[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Handgun Safeties (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/25/2013 12:43:41 PM EDT
|
The subject of manual safeties on handguns comes up extremely frequently in posts here, particularly in "comparison" or "which should I..." posts, and I have to admit - it leaves me quite curious. There's a lot of angst towards the idea of having a safety on a handgun up to and including claims that it will literally get you killed. That a rifle should have a safety is rarely, if ever argued - yet with pistols, it comes up almost daily.
Some ground rules - I'd like for this poll to be a civilized and serious discussion, and would prefer if the machismo, posturing, and usual internet circus would stay out of this discussion. Tall order, I know - but let's try. I'd like to discuss the technical and training merits, and what you see as the advantages and/or disadvantages of having a (or more than one) manual safety on a handgun might be. I know I will be, and I'm sure others will also be playing Devil's Advocate of arguments made regarding the subject - these are not necessary challenges to your manhood or a declaration of your stupidity for not agreeing - it may simply be Devil's Advocate in an effort to run the topic to ground and explore all the possibilities. A little background about myself in order for you to understand where my opinions come from: The first pistol I ever fired was an M9, and for obvious reasons - I have spent a significant amount of time carrying the M9 as my daily carry weapon, and spent a great deal of time training on them. The M9, just to reiterate, has a slide mounted manual safety/de-cocker that is notoriously near the top of many people's lists for "horrible safeties." I also own and fire 1911s - with both safeties, grip and thumb intact, as well as the Sig P226 - with no safeties at all. To me, the presence or absence of a manual safety is a non-issue - the important factor is to train with the specific pistol you are firing, and to be practiced enough in manipulating it that when you hold it in your hand - you know, through muscle memory, whether or not there is a safety to deactivate. In my mind - the idea that you would "forget" to deactivate a safety is not a flaw in the design of the pistol, but an indication that the user does not have enough time and muscle memory manipulating that particular weapon. Perhaps I am in a unique situation? Having been forced to use and intimately learn what most people consider to be the worst safety ever constructed - maybe it just made learning everything else that much easier? I don't know. Now - I understand the concern that someone else might not know how to immediately operate your sidearm, say your wife if she needed to use it, however - that argument could go either way - because it could be applied to a child who stumbles across an unsecured weapon, or a perpetrator who somehow got a hold of your weapon, so in my opinion, that particular issue is a draw. Also - my question does not relate to third-parties operating your weapon - but only you, the primary purchaser/owner/user of the pistol. A poll has been included to give some statistical data, please indicate which selection you made and be prepared to explain why you feel that way. In order to maintain ARFCOM tradition, a "Pie" option has been added - however, the "Pie" option has been assigned a value as well to indicate a data point - namely that you, like I, are relatively indifferent and that the presence or absence of a manual safety(s) does not make a significant impact on your opinion of a particular pistol. Remember also, that for those who do not want to vote, and merely see the results, you do not need to select any option, and you can just hit "Vote," and you can see the results. Thanks for participating, ~Augee |
| I chose other. And here's why. Depends on the gun for me. When I bought my snubbie I wanted a S&W 642. They make a version of this with a lock and one without. I wanted the 642-1 no lock. Now I have 1911's that I know are coming with a safety and that doesn't bother me at all. But I also have glocks (no safety really), XD's that have grip and trigger safeties, and a S&W BG380 that has a manual safety. Different guns for different applications. Each serve the purpose intended and some have safeties and some don't. |
|
Quoted:
I chose other. And here's why. Depends on the gun for me. When I bought my snubbie I wanted a S&W 642. They make a version of this with a lock and one without. I wanted the 642-1 no lock. Now I have 1911's that I know are coming with a safety and that doesn't bother me at all. But I also have glocks (no safety really), XD's that have grip and trigger safeties, and a S&W BG380 that has a manual safety. Different guns for different applications. Each serve the purpose intended and some have safeties and some don't. This matches my thoughts closely enough. Although I have M&P's w/o safeties. A revolver. And a Beretta DA/SA .380 that I usually don't mess with the safety because of the DA for the first shot is like the revolver. If I haven't emptied the gun, I lower the hammer down, or I unload for transport since it isn't a carry gun any longer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I chose other. And here's why. Depends on the gun for me. When I bought my snubbie I wanted a S&W 642. They make a version of this with a lock and one without. I wanted the 642-1 no lock. Now I have 1911's that I know are coming with a safety and that doesn't bother me at all. But I also have glocks (no safety really), XD's that have grip and trigger safeties, and a S&W BG380 that has a manual safety. Different guns for different applications. Each serve the purpose intended and some have safeties and some don't. This matches my thoughts closely enough. Although I have M&P's w/o safeties. A revolver. And a Beretta DA/SA .380 that I usually don't mess with the safety because of the DA for the first shot is like the revolver. If I haven't emptied the gun, I lower the hammer down, or I unload for transport since it isn't a carry gun any longer. In all fairness, this was my intent behind "Pie." 
