Im not talking about rather their safety is safe or not. But I mean why can't they do away with that stupid little wing and put the safety on the side where it should be like a Mod 700 or a Vanguard, or a CZ or even like their older ones with the tang safety?

Not being snide, but many individuals are spending $$ to rid themselves of those side safeties. While I might agree with you regarding the tang safety I don’t understand why anyone would want to move from a 3-position wing safety to a less secure 2-position sliding safety. But then, that why there are many brands and models of automobiles along with many color choices within each model…

Many prefer the 3 position wing safety found on the Ruger, Winchester and Kimber. I'm not really anal about a safety as long as it works although most of my bolt rifles have the wing safety.

If you want a side safety, then buy a rifle you mentioned above. I happen to the like the safety for one simple reason: you can unload the rifle while it is still on "safe".

I love the tang safety and if they'd make the CRF action with a tang safety I could see myself getting several and dumping a few.

We have two Rugers, one has the 3 position side safety, the .257 Robert's, Model 77 ultra-lite my wife uses, and my .35 Whelen tang safety model 77.

I really can't tell that one is better than the other, both work as they were designed to do. For the average hunter what difference does it actually make?

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
Im not talking about rather their safety is safe or not. But I mean why can't they do away with that stupid little wing and put the safety on the side where it should be like a Mod 700 or a Vanguard, or a CZ or even like their older ones with the tang safety?

Apparently it's what you get used to. I really don't like the Mod 700 type safety. I think it's aweful. I would never have considered a Vanguard or Howa action until as I understand it they came out with a three position safety. If so, they are much preferred to the 700, IMO.

The CZ action can easily be converted to three position. Some of the actions came that way, and those bought from Brownells have three positions side safeties on the 30-06 action. I have two of them. All the other CZs I have except one have been converted to three position with a drop in part available from CZ USA.

I really like the three position safety of the Ruger. It's responsible and sensable engineering, unlike the hokey safety offered by Remington.

KB

All Ruger would have to do is to copy Savage and have a THREE position tang safety. Tang safeties are always easier to use are quieter and are protected from being knocked off.

Ever see a DG double rifle with anything but a tang safe ? Nuff sed !

That is because the Brits never made anything from scratch except Sniders, Martini-Henrys, Farqs, Lee-Enfields, double shotguns and rifles that are patterned after shotguns. Not a very good showing for the empire.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
All Ruger would have to do is to copy Savage and have a THREE position tang safety. Tang safeties are always easier to use are quieter and are protected from being knocked off.

Ever see a DG double rifle with anything but a tang safe ? Nuff sed !

I perfer the swing safety to the tang one I own both.

If you want a weird safety IMHO take a look at the lever safety on savage 99s. Small out of the way have to pull it back to shoot or work the lever./

Dozsens of heads of big game killed many of them fast running shots in brush with mine would disagree that it is hard to work.

I like a lot of people here own many differant manufactures guns and a lot of differant styles of safeties.

Paractice makes perfect when using them. I make sure when I pick a gun up rifle, shotgun lever, pump, bolt, auto,double, hammer gun, single shot and who knows what else .

I make myself familiar with how it operates.

That all said I dislike the pull back safeties of the CZ type the most.

I've got about all of them (CZ, Winchester 70, Remington, Ruger tang and wing) and my favorites are the Winchester and Ruger wing.

I've never had a problem getting any of them off safe to shoot and I do like the unload-on-safe feature of the 3-position safeties.

The tang safeties seem to whack the web of skin between my thumb and trrigger finger on anything that has any recoil, although that may just be me and the way I hold rifles.

-WSJ

IMO, the 3-position wing safety is the most desirable.

Side safety that does not block the striker the least desirable.

I prefer the positive safe provided by the Ruger and Mauser bolt safeties. They block the firing pin, preventing firing. All others just block the trigger parts, the striker could still fall.

That said I am not anal about it and have rifles with tang and side safeties. There is no substitute for safe gun handling - regardless of the safety used. Treat EVERY firearm as if it could go off at any time.


.

I am not talking about the mechanics of the Ruger safety. Im just talking about the little wing just seems annoying to me. Maybe its just because I originally got use to using Mod 700 style safeties.
Everytime I have ever used a wing style saftety I wish it were not a wing. Maybe I just need to spend a season or so hunting with one and just get use to it. But IMO its the most undeseriable type safety out there to disengage.

In my view, building a better safety is the least of Rugers problems.

The Model 70 type wing safety is the best type; Ruger doesn't need to change anything. I have several tang safety M77s and I don't really like those.

I also dislike the wing safety and stopped buying the new Rugers when they came out. I have 11 of the tang safety models and like them. For me the wing is awkward on the Ruger/1903A3/Win and anyothers. The tang safety is a natural movement to release when I bring the rifle up to shoot.
I wish they would bring the tang safety back and I see they did on the American model. Now if they wood only chamber it in 338Federal or 264Win Mag I would get one

I prefer the 3 position hands down especially the Ruger.

I feel a 2 position safety is a step backwards
in safety design.
I have a blind box 700 Rem that is the old style of safety that is scary to unload and dangerous to unload as I have seen several go off by operator error due to a brush agaist the trigger. This is because one must close the bolt on a loaded cartridge before it can be extracted.

For this reason I also prefer a claw extracter, it can be worked back and forth not having to lower the bolt handle to unload.



But that is a different topic all together .

Cal30

I have rifles with 3 pos wings and 2 pos wings
Some with tangs and Remington type sliders they
all have ups and downs but the 3 seems to be the
Safest as a bolt lock and the option of unloading
In the safe position but the shooter is still the
#1 safety

quote:

Originally posted by cal30 1906:
I feel a 2 position safety is a step backwards
in safety design.
I have a blind box 700 Rem that is the old style of safety that is scary to unload and dangerous to unload as I have seen several go off by operator error due to a brush agaist the trigger. This is because one must close the bolt on a loaded cartridge before it can be extracted.

I had 1 go off W/O ANY trigger contact. That was 14 years ago & for a long time I thought it was a fluke.

I recently found out otherwise when this particular issue was brought to light.

You can't beat a 98 Mauser action W/a 3-position wing safety.

Even W/O a hinged floorplate all you need to do is put the safety in the middle position & shuck the bolt back & forth to empty the magzine.

What most do not realize is that the wing safety blocks the firing pin from moving forward as well as the the trigger from being pulled. A MUCH safer type of safety.
The tang version is unsafe as it does not block the firing pin.
But gee, its more convenient.Just not safe.

PSA
YOU DO NOT CLOSE THE BOLT TO UNLOAD

When unloading a blind magazine......just push the bolt forward enough for the round to pop out of the box then dump it in your hand

DO NOT CHAMBER OR CLOSE THE HANDLE WHEN UNLOADING

Thanks Ted. You may have saved or averted some tragedy yet to happen, with that bit of simple wisdom.

Technique means a lot. If people followed your advice, the frequency of that type of accidental discharge would be zero. There may be other types, which could likely be avoided with similar common sense, but that type is just that easy to thwart. The rifle can't fire if the bolt isn't closed.

That's why I would own a rifle that I liked even if it had a two position safety, and was a push feed, which required it to be moved off safe to work the bolt. The rifles that I really don't like are those with safeties that don't lock the bolt down when engaged.

I've owned a few Sakos and CZ's with two-position safeties, and they were fine with me. I just prefer the three-position safety and claw extractor given a choice.

