in an 'accident' it could increase both the civil and criminal liabilities.

'Accidents' do happen and some legal consideration is given to that. In one has intentionally disabled the safety it might no longer be considered a mere 'accident" but a criminal act such as criminal negligence. If someone removed the safety device from a power tool and removal of that protection became an issue in case someone was injured case it would no longer be considered a mere 'accident'. I suppose the same rule would apply to a gun safety. Remember the 6 million dollar against Remington? It was based on an unintentionally defective safety. Think what the consequences would be for an intentionally 'defective' or nonfunctional safety.

[Lastmohecken]

I am not anti-safety, regarding anything in life, but traditional Winchester and Marlin leveractions never had safetys until sometime in the 1990's. And most of us got along just fine without them.

It's not that I can't learn how to use a leveraction with a safety, but when I own so many that do not have them, I find the ones with safetys to be a nusance, and they also look like stuff on most model. Not to mention, many are poorly designed, one example is the Winchester Extra Lightweight I purchased with the top tang safety, and the rebounding hammer. I did eventually learn to at least tolerate the top safety, but the design was not reliable, because the rebounding hammer which was also part of the new system, was prone to misfire, after a while.

I eventually got rid of it, and ended up with an older Browning that was truer to the original, and I much prefer it. I have owed others examples but have since gotten rid of most of them.

I am not against safetys, I am just against unnessary stuff being added to a proven design that had already been working just fine, for a hundred years.

Can I manuplicate a safety? OF COURSE I CAN. I grew up shooting all kinds of guns with safetys, from hammerless side by side shotguns, to old military mausers, to 1911's. But even on those guns, my preferences for certain weapons are tied to the style of safety, because some systems are better designed then other systems, and more friendly to opperate.

However, there is one safety that I have pretty much hated, all of my life, and that is the crossbolt safety. I suppose being lefthanded is part if it, as they are always set up wrong and I have probably spent upwards of a thousand dollars over my lifetime, getting those dammed crossbolt saftys changed over to left hand operation on various guns, and they are still my least favorite safety even after getting them changed over. I doubt I buy anymore guns with anykind of crossbolt safety in the future. Thankgoodness we have choices out there.

[Lastmohecken]

Someone mentioned not carrying a gun with a round in the chamber, as there is no need.

Well, I can see that at times. but if you are an eastern deer hunter, and you are still hunting, your chances come quick and many times when you least expect it. Same for squirrel or rabbit hunting. And espacally for phesant or quail hunting, whither over dogs or not, one will always have an unexpected flush of his quarry. I don't know a single person, that does not carry hot with a round in the chamber, under these conditions.

Now, I suppose, others who hunt out west, where game is often spotted at a distance, carrying a gun without a round in the chamber, is probably a good idea. And I guess if one hunts like they do on TV, where they are in a blind, shooting over bait, and can kill their game at there leasure, after, talking into the camera for 5 minutes before taking the shot, then I recond they have time to slip a round in the barrel.

[El Chivo]

Someone mentioned not carrying a gun with a round in the chamber, as there is no need.

Well, I can see that at times. but if you are an eastern deer hunter, and you are still hunting, your chances come quick and many times when you least expect it. Same for squirrel or rabbit hunting. And espacally for phesant or quail hunting, whither over dogs or not, one will always have an unexpected flush of his quarry. I don't know a single person, that does not carry hot with a round in the chamber, under these conditions.

Now, I suppose, others who hunt out west, where game is often spotted at a distance, carrying a gun without a round in the chamber, is probably a good idea. And I guess if one hunts like they do on TV, where they are in a blind, shooting over bait, and can kill their game at there leasure, after, talking into the camera for 5 minutes before taking the shot, then I recond they have time to slip a round in the barrel.

still, racking a round in there makes a lot of noise, I would rather take a shot at game that is unaware as opposed to alarmed and running.

I used my safety today at the silhouette range, twice, when rounds shot in from the mag tube under the carrier, and all jammed up. I had to shake out 4 rounds with one in the chamber - you can bet I was happy to have a safety.

And, once cleared, I was ready to shoot at my next target, sure enough - ping! I thought it was a misfire, so I tried again, and ping! Then I took the safety off and it worked fine. So it has its uses, but you have to have your head in the game.

I guess there are those that, if they bend a nail, they blame the hammer.

[El Chivo]

isn't there anything we can do to get J Miller to post again on this thread?

[Lastmohecken]

Someone mentioned not carrying a gun with a round in the chamber, as there is no need.

I guess there are those that, if they bend a nail, they blame the hammer.

Well, as a matter of fact if I was using a light, smooth faced finish hammer, and I was framing a house, and I bent a nail, I probably would blame the hammer, throw it down, and start looking for my framming hammer with the serrated hammer face. I build my house, myself, drove most of the nails, and the first thing I did, when I started building was purchase a really good framming hammer, and a Skil worm drive saw, and I still have both.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

The problem with disabling the factory safeties is that if the gun is ever involved in an 'accident' it could increase both the civil and criminal liabilities.