To me, the manual safety design is simply tied in to the overall design of the pistol, and the design as a whole is taken in to account when making the decision, and I have no hard and fast rules about safeties in and of themselves other than how they function with the rest of the design. ~Augee |
| I guess it depends on the type of gun. A striker fired gun like a glock or M&P doesn't need a manual safety, nor do revolvers with transfer bar safeties or any double action only gun. A single action auto that is meant to be carried cocked and locked needs a manual safety. A non transfer bar safety revolver shouldn't be carried with the hammer down on a live round so those don't need any type of safety either. |
|
I carry an FNX 9 cocked and locked. I grew up on a 1911 in the Cavalry. I'm used to a thumb safety and was never affected by the palm safety.
I dont mind a DA first pull at all. TRAIN TO YOUR GEAR AND IT WILL NOT MATTER. Under stress, no one thinks a trigger safety/ striker fired can have an issue>? You all must train hard under stress. That being said, see above. Its what I prefer. Its what I train for. |
|
I chose "I would not own a handgun with any manual safety", although this is not entirely true. A better way to say this would be "I would not use a handgun with a manual safety for self defense/carry". I own 1911s, a Beretta 92FS and others with manual safeties, but only shoot them at the range. I don't train with them for self defense.
Personally I don't see any need for a manual safety. Any well made pistol such as a Glock or M&P will not go off unless the trigger is pulled and your holster should cover the trigger guard and prevent this while carrying. And once it's out of the holster you just have to follow Eric Bana's advice above  . I don't think comparing safeties on handguns to rifles is appropriate since rifles aren't carried in holsters that cover the trigger and therefore can't be carried safely with the safety off.
I primarily shoot and train with Glocks. Since all my training is done with a handgun without a manual safety I wouldn't feel comfortable strapping on a 1911 and carrying it. And I wouldn't want to split my training 50/50 between handguns with safeties and those without. However, if I really liked 1911s and preferred them to Glocks then I would train with them extensively and feel comfortable carrying one with a safety. There just happen to be many guns without safeties that I prefer. I definitely would never carry a gun with a slide mounted safety since I have small hands and can't reliably deactivate it quickly on a draw. There are also some frame mounted safeties that aren't as easy for me to deactivate such as the HK USP. The 1911 safety is super easy to use so if I wanted to train with them I could get comfortable with the safety. I actually really like the looks of the M&P Shield, but refuse to buy one because of the manual safety. For the tl;dr crowd - I don't think manual safeties are needed on modern pistols and of the currently available pistols on the market I happen to prefer those without safeties (Glocks) so that's what I train with. |
|
for the most part, handguns are built to fill one purpose: combat (if there were only a less effective weapon); there has to be a balance between safety devices and fuction...ie: gun needs to work when demanded upon, and the less levers and buttons to get it there, the more effecient it is (with in reason of course)
ALL handguns of all actions imo do not need a manual safety, EXCEPT for single action auto pistols; if built right, i think all other actions of autos and revolvers dont need one. as long as they are drop safe and wont fire unless the trigger is pulled. what IS needed is user education 
are there instances of manual safeties on handguns/firearms saving lives? absolutely, example: cops' duty weapons being taken away and BGs cant operate em. for the most part, h/w, again, handguns like any other combat type handgun only need a adaquately heavy enough trigger and proper training. |
|
I consider DA/SA an ideal form of safety.
