Guys, wondering some things about tang safeties here. I have one on my Ruger No. 3 and it has always seemed more convenient than other types of safeties. I was wondering why did Ruger do away with them on the model 77's? Are there any conversions to tange safety for bolt action rifles?

how do they work and are they safe?


Thanks all

Red

The problem with most tang safeties on bolt actions is that:

1. They only block the trigger.
2. They are usually connected with a paper clip, as with the Ruger.

Voere (Austria) uses a tang safety that is a one-piece aluminum housing that also contains the Timney style trigger. It will fit on any 98 mauser.

Recknagel in Germany makes a tang safety for the 98 that does not block the trigger. It has a slide that locks the sear. It can even be used with Double Set Triggers. NECG might be able to get them easily.

Some where I have a post-war commercial Mauser one that attaches to the tang screw and links to the Timney style trigger via a bar. I'll post a pic if I can find it.

Red -

What I had heard was the change from a two position tang safety was lawyer driven, much like the triggers. The switch to the three position was to allow for "safer" unloading. I'm with you, I much prefer the tang safety to any other and pick up the old 77s when I get the chance.

Have not heard of a kit to do it. Most rifles, I believe, do not have a long enough tang to allow for the installation. Would love to have one on a Mauser, unfortunately the only one that I have seen was a custom $30k gun. The only one I know of still making a tang saftey is Steyr.

If you find something, I'd be very interested.

Red:

I think it is generally acknowledged that it is better (read safer) to block the firing mechanism than the trigger.

I too like the tang safeties over other types. I believe that the Browning A bolt and Savage 110 still have tang safeties. Somewhere in one of my old gunsmithing books is an article about fitting a tang safety to a bolt action. It looked like a fair bit of handwork to fit it, and if memory serves, it is a trigger blocking safety only. I could be wrong tho', my memory isn't what it used to be. - Dan

Red,

I have a old tang saftey ruger bolt action, I like the tang saftey. I will say that I feel the three position from a safety stand point and bolt opening and closing etc is better. Although I don't like them, I think Savage has a three position tang safety.

So the tang safety is not as safe. What about doing something like the Enfield safety that is considered from what I hear to be about the safest type of safety you can get. That too seems more comfortable to me than the others, could something like that be fitted up on other rifles?

This is all just curiosity. I am used to my other safeties (or will be after this last incident during my pig hunt :-) Just having the random wonders going through my head right now.

Red

Lawyers can be such a PITA sometimes. I suppose eventually Ruger will put three position safeties on their over & unders? I can just see one on each barrel of the side by side!

SmallCal, Tiggertate

<<"What I had heard was the change from a two position tang safety was lawyer driven, much like the triggers.'>>

<<"Lawyers can be such a PITA sometimes. I suppose eventually Ruger will put three position safeties on their over & unders? I can just see one on each barrel of the side by side! ">>

If you are referring to the Ruger tang safety employed on the M/77, The change was Bill Ruger driven because of a safety recall on the tang safety linkage that possibly stretched over the course of time allowing the rifle to fire with the safety in the on safe position. To my knowledge this safety issue was not heavily litigated but instead Bill made the change voluntarily early on after discovering the problem because it was the right thing to do to protect his reputation and of course the safety of his following of customers who employ his rifles...

For the average individual and generally speaking, the new concept safety employed on the Ruger M/77 MII would be considered a safer design, anytime the internal components of the system are blocked which will allow the handler of the arm to unload with the safety on to protect against potential malfunctions would be considered a superior design with regard to safety IMHO, not to mention the inability to inadvertently move the safety to the fire position unknowingly in the field with a tang safety.

Augustis ><>

I think the safest safety is the Mosin-Nagant one. No way it's going to be fired with that safety set! But it's hardly the most convenient to use.

RocknAR -

Thank you for the clarification, glad to hear that Mr. Ruger was proactive. Like I stated, it was just what I had heard. Wish they would have just gone to a better metal in the linkage, if possible, to counteract the problem as I really prefer the tang safety.

Long story made short.
The Canjar trigger on my Mk-X Mauser has a tang safety, Mr Canjar made a extension piece to fit onto the rear of the normal Mauser tang, and used a link to connect it to the side safety bar. Shouldn't be to difficult to replacate on a "trigger safety" rifle.
If you want photos, pop me a e-mail and I'll tear it down and take some for you.

The model 70 type safty is the one thats in demand by the majority of the public, look at your custom rifles, mostly all M-70 type...Good move by Ruger...

The tang safties btw were coming off safty in gun racks that are behind the seat in Pickups etc...caused some major problems...

I like tang safties on a shotgun, sinle shot, and a double rifle but have no use for them on a bolt action hunting rifle....

I have two Ruger 77's w/ tang safeties and wish I had a couple more!
The Win M70 is in big demand and I also have a couple of them. To me they are a little more awkward.

As with any firearm the best safety is the owner! If it wasn't for jerk-offs sueing the mfg. we would have hotter factory ammo and better triggers out of the box. The only time I've had a safety accidently off was with a Rem 700 and it was simply a bump that flicked it forward.

I can't help you with any conversion info but I guess I feel the same about it as you.

I think that Ruger changed to the 3-position for two reasons: It was made popular by the Win. M70, and people like it; and, a lot of people like the idea of "cycling" their ammo through the action with the safety in the intermediate position when unloading (although you can do this even more safely with a bolt rifle by shoving the cartridge forward, but you don't close the bolt!!), and when checking handloaded ammo for chambering ease before a hunt. This latter ability is very handy! It is comforting to know that your ammo is going to chamber when you go hunting.



Personally, I like tang safeties also. I have seen both Mauser 98's and Mannlicher-Schoenauers that had a tang safety added by a gunsmith, and the original 3-position safety was still functional, although some were impeded by low-mounted scopes. These tang safeties were O.K., but only locked the TRIGGER/SEAR, and did not act upon the striker. So they would be considered "less-safe" than one that locked the striker back, like most bolt-shroud mounted safeties do.



As long as one recognizes that even the best mechanical devices aren't foolproof and acts accordingly, tang safeties are acceptable. I guess the best would be the M70 Win. type three-position safety that works fore-and-aft, with an auxiliary tanfg safety added on to the rig.

The Ruger tang was the best design I have ever used. I have 4 of the 77 mark ones and a #3--- it is my first choice for any big game hunt. I quit buying Ruger rifles when they changed to the BS 3 position safety. I really dