Well all this talk about the "Safety of Safetys", makes me glad that most all of my Bolt Rifle Trash hunting is done with a Blaser R 93...

It does NOT have a Safety... It is uncocked until you are ready to shoot and cock it...

It has several other features that make it a most excellent rifle.

Maybe THE most excellent rifle...

Not arguing w/ your choice of rifles but disagree w/ your proposition that it does not have a safety. If that is true, then I never want to shoot or hunt with/around you.
ALL guns have safeties. It's the thing b/w the ears called a brain and it's really the only safety that matters.

quote:

Originally posted by aliveincc:
ALL guns have safeties. It's the thing b/w the ears called a brain and it's really the only safety that matters.

That's ok when talking about MY gun, but when I'm in the company of you or anyone, then I want the comfort of knowing that the mechanical safety on your or their gun is in good order. Brains, especially other's, are always questionable, and don't listen or pay attention. A properly designed and in good working order safety is like a light switch - it's either on or off, which can be seen with a quick look.

It's much more polite to say "check your safety", than "check your brain".

KB

Not all safeties are that visible. Around the places we hunt, the courteous thing to do is leave the bolt handle up at all times unless ready to shoot, break the rifle or shotgun if it is a break-action, drop the block, open the lever....you get the idea.

tiggertate, that's our practice also, but it requires someone to use their brain. Again, the only safety that really works or matters.

Actually the R93 does have a safety. It's called disengaging or releasing the firing pin.

The R93 has a sliding tab on top of the receiver to compress or decompress the firing pin spring.

quote:

Originally posted by aliveincc:
tiggertate, that's our practice also, but it requires someone to use their brain. Again, the only safety that really works or matters.

So, are you saying that it's ok to have a hunting rifle that doesn't have a mechanical safety, or a broken safety, or one that works sometimes, or one that's faulty or bad design, and perhaps the owner of the firearm doesn't have brain enough to know the difference?

To my thinking, if a guy doesn't know any better, then how the heck can his brain be trusted to be the safety? Worse yet, if a guy doesn't care, or is willing to compromise on the function of his mechanical safety, then where is the line drawn on accountability? Supposing a guy like that accidently shoots someone? Is not that same type of guy likely to offer compromised excuses for that as well?

If a guy can live with a rifle that doesn't have a proper safety, known only to himself or ignored, then how can a guy like that be trusted to be consciencious about safety in general? He's already crossed the line, to my way of thinking about it.

To me, a guy's first demonstration of where his brain is about safety by making sure that his safety works - no compromise. Talk is cheap - show me you are serious about safety by not compromising and rationalizing - before you accidentally shoot me.

BTW, in hunting camp I think the idea of leaving the bolt open or the action open is a very good thing.

KB

quote:

So, are you saying that it's ok to have a hunting rifle that doesn't have a mechanical safety, or a broken safety,

Well, I have a friend with a mauser he lost the beuler safety off from. He didnt replace it, he just doesnt chamber a round until he's ready to shoot, that makes him safer then a safety in my book. Funny thing is, he never has trouble filling his tag hunting that way either.

If a person's brain is working properly, and he's conscientious, and cautious, etc. the person is generally safer than the mechanical safety. The person is the first line of safety. That's a no-brainer.

"Never has trouble filling his tag hunting that way either" has nothing to do with the discussion about safety - it's a red herring.

Not reparing his safety is lazy, or just sloppy. It doesn't mean he's unsafe, since you say he uses other methods, it's just a clue about attitude.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:

quote:

So, are you saying that it's ok to have a hunting rifle that doesn't have a mechanical safety, or a broken safety,

Well, I have a friend with a mauser he lost the beuler safety off from. He didnt replace it, he just doesnt chamber a round until he's ready to shoot, that makes him safer then a safety in my book. Funny thing is, he never has trouble filling his tag hunting that way either.

Yeah maybe so but I think Kabluewy's point was that if you know a safety is malfunctioning and refuse to fix it then how safety conscious can you really be?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Well, I have a friend with a mauser he lost the beuler safety off from.

Well, I have a friend with a Rem 700, and every time I mention anything about 700s he is happy to remind me that the person is the best safety.

IMO, a Mauser with no safety lever at all is safer than a Rem 700 with a factory safety. At least the owner of the Mauser knows the status, and the Rem 700 owners are all in denial.

So, since my friend has shown me he's safe, despite his poor judgment to own a Rem 700, I forgive him, and enjoy hunting with him.

I still secretely wonder about him, but he's not going to change his mind, and it's up to me to hunt with him or not. I choose to not spoil the friendship. That's the delema of relying on one's brain to be the safety, and disregarding the safety mechanism itself as though it's not relevant, we make compromises for the sake of keeping the peace, and hope nothing bad happens in a moment of mental lapse -- or in the case of the Rem 700, hope the muzzel is pointed in the right direction when the accidental discharge waiting to happen, actually happens.

Another way of looking at it is that if one can't rely on brains to be the safety, regarding the 700, then basically there's nothing left to rely upon. It's the paradox of the 700.

So there - I went ahead and opened that can-o-worms. How can a discusion about the "safety of safeties" be done without the pitiful Rem 700 being right smack in the midst of the fray?

KB

You need to be very careful with that attitude toward safeties. You are just one broken firing pin away from an accident.

Waht attitude ??

I don't understand the broken firing pin thing - please explain?

KB

kabluewy,
I have a number of little martini cadet sporters I love to hunt and shoot with. they have no safety at all, in your thinking, carry them with a cartridge in the chamber and the lever down, or nothing in the chamber isnt safe?? I guess I'd better cut them all up then so no-one can get hurt!!!

The Blaser R 93 does not have a "Safety".

It is either cocked or uncocked.

When hunting with a round in the chamber the rifle is carried uncocked.

When the shot is about to be fired the rifle is cocked.

If the shot is not taken or the firing is done, then the rifle is uncocked.

You can load and unload the chamber with out cocking the rifle.

So you do not depend on a mechanical safety to keep the loaded rifle from firing, so there is no mechanical safety to fail.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
kabluewy,
I have a number of little martini cadet sporters I love to hunt and shoot with. they have no safety at all, in your thinking, carry them with a cartridge in the chamber and the lever down, or nothing in the chamber isnt safe?? I guess I'd better cut them all up then so no-one can get hurt!!!

Well, since your rifles have no safety, then discussing the "safety fo safeties", in your case is not relevant.

If we were discussing safety practices, then obviously a rifle with an empty chamber is pretty safe, assuming it's really empty. Put a cartridge in the chamber, the scenerio changes a little, close the action, and it changes again, point it at something - the sky, the ground, sideways, straight forward, it all changes the equasion. Forget to unload it - changed again. And so forth. There's always something to rationalize and exceptions, such as the Mauser with no safety and empty chamber.

KB

Would someone please explain the broken firing pin comment?

Also, what's so difficult for some to acknowledge the importance of a safety that works?

If it's not important, then why bother with a mechanical safety at all? Is it there just for manufacture's liability coverage?

Perhaps we should all get on the same page, and advocate an empty chamber until it's time to make the shot, or perhaps an open bolt or action, just to be safe? I'm in favor of that, if that's what it takes to be safe.

Does anyone safely carry a loaded rifle in the field? When should it be unloaded? 100 yds - 200 yds from camp, or is it ok to unload upon arrival in camp, assuming you're walking, or before getting in the truck otherwise?

I really want to understand this safety thing. What's wrong with expecting a safety to actually prevent the rifle from firing, when used properly, on my rifle and on your rifle?

I should probably say that I'm not referring to the Blaser in my questions, because as explained, that rifle works different than the rest.

KB

Kabluewy,
I admit you rubbed me the wrong way, it seemed you were saying you cant be safe in the field unless you have a safety. On that I totally disagree. I mentioned a couple things above, In the past I also had reason to be armed squad strength with Swedish K's. They are an open bolt firing auto with the safety being the bolt pulled back up into a notch. Not one of us used that notch, it would have been un-safe to have to get it off in the hurry we were in. Was I afreaid for my safety from 5 men without a safety on, no, I knew and trusted every one with my life on many standpoints. I have friends in Austrailia I hunt with. Most dont use safeties, they lower the bolt on a loaded round, so the fireing pin rests on a primer. It's not my way for sure, but I was never worried because no rifle, loaded or unloaded was ever remotely pointed in my direction.
A safety is a great thing, but only as one more stop gap. No-one would ever be accidently shot if a loaded gun wasnt pointed where it shouldnt be. As to the Rem that a kid shot his lawyer dad with or whatever the story is.... if it couldnt be duplicated, how do we know the finger wasnt on the trigger when the safety was pushed off?? I like the old Rem 700 that lock the bolt down best, the new ones are bumped open to easy with no boltlock.
To me it still comes down to Never trust a safety, Treat all guns like they are loaded. It just doesnt get any more simple then that.

I never advocate that a mechanical safety can or should take the place of proper gun handling. I never advocate trusting a mechanical safety completely. Also, I don't say that a fellow without a working mechanical safety on his rifle can't be safe. Furthermore, I agree with those who say that the best safety is the person who uses proper precautions.

Whenever I have made my statments and taken a stand on my view about a mechanical safety, I always rub someone wrong, and always bring the same type and arguments out of the bushes. There's this exception, and that exception, back when exception, muzzel pointed here and there, some perfectly good firearms don't have a safety exception, and so forth.

Once we get past all that, we still have guys who have rationalized an accidental discharge waiting to happen, and they have pre-qualified it being ok, simply because they have a brain, and because they fancy themselves as using proper gun handling. There are tons of unsafe rifles out there, and some arsh whold likes each and every one of them.

Loan one of them to your brother-in-law's 18 year old cousin, and take him deer or hog hunting, and feel comfortable because he certainly has a brain.

There are obvious issues there, starting with whether one really wants to be in that situation, but suppose he's someone elses guest, and you are left with the choice of putting up with the situation, watch your back, or go home.

My point is that the mechanical safety is just one more tool (and potentially a darn good one) to add into the tool box of safety, somewhere down the line after proper gun handling, leaving the bolt open, etc. It's not a substitute for all the other precautionary measures, and certainly not an excuse for disregard of the other primary safety measures.

I've watched guys, young and old, who fumble around with their mechanical safety on their rifle, like it's complicated or something. Now that makes me nervious. It looks to me like clutz, and if the safety is complicated to them then what about the rest of the rifle? surely if they can't handle the mechanical safety, they can't be aware enough to always have the muzzel under control either. I'm not even sure that guys like than can benefit from more practice. Yet, they have the all-important qualifying brain.

I simply do not understand those who claim gun safety is important, but they stop with the brain, or point the muzzel only at something to shoot, leave the bolt open, and seem to completely dismiss or see no importance of a working mechanical safety. I really think you guys like that are hypocrite. Sorry if that offends you.

I'm a steadfast advocate of a three-position safety, that really works. IMO, the best safety ever is the '98 Mauser military flag safety.

And, I do understand that some firearms require special precautions, and the conscientious owner like those mention in previous posts can safely use the rifle. Even a full auto machine gun with a hair trigger can be safely carried around by a person who really knows what to do to keep it safe. But that's my point - aside from whether or not it's possible to make a firearm safe regardless of the mechanical safety, I'm generally interested in whether the safety works or not, whether the rifle has one or not, etc.

If the answer is negative, then that leads to a series of other questions, most of the time un-answerable. Questions like - does this guy really know what he's doing - watch him? What other compromises in firearm safety is he willing to allow? Again unknown. To me, spouting excuses for not having a good mechanical safety is only a clue that there may be more to the story with the spouter, and the extent of it is and probably shall remain a mystery.

KB

I would have never let those Remington suits go forward simply because someone had the rifles pointed at somebody when they went off.

Obviously, there is another point of view on that - the jury, judges, attorneys, the dead guy, etc.

After all, there were at least two violations of gun safety there - one being where the muzzel was pointed, and two, failure of the mechanical safety, or trigger, or both. It took one failure, the latter, to make the accidental discharge happen. It took both to cause the death.

KB

quote:

I simply do not understand those who claim gun safety is important, but they stop with the brain, or point the muzzel only at something to shoot, leave the bolt open, and seem to completely dismiss or see no importance of a working mechanical safety. I really think you guys like that are hypocrite. Sorry if that offends you.