A hammer to rest your thumb on while reholstering, greatly reducing the chances of Glock leg. A heavier DA pull, but not impeding one from firing if time is of the essence. A lever to quickly move once, which then greatly reduces the trigger pull for all shots in comparison to a striker fired gun. But to each their own. That's my opinion and preference. |
|
Quoted:
for the most part, handguns are built to fill one purpose: combat (if there were only a less effective weapon); there has to be a balance between safety devices and fuction...ie: gun needs to work when demanded upon, and the less levers and buttons to get it there, the more effecient it is (with in reason of course) ALL handguns of all actions imo do not need a manual safety, EXCEPT for single action auto pistols; if built right, i think all other actions of autos and revolvers dont need one. as long as they are drop safe and wont fire unless the trigger is pulled. what IS needed is user education
are there instances of manual safeties on handguns/firearms saving lives? absolutely, example: cops' duty weapons being taken away and BGs cant operate em. for the most part, h/w, again, handguns like any other combat type handgun only need a adaquately heavy enough trigger and proper training. I don't know that I would agree - a lot of pistols are designed for concealed carry, law enforcement use, hunting, ect. There are some pistols designed for combat, but there are others with a host of other intents. Understand that as a statement - I consider very little of what police do to be "combat." Which is not a judgment call or to take anything away from them. Armed self-defense is not "combat." A very large number, possibly even the majority of handguns carried in and for combat are of the manual safety variety. This is not a "should be," or "best" question - it is a fact. Many people, most, if you're talking U.S. - actively engaged in combat, carry pistols with manual safeties. So, once again - is it inherent in the design that and more importantly design intent whether or not a manual safety is appropriate? Why as a statement of principle does a single action auto pistol get a "pass" on the manual safety? How is this different than a striker fired pistol without a manual safety? It is immediately ready to fire? "Single action" is a mechanical function - and has no bearing on trigger pull weight - you could make a ten pound single action if you so desired - if it's drop safe and user keeps their "booger hook off the bang switch," what makes an SAO any more worthy of a mechanical safety? ~Augee |
|
Beats me. I'm a 1911 kinda guy. I also own a Gen 2 G17, and have owned an XD in the past. Three years ago when I went to buy another plastic pistol, I decided that I wanted to standardize on the same basic manual of arms as my handful of 1911's so I went with an M&P9 with a thumb safety. The M&P doesn't NEED a thumb safety, but to keep my training the same whether I'm shooting .45 or 9mm, I decided to get one. It also helps with how I index the pistol in my hands and helps me maintain a very high "high thumbs" grip. If I felt they were a detriment to reliability or an outright liability to my personal safety, I wouldn't have them. |
|
On my carry gun I have a thumb safety and the trigger safety. Though a grip safety and trigger safety would also suffice for me.
On a range gun...Id almost rather not having a safety at all. However, a trigger safety is fine as I will be pulling the trigger anyway. |
|
I choose my Walther p99 because it offers a true DA/SA in a striker fired pistol.
I Like a manual safety on a SA pistol it is mandatory on the ultra light modern pistols. I would never carry a 1911 or hi power without a safety so why would I carry a PPQ, XD or Glock without one. "Oh the trigger pull is longer" - Well it isn't DA yet is it? Can a gun be too safe sure look at the XD. |
|
I prefer to have a manual safety on my autos. The handgun isn't always stowed loaded in a holster on my hip. Training can overcome any senerio. Those that say that safeties will get them killed need to do some training. Ever drive a manual transmission, have to turn on the lights, pull a ripcord on a parachute? You train yourself to do tasks till its second nature, same as walking and talking.
CD |
|
Quoted:
I am under the impression that combat pistols have safeties, 1911 Sig226 FNX Baretta All contracted combat pistols HK USP? Training works. The Sig P226 does not have a manual safety. Also, there are a good number of Glocks in service, not just with the U.S., but other NATO countries - they're mixed in amongst people carrying Berettas, High Powers, USPs, and other a variety of other sidearms, some with, and some without manual safeties within NATO, though, which is what I'm most familiar with. For U.S. forces, the majority have manual safeties, but again, the Sig P226/MK 25 MOD 0 and M11s do not, nor do Glocks. ~Augee |
|
I don't know how true this is but a Glock type pistols with no safeties would be easier to tech a new shooter cause its more simple. When my wife 1st started shooting my AR should would always forget to take the safety off cause she was used to my Glock, but yea I do agree that it is more of a training issue for people who want to carry. |
|
Depends on the action type. No need for a manual safety on a DAO auto in my opinion, but a single action auto like a 1911 or BHP needs one. I like the safety on my M&P, but wouldn't have a problem not having one on a striker-fired gun.