KB

Really guys, you must have great difficulty unloading a 1894 Winchester !
RULE NUMBER ONE seems to have been ignored.
"NEVER POINT THE MUZZLE AT ANYTHING THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY HARM SHOULD THE GUN DISCHARGE". Following that rule would reduce gun accidents to zero.
I have cycled 1000s of rounds in over 55 years thru rifles that have the dreaded two position safety or no safety at all and NEVER had an "accidential" discharge.
Depending on any mechanical device to "cover your butt" is just foolish.
Just as an FYI, the Savage 116, like my 9.3x62, has a detachable box magazine, so you put the tang safe in middle. drop the magazine and then eject the chambered round.
For those old enough to remember, the M-1 rifle had a two position safe. Seemed to help us win WW II in the hands of people who had never seen any gun before Basic, and were not shooting each other right and left.
Use what you want but some very expert hunters believe the best safe is no safe as it places a 100% emphasis on safe gun handling.

(quote)"I prefer the positive safe provided by the Ruger and Mauser bolt safeties. They block the firing pin, preventing firing."

The three position safety on the Ruger does NOT block the firing pin, it only blocks the trigger. It is mounted on the receiver, not the bolt, and has no interaction with the striker. The Winchester and Kimber safeties do, however. So do the side-mounted safeties on my CZ 527 and Remington 721; both can be seen to cam the striker back when engaging.

I'm not very fond of the Ruger safety for another reason, though; in the rearward position it is too close in to the bolt. I prefer it being slightly out and easier to access quickly. For this reason, if I ever get to hunt Cape buffalo, I will use a model 70 rather than my RSM.

I like the ruger 3 position safety .. i wish it were made of rolled or forged steel, rather than a casting .. it needs to be 3/16 long

Prairie Mutt is not correct in that the model 77 safety, when properly in the full safe position does block the firing pin. There is a notch in the firing pin housing that the wing sits in providing a block for that. The next step does not, but it is for load and unload.

I like the wing type safeties, but can adapt to almost any. That is why one practices.

Just can't off the trust in mechanical devices rather than basic gun safety can we ?

If the shooter is careless, there will be an "accident" sooner ot later, regardless of any "safety".

As for the RMs's safety, anyone who cannot operate it as well as a M 70 must have a serious dexterity handicap. In any case when you are close enough to a Buff (or anything else that can kill you in seconds), the safety should already be off, the rifle at what is called in skeet, the low mount position and the trigger finger laid along the guard to block the trigger.

Do ANY of you think, the old timers with their 4 and 8 bore hammer guns waited until the Buff charged to cock the hammer(s) ?

This thread ranks with the need to see Mitt's tax returns.

i have a RUGER S.S. M77 I like the safety, but I changed the trigger..

quote:

Ever see a DG double rifle with anything but a tang safe ? Nuff sed !

Yep take a look at a Greener double.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Ever see a DG double rifle with anything but a tang safe ? Nuff sed !

yes, i have ...

Dammit, LarryS, You and TXNimrod are right; I'm truly chagrined. I was going off old memory from disasembly for a glass bed job. Truly memory suffers with age. To perhaps sound petulantly trying to salvage my ego, it was also based on a recollection of an AD witnessed shortly after the MkII came out, when the safety was disengaged. I suspect it was a case of sloppy tolerances as I was very close and he definitly did not have his finger on the trigger. Though the safety is designed to block the striker, it doesn't cam it back. After unloading, he was able to replicate the problem once.

.45-70 shooter, manual dexterity is somewhat hampered by ergonomics; the factory stock is a little cramped for XXXL mitts. I'm less than enthusiastic about safety off until absolutely needed, which is why I want the quickest one available.

surestrike, you're right BUT did you ever use a safety on a Greener double. ? Owned a # of drillings with that safe and the barrel switcher where the tang safe usually was ..... terrible.
Missed many shots at birds by pushing the tang "safe" off and sending an 8.15x46 downrange instead of a load of 16 bore shot. (I usually hunt birds w/a SXS or OU). The final solution was to carry the drilling loaded and "broken" as it was far quicker to snap it shut than mess with that awkward button on the side. Carry "broken" also works well with English SXS designed for driven birds that have no safety at all.

Prarie Mutt, don't feel badly. I had to look at mine again to remember for sure. I suffer from the same old memory affliction. The safety does snuggle in there enough that it can be hard to operate with gloves on.

The only safety which works flawlessly, IF AND WHEN FULLY APPLIED, is the one between our ears. All mechanical devices can fail sometime, one way or another.

Except when hunting DG, I hunt with an empty chamber unless I know a shot is imminent. Full magazine if there is one, but empty chamber....hasn't cost me any game animals yet.

So, I haven't had any problems with the mechanical safeties on my Rugers or any other rifles since I began doing that about 45 years ago. I don't use them.

(An AD because of the failure of a Model 70 safety was what caused me to change to my current procedure.)

Having grown up shooting sxs shotguns, I prefer tang safeties. I also don't mind the wing on my Win.70. I find the safety on my Ruger awkward to disengage for some reason, unlike the Win. which is slick and easy to me. Might just be my fat ol fingers..
Rick

Whether one carries hot or uses the silly-assed method of loading the rifle after the animal has leapt from it's bed right under your feet and is rapidly dissappearing in the brush, please refer to 45-70's post. Safe rifle handling.
One of the reasons the M1, with it's 2 position safety, didn't have a whole lot of ADs and such is because during the rifle training, if you were handling the rifle in a dangerous manner, the instructors would beat the snot out of you. Perhaps some of our moderns that can't unload a rifle without shooting something or someone could use some of that reinforced learning.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Whether one carries hot or uses the silly-assed method of loading the rifle after the animal has leapt from it's bed right under your feet and is rapidly dissappearing in the brush, please refer to 45-70's post. Safe rifle handling.
One of the reasons the M1, with it's 2 position safety, didn't have a whole lot of ADs and such is because during the rifle training, if you were handling the rifle in a dangerous manner, the instructors would beat the snot out of you. Perhaps some of our moderns that can't unload a rifle without shooting something or someone could use some of that reinforced learning.

FYI, my M700 ADL discharged when I pushed off the safety to unload it. Since when does that have to do W/unsafe gun handling.

Furthermore, the idea that it's OK for a firearm to have a dangerous flaw because safe gun handling MIGHT prevent a tragic accident is so ludecrous it's mind boggling.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Whether one carries hot or uses the silly-assed method of loading the rifle after the animal has leapt from it's bed right under your feet and is rapidly dissappearing in the brush, please refer to 45-70's post. Safe rifle handling.
One of the reasons the M1, with it's 2 position safety, didn't have a whole lot of ADs and such is because during the rifle training, if you were handling the rifle in a dangerous manner, the instructors would beat the snot out of you. Perhaps some of our moderns that can't unload a rifle without shooting something or someone could use some of that reinforced learning.

FYI, my M700 ADL discharged when I pushed off the safety to unload it. Since when does that have to do W/unsafe gun handling.

Furthermore, the idea that it's OK for a firearm to have a dangerous flaw because safe gun handling MIGHT prevent a tragic accident is so ludecrous it's mind boggling.

I'm not going down that "no, no, no, I hadn't bubbaized the trigger and I never touched it" path. My point is not that safe gun handling allows you to take a faulty weapon afield, my point is that taking a properly adjusted rifle afield and handling it in a safe manner gives you another layer of safety if something does go awry. Like in your case, shooting the rifle whilst trying to unload it. I hope you didn't kill someone or something.

Thans for backing me up (although not intending to). Obvious that something was wrong with your ADL and amatuers messing with the trigger is normally the reason, although the 700 (and new model 70) trigger are foolish devices for a non varmint/ non hunting rifle as they are very dirt and rust sensitive. Look at a mauser 2 stage trigger if you want to see what all bolt action big game rifle should have to be much safer.
The fact that there was no bad outcome from your ADL experience tells me you were doing safe gun handling ...... still gun safety 101 !