'Accidents' do happen and some legal consideration is given to that. In one has intentionally disabled the safety it might no longer be considered a mere 'accident" but a criminal act such as criminal negligence. If someone removed the safety device from a power tool and removal of that protection became an issue in case someone was injured case it would no longer be considered a mere 'accident'. I suppose the same rule would apply to a gun safety. Remember the 6 million dollar against Remington? It was based on an unintentionally defective safety. Think what the consequences would be for an intentionally 'defective' or nonfunctional safety.

Why isn't this a problem in other country's. The Rossi 92's sent to Canada and Australia don't have the bolt top safety.

[Old Savage]

A perception of management based on the advice of the legal dept is my guess.

[Lastmohecken]

The reason we have all of these add on safetys, etc. in this country is because as a nation we are sue happy. No one is willing to take responsibility for their own actions. It's always the fault of the product itself, that created the accident, not the moron who pulled the trigger, in a moment of stupidy.

And that is because we have been producing too many lawyers per capita. There is always a hungry lawyer (amblulance chasser) that will take any case, if he thinks he can squeese a dollar out of someone.

[Old Savage]

El Chivo "isn't there anything we can do to get J Miller to post again on this thread?" from the old safety thread J Miller cited. Well no El but the new year is here and so is Joe in all his glory.

But thanks Joe for that, I went back and reread it - I forgot that I didn't like these dang key locks.

[Modoc ED]

Hey Joe Miller!!! Say something!!!

[BigSky56]

Bagtic, it was a remington trigger that caused that death not the safety remington had known for years the trigger had a problem if you pulled the trigger while the safety was on then when you clicked the safety off the weapon discharged. And rather than fix it remington lived with it as it was cheaper to pay out than recall all the rifles. I have personally seen a old remington fire in this manner. danny
About the case and triggerhttp://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/aacbsnewsrem700.htm

[Leverdude]

The good and bad of the Marlin safety is that it allows you to cycle the action to unload the gun while on safe, but it also allows the hammer to fall from full cock and go click instead of bang if you are shooting at game and the safety is on. If the safety locked the hammer so it wouldn't fall when you pulled the trigger you could quickly take the gun off safe and then fire the gun. As it is now, the hammer falls, the prey is alerted to your presence and off it goes while you are trying to determine if you left the safety on or if it is a hangfire. I have heard of hunters who levered a new round into the action thinking the first round was a dud and the hammer would fall again with a click instead of a bang. ........ Of course if you have your gun on 1/4 cock and you have to pull it all the way back or operate the lever or manipulate the bolt of a bolt action to chamber a round, those operations will make more noise than moving a safety. .......

Would you classify the above, as a poor manufacturer design,.... or, operator error?

Operator error caused largely by over complicating a simple machine for no practical reason. Most lever action differs from MOST other rifle actions in that it can be decocked. A bolt or semi auto NEEDS a saftey because once theres one in the chamber its cocked & ready to go. If you had to cock & disengage a bolt action saftey it'd be redundant too. One action is needed to bring a bolt or semi from safe condition to fire, so why are two needed in order for a lever action to be safe? I really like my older BLR81. It has a short fireing pin & the manual directs you to carry the gun with the hammer fully down. It has a half cock but its to catch the hammer should your thumb slip off the hammer. On Savages & other non exposed hammer lever actions a saftey is definately needed.

As far as hunting with an empty chamber it must depend where you are. I know theres been many times that I was too close to cycle the action unnoticed without alerting game. Places where you can spot a deer 200 yards away are different I imagine. But, if a gun is considered unsafe by a person with a round in the chamber that philosophy ought to apply to all guns. I carry a gun every day & to my thinking its much more important that it be carried safely. If I thought a loaded chamber unsafe I'd carry with an empty chamber, but I dont. I carry mostly a D/A only semi with no saftey or a couple other double action semi auto's the same way. Why a person carry around people in a way they consider unsafe when alone is beyond me.

[Two401Pm]

Nope don't like the cross bolt safetys on the Marlins or Winchesters at all.. Have disabled them all.. Not needed in the designers day and not needed now....Half cock notch good enough for over a hundred years.... muzzle loaders had them..

[Rimfire McNutjob]

Let's get to the real core of it - you don't like juries who make the awards.

You're right about that but I dislike lawyers that force excessive settlements in lieu of a trial just as much. These days my impression of most members of the bar is that what matters most to them is lining their own pockets, over and above law and justice. The worst of the bunch are those who get themselves elected to office with the obvious intent to protect the financial interests of the tort-lawyer community. Too bad people can be so easily mislead into voting for them.

Example #1 ... Rep. Alan Grayson.