I will say that I'm not a fan of slide mounted safeties, due to the fact they're hard to swipe on and off, and on most pistols with them, swiping them down puts the gun on safe. And I can't stand DA/SA guns that only have a decocker or decocking safety (Beretta 92 and most Sigs come to mind). Double action trigger pulls can be hard to work with, and I much prefer a light, short, consistent trigger pull. A properly positioned safety helps me keep a high grip (by riding the safety) and my skeletor thumbs off the slide release. I like USPs a lot, but I wasn't a fan of the P30 since no matter how I held it, I would ride the slide release and it would never lock open. I have the same problem with XDs. It's really a matter of personal preference though - I don't think there's a 'right' or a 'wrong'. |
| I generally prefer carry guns without safeties but it's not a dealbreaker. If it does have a safety I prefer frame mounted levers but again, its not a dealbreaker. Most of the time I carry a Glock or HK (w/LEM trigger) which do not have manual safeties. I have also carried a Sig P226 extensively which also does not have a safety. I have used 1911s, Browning Hi Powers and Beretta 92Fs in competition/training and not had an issue with the safeties. The only time I use the safety (unless required) is on guns like the 1911 that are intended to be carried cocked and locked, Beretta safeties get used as decockers (again, unless required otherwise). While I haven't had an issue with it I prefer not having to remember to deactivate a safety under stress. It hasn't been an issue but I'm more comfortable without it. |
|
this |
|
Depends on trigger type (DAO,SAO,DA/SA, ect.)
I'll pick that for now, cos my gun is DAO w/ no safety. I don't know what other guns I may end up getting although... I do prefer them without safety switches. Why? Because if you follow "Treat Never Keep Keep" properly then you don't NEED a safety. Your finger is your safety. Keep that meat hook out of the trigger until you're ready to fire. |
|
Quoted:
It's really a matter of personal preference though - I don't think there's a 'right' or a 'wrong'. No matter of right or wrong - I'm just wanting to have an informed and civil discussion of why people feel certain ways. 
I have seen a lot of posts saying "a double action or striker fired pistol does not need a safety," but I'm still curious as to why you [collectively] feel this way? Is it because you feel the pull weight is sufficient? Because of the additional action that you feel adds a margin of error? And those that prefer a lack of one - what do you feel are the advantages of not having a safety versus the disadvantages, and how do you reason your prioritization of them? Is it an issue of mechanical complexity and potential for failure? Accidental activation? Do you feel that deactivation adds too much to the process of firing the pistol under stress? ~Augee |
|
If I was in LE I would want a Gen 3 S&W.
I like the Decocker / safety and the mag disconnect / safety..is a must have. for me. For CCW I dont care if it has a safety /decocker or not. ( Dad told me long ago YOU ARE THE SAFETY) I use to carry a S&W M19 & M37 Then I went to a Colt 1911 & Mustang 380acp Then switch to a Gen 3 S&W5906/6906 & M37 ( Slide decocker/ Safety ) only used for decocking most of the time. Now a Gen 1 Sig P229 frame decocker & M642 I like the decocker on the frame on my P229. never had any problems. Gen 3 S&W and Beretta slide decocker/safety are proven as well |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am under the impression that combat pistols have safeties, 1911 Sig226 FNX Baretta All contracted combat pistols HK USP? Training works. The Sig P226 does not have a manual safety. Also, there are a good number of Glocks in service, not just with the U.S., but other NATO countries - they're mixed in amongst people carrying Berettas, High Powers, USPs, and other a variety of other sidearms, some with, and some without manual safeties within NATO, though, which is what I'm most familiar with. For U.S. forces, the majority have manual safeties, but again, the Sig P226/MK 25 MOD 0 and M11s do not, nor do Glocks. ~Augee Appreciate your expertise, sir. Learning is living. |
|
I carry a usp compact 45. this version is DA/SA with an ambi safety. I carry it with the safety off, DA.