And I simply dont understand someone who puts their faith in something like a safety, that a person may or may not have engaged, bumped off or any other thing that can and does happen to them. My brothers cousin does not get my Rem 700 or any other of my guns, I do not, will not hunt with anyone who doesnt have 110% respect for the way they handle their firearm, that is an absolute no matter who I'm with or where I'm at. The end of the post for me is, you and others who rely on safeties as all important, enjoy your hunting, I'll be hunting by myself somewhere else! Just as you dont see my veiw, I dont understand yours.

I agree that the Blaser R93's "cocked or uncocked" mechanism is superior to the standard "cocked but on safe" mechanism, no matter what kind of safety is used in the latter type of mechanism.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
I agree that the Blaser R93's "cocked or uncocked" mechanism is superior to the standard "cocked but on safe" mechanism, no matter what kind of safety is used in the latter type of mechanism.

In theory your right. But in the real world, it is to heavy and dificult to operate, This causes many reports of unintentional kabooms trying to cock it. On many driven hunts in europe, it is comonly seen that hunters after missing a couple of chances, fumbeling with the cocking device, decides to cock the rifle when showed ther post. Leaving them with a rifle fully ready to fire. Unfortunately a lot of them forgets to change this situation, when picked up, for the next drive.

There is always pros an cons to all designs. Imho the less poor is " a line of simple and easy operated features, that should all be in the go position before a shot can go of"

Btw everybody is talking about only pointing in a safe direction, what is that, or is it only acording to "out of sight, out of mind"

My opinion is that no direction is 100% safe, but a calculated risk. This risk is reduced by a safe and well functioning safety, and a reliable mechanisem, combined with a responcible person, fully understanding what he is dooing.

Get your friendly gunsmith to put a Model 70 safety on it ,like everything else these days

If your not in the 95% that hunt with a round chambered & safety "on", then theres something wrong with you,.. well so im told.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
you and others who rely on safeties as all important, enjoy your hunting, I'll be hunting by myself somewhere else! Just as you dont see my veiw, I dont understand yours.

Who said that a mechanical safety is ALL important? You did, in trying to justify your argument.

The justification of the mentality (brain ) that condones the pitiful R700 is the primary reason I have developed an attitude about mechanical safeties. It's not as much about the safety as it is about the roundabout excuses people come up with to justify a poor design.

In a bass-ackward way, harping about the personal aspects of gun safety, rather than including the mechanical aspect, is about all R700 owners have to fall back on, so I can understand the fixation, and lack of understanding of another POV.

It's the typical situation with gun safety - we can't really get down to meaningful debate, and discussion, and say how we really see it, without someone getting their feelings hurt and all offended, especially a breakthrough the forbidden thought that their beloved R700 is a booby trap - kaboom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap

KB

I'm only countering your petulant child attitude a bit
Nowhere have I made this about Rem 700's, that is only in YOUR mind. I have 6, 3 old and 3 of the newer type, only a small % of the guns I own/use so is not much of an issue with me. If you would get off your Rem 700 soapbox a minuete gunsafety could be discussed like I tried to do. You took exception with a man who lost a saftey, and thought, shit if it can fall out it's not safe, I'll carry the chamber empty. Thats as safe as you can get and still have a gun in the woods, yet you had to call him names too. Are you seeing the attitude you bring to the table? How do you have a discussion when you act like that?
Kabluey, I've been in combat, I know, I expect far better then you, what a gunshot does to a human body, and would not want it to happen accidently to anyone.
A good safety( whatever that is) can be an added hedge to a mistake happening. But as Belk said in one of his posts, you are relying on bits of metal to maintain and do their job. You cant, is what I'm saying. I carry my rifle without a round in the chamber when walking fencelines, or cruising timber. I dont need a quick shot, doesnt matter. I chamber a round while still hunting or sitting, unload to cross streams, logs or where I need two hands to climb a mountainside. Nothing knocks a safety off as well as a slung rifle with a heavycoat on,tang safety rifles being an exception.
An accidental disharge into the ground is going to do little more then kill some grass, held across the body in a safe direction a discharge is similar to a shot at game, slung and a shot upwards is like a shot at a treed bear or mountainlion. An accidental discharge with a gun carried in the safest direction carries about the same risks as shooting at game. There is always a risk when a gun is discharged, period! A safety, no matter how well designed cannot be trusted. Folks like to switch them on and off when bored or distracted, they get bumped or brushed off, they fallout or break at the worst possible time or they dont have a safety at all. What of revolvers? They are considered safer then semi-autos even though the semi's ( most anyway) have a safety and a revolver doesnot. You cant keep saying I'm comming up with exceptions to the rule, because there are no rules to this. Proper gun safety trumps everything else. An empty chamber or a safety are just additions to the first rule and cannot replace it. Are you willing to tell someone you will not hunt with them, or they cant come with you if they show improper gun handling, drinking,a rem you dont like? I have and will, and nothing changes unless you do too.
Step down Kabluewy, unpucker your arse, and make an unemotional reply and I'll be glad to read it.

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge, it is due to either faulty equipment or human error.

A long time ago I went to one of those tactical pistol courses. In the classroom/prologue the head honcho talked about pistols being made (I don't recall the exact "standard") "military drop safe" or maybe not military just "drop safe"."But the jist of it was that a pistol when chambered, cocked and locked (is it ? condition 3?????) must not fire when dropped. (Isn't that in older times why the 6 shooter was really a 5 shooter [empty chamber under hammer] and modern single action pistols have a bar between the hammer and pin to prevent this from happening)

And if this standard is met, then there really is no such thing as an accidental discharge, it is a careless discharge- either due to impropper gun modifications or handling error.

If indeed this is a standard (which I don't know if it is or just an ideal) for pistols, no excuse to allow a poor design for rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Proper gun safety trumps everything else. An empty chamber or a safety are just additions to the first rule and cannot replace it. Are you willing to tell someone you will not hunt with them, or they cant come with you if they show improper gun handling, drinking, a rem you dont like? I have and will, and nothing changes unless you do too.

unpucker your arse

Agreed.

ok it's unpuckered.

It's not about you, and not about me either.

I would be far more willing to tell someone, as you suggested, for the reasons mentioned, except the Rem reason. That's a grey area.

KB

quote:

Agreed.

I'm on the record several times so I might as well throw in an alternative.

I hunt and carry all bolt action rifles with a round in the chamber but with the bolt handle raised until the cocking piece is on the back of the bolt, but the extractor cam has not yet operated. The bolt can't fall out and its silent closing the bolt for a shot. I've never lost a round due to bolt opening or a shot due to slow response, but I've done it for 50 years and I'm used to it.
I break open shotguns when within range of other shooters and like them to do the same.

If anyone doubts there is SAFE in guns please consider the DA revolvers. After a hundred years of use by thousands of cops, there's never been a case of an uncontrolled firing but ONE. A highway cop disarmed a wanted man and threw the M-10 into the weeds. The trigger snagged on something and shot but no injuries. That was in 1932.

quote:

into the weeds. The trigger snagged on something and shot but no injuries. That was in 1932.

Try to replicate that one!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
I'm on the record several times so I might as well throw in an alternative.

I hunt and carry all bolt action rifles with a round in the chamber but with the bolt handle raised until the cocking piece is on the back of the bolt, but the extractor cam has not yet operated. The bolt can't fall out and its silent closing the bolt for a shot. I've never lost a round due to bolt opening or a shot due to slow response, but I've done it for 50 years and I'm used to it.
I break open shotguns when within range of other shooters and like them to do the same.

If anyone doubts there is SAFE in guns please consider the DA revolvers. After a hundred years of use by thousands of cops, there's never been a case of an uncontrolled firing but ONE. A highway cop disarmed a wanted man and threw the M-10 into the weeds. The trigger snagged on something and shot but no injuries. That was in 1932.

There have been plenty. I knew a State Trooper that shot the transmission of a partol car with a Model 28.
The S&W trigger can also be used in single action mode. When so used it is just like a rifle trigger with no safety.
If it is used in that mode and injures someone whose fault is it?

You're wrong. It won't fire in SA mode unless the trigger is HELD back. If a S&W fires it's because the trigger was PULLED. Try it. Cock and bump the trigger with a screwdriver handle and the hammer will fall but he rebound slide beats the hammer down and block the hammer from going full forward. Note that it's STILL safe if you take the safety bar completely out of it, but I don't recommend it.

Whose fault? It's the classic case of it was either shot in an act of evil, sport or defense. The gun followed directions it didn't start free-lancing and bringing other questions into the investigation. That's the point of this whole thing...EDUCATION of the shooting public through gunsmiths.

quote:

I hunt and carry all bolt action rifles with a round in the chamber but with the bolt handle raised until the cocking piece is on the back of the bolt, but the extractor cam has not yet operated.

This procedure has a definite following among hunters in New Zealand, though I couldn’t even offer the wildest of guesses as to the actual number, or what percentage of the total.

Some persons on internet forums here insist on calling this bolt position ‘half-cock’. Others point out – quite correctly – that it is NOT a half-cock position in any sense of the term. ‘Half-bolt’ seems to be about the most generally accepted description here, vague as it may be. Every so-often, controversies over the safety of it break out in NZ hunting periodicals, and on N Z based hunting and shooting web sites. Some get quite heated.

Proponents of the half-bolt position claim that it is perfectly safe and that a rifle with the bolt in this position simply cannot fire.

Opponents of it claim – correctly – that if most reasonably modern bolt action rifles are put in this half-bolt position and then the trigger is pulled, the bolt will spin closed and the firing pin will fall. Some of these people reckon they HAVE seen rifles fire in this way, though it has not always been repeatable.

Mr Belk – if you have been using this procedure for the last half century or so, would I be right in assuming that you would have done some testing of it? What models of bolt rifles (just broadly speaking) have you tested it with, and what have your results been?

I've never used it or tested it on a 60deg. bolt lift gun because I've never owned one, but on two lug rifles it is a positively safe position.

It works better with rifles with shroud locks, but I've never had a problem with using it on a Remington. In fact, it's a natural for the M700.

I haven't 'tested' it on all rifles and can't comment on it's effectiveness on all rifles, but on all rifles I own, Mausers, Remingtons, CZ, Rhimakkii, M-70, 03, it is the SAFE position to carry a round in the chamber. I like it because others can tell the gun is safe from a long ways off and there is solid steel blocking the firing pin positively .

The worst example of a shooter devised 'safe' was the guy that carried a surplus M-98 Mauser with the cocking piece/firing pin down on the live round in the chamber. To fire it, he opened and re-closed the bolt. He said his dad had a Springfield and it was much easier for him because all he had to do was pull the cocking piece back. It took nearly an hour and TWO demonstrations with primed cases to show him how incredibly dangerous his rifle was in that condition.
Some people don't think things through.

This seems a good thread to warn of a few industry screw-ups that are not well known but to the people hurt by them--

The Remington Nylon 66 has an over-ride trigger (!!) and the 'safety' only lifts the trigger linkage away from the sear. NOTHING is BLOCKED.

The TC Contender pistol will take off it's own safety if it falls on the tip of the butt. IF the gun then rotates and also strikes the hammer it WILL fire...usually into the head or chest of the shoulder-holster wearer that it dropped from.

The Casul revolver has a release position of the passive safety about .040 before the hammer reaches 'half cock' and is retained. You'd be amazed at how many times the hammer is drawn back by a limb, clothing, truck seat, to that tiny point of failure and then releases to fire the gun while its in the holster.

Beware a Mossberg 500 that has had the plastic locator ears on the trigger housing sheared off. (Easy to do) The safety linkage depends on trigger housing placement and the gun will fire on safe if it's wrong.

All Remington 'common fire control' guns (all pumps and autos with the two pins in the side of the receiver) have a 'floating sear' that is not controlled by the safety. They can fire ON or OFF safe without the trigger being pulled.

Early Weatherby Vanguards had a round bolt sleeve that allows the bolt to be closed on a live round with the cocking piece rotated 90 deg. The cocking piece hangs on the safety lever and turns it into an unlocked, cock on closing rifle.

There are others but I think the readers here get the point. Some guns have been cheapened to the point of being hazardous and nobody has been watching and reporting the deletions of the old JM Browning 'design for worst case' safeties. Worst cases always seem to happen sooner or later.

Looks like we should all hire out as expert witnesses.