as a test I spent some practice time firing both DA and SA with the safety on, with the shot timer the result: time from buzzer to first shot from the holster was NO DIFFERENT for me in either mode. of course, splits on multiple shots were the same because you're in SA for subsequent shots. the difference was in achievable accuracy at distance (20 yds. plus). starting in SA was more accurate. I carry DA/SA with the safety off. the usp safety is small, and there are no aftermarket parts. I don't want to fumble that safety on the draw, and using it doesn't give me anything I need. I formerly carried a sig DA/SA, and glocks. My 'other' carry gun for when I don't want to carry a gun is a 3" J frame model 60 in .357 If you're coming up from the draw the longer pull doesn't slow you down. practice! |
|
Quoted:
To me, the manual safety design is simply tied in to the overall design of the pistol, and the design as a whole is taken in to account when making the decision, and I have no hard and fast rules about safeties in and of themselves other than how they function with the rest of the design. Pie... I have no problem with the safety and DA/SA trigger on my issued M9. My current preference is for the HK USP with LEM (no external safety), but that is primarily because I prefer the LEM over a traditional DA/SA trigger. Semper Fi, |
|
I chose pie I carry a P7, striker pistols (PPS Glock) or when cold enough so jacket can cover a 1911 because being a thin tall guy hiding is hard.
Manual, squeeze cock, or striker it does not matter. I train myself with these pistols that when I draw it is second nature to drop safety, squeeze cock, or just squeeze trigger. Practice and knowing your weapons is what is comes down to. Honestly I feel comfortable with anything you put in my hand SA/DA also w/ or w/out manual safety. |
|
I almost chose Pie. But I chose other. The reason being:
I can only relate to what I've experience. I grew up hunting. And deer hunting has a way of invoking a little stress when you see them. I'm sure it's nothing compared to being shot at, but I've never been. so..... The first rifle I used was a bolt action. The second was a lever action. I mostly used those. Although I did get some shots off with a Garand once. I can not think of one time that I forgot to take the safety off and missed. I may not be remembering them, but I just don't remember it. I've culled a few in my time and proud to say I remembered to either A: take the safety off, or B: thumbed the hammer back (lever action) in the "heat of the moment". Therefore, I have never had a problem with the thought of a safety on a pistol. Where ever it may be. Slide, frame, whatever. And in fact, I've always felt like it was a good idea. Having said that, I can see why the striker fired, safe action pistols are not a bad idea either. But I FEEL more comfortable with a safety. Except for some reason a DA revolver doesn't make me squeemish at all. I guess it's because it is longer and heavier than anything else, and may have a little room for error. Moreso than a striker fired. I guess it really does come down to not putting your finger on the trigger. But people do make mistakes. To say none of us shouldn't if we train enough, is to say we should be perfect. In to which case I don't think is possible. Therefore, I like some fire insurance. And in my opinion that order goes (safest to least): DA, DA/SA w/o trigger, Single action w/some sort of safety, striker fired. All are viable though. But yeah, I would say a light single action pull without a safety would just be crazy. For reasons I just stated. |
|
Can anyone comment from a law enforcement standpoint?
I'm not certain, but I get the feeling that handguns with no safeties - as a primary weapon, not a secondary - is very much favored in that community. Does it make a difference whether your handgun is your primary or secondary? Why is Condition 1 in an SAO intimidating when a Glock is not? Also - I'm still not necessarily certain what distinction is being made with trigger types - to me, a pistol is either "ready to fire" or "not ready to fire." Certainly I understand the differences mechanically between SA and DA and a striker - but again - to me, it's a ready/not ready scenario - or is it trigger weight versus trigger type that is making the difference? I can understand the DAO and DA/SA not having a safety because they can be de-cocked and re-holstered with a thumb on the hammer - this at least is something to distinguish it from SAO - however, the distinction a lot of folks are making is that striker fired pistols don't need safeties. Why? They are ready to fire, and have no tactile indicator of possibly going off like a DA. Just trying to open some discussion - I doubt this is going to make anyone change their minds personally.
Poll results are interesting - I expected more people to be heavily against manual safeties... perhaps they're just louder than everyone else? ~Augee |
| Well, I'm not wanting to start a flame war, but the people that have been the proponent of "No external safety" are usually die hard Glock guys. Who have been trained to think so. And really, I don't disagree that it's one less thing to worry about under stress. I get that. But I also agree that pistols with safeties have been used for a long time, successfully. Does the former make the latter obsolete? My viewpoint is no. It's the same thing with MP5's. Everybody acts like because the M4 is the BEST carbine to have, an MP5 all of a sudden becomes completely useless somehow. Regardless of how well it has been utilized in the past. Yes, the former might be a better weapon. But it does not render the latter useless. In fact, the ladder might still work very well. |
|
Quoted:
Can anyone comment from a law enforcement standpoint? I'm not certain, but I get the feeling that handguns with no safeties - as a primary weapon, not a secondary - is very much favored in that community. Does it make a difference whether your handgun is your primary or secondary? Why is Condition 1 in an SAO intimidating when a Glock is not? Also - I'm still not necessarily certain what distinction is being made with trigger types - to me, a pistol is either "ready to fire" or "not ready to fire." Certainly I understand the differences mechanically between SA and DA and a striker - but again - to me, it's a ready/not ready scenario - or is it trigger weight versus trigger type that is making the difference? I can understand the DAO and DA/SA not having a safety because they can be de-cocked and re-holstered with a thumb on the hammer - this at least is something to distinguish it from SAO - however, the distinction a lot of folks are making is that striker fired pistols don't need safeties. Why? They are ready to fire, and have no tactile indicator of possibly going off like a DA. Just trying to open some discussion - I doubt this is going to make anyone change their minds personally.
Poll results are interesting - I expected more people to be heavily against manual safeties... perhaps they're just louder than everyone else? ~Augee That's the answer for me. I carry an M&Pc and a 1911. The M&P is carried spring, summer, and fall because it conceals better with lighter clothing and truthfully its darn comfortable in a Minotaur holster. I carry the 1911 in winter when attire allows the carry of a full size gun to none the wiser. The trigger pull on the M&Pc is around 6.5 pounds while the 1911 is a crisp 4 pounds. When carrying condition 1, I wouldn't dream of not having the safety on with that 4lb trigger. I split training time with both styles prolifically; shooting thousands of rounds a year in both platforms. It's all about being comfortable with the particular platform your using and getting used to that pistol. For me it all comes down to trigger weight and whether its DAO or SAO of a particular platform, nothing else. Trigger discipline and finger placement is the deciding factor for me. And I feel better about having a manual safety on a 1911 and no manual safety on a M&P. For lack of a better explanation, I do this because it just feels right to me. Albeit my finger rides the frame in either platform until I'm ready to dispatch the target regardless of either platform. I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer to your question. I guess it just depends on how I've trained for a particular platform. Good question OP, it gets me thinking and any post that requires pondering the "whys" is a good one... |
|
Since I shoot revolvers, I obviously don't require my handguns to have safeties. The 3rd Gen S&W's I shoot have a slide mounted decocker/safety, which is my least favorite type. However, I carry them with the safety off, after decocking of course, which is safe for this handgun. The ability to do that, plus other aspects about the gun, outweigh my overall dislike for slide a mounted safety and is why I have two 3rd gens and am looking for a third.
My main no-go on a handgun safety is one that is either too small to manipulate easily like the new FN's, or one that is ambi. I know some folks want an ambi safety, I don't. In fact, I've converted the ambi ones on my 3913 and 5906 to non ambi ones. ETA:I would definitely not want any safety on a DAO type pistol. |
|
Hmmmm....
S&W 686 No safeties at all. Ruger P90 Slide safety Kimber 1911 Frame and Grip safeties. Kimber Solo Frame safety Glock 19 & 17 Glock Safe Action Walther P22 Slide Safety and mag disconect Keltec P3AT no safety Springfield XDM (Whatever there trigger safety is called) Mechanical safeties are nice if the weapon has one, but you are the #1 safety. Know your weapon and practice with it. My $0.02. |
|
Quoted:
I chose other. And here's why. Depends on the gun for me. When I bought my snubbie I wanted a S&W 642. They make a version of this with a lock and one without. I wanted the 642-1 no lock. Now I have 1911's that I know are coming with a safety and that doesn't bother me at all. But I also have glocks (no safety really), XD's that have grip and trigger safeties, and a S&W BG380 that has a manual safety. Different guns for different applications. Each serve the purpose intended and some have safeties and some don't. This is the basic way I feel about it also. |
|
Other.
If it has a safety, it must operate the way god intended: up is safe, down is shoot. Even the Commies got it right on the AK and the Makarov. Seems than damn European Nazis are the only ones who insist on the retarded Walther/Beretta safety orientation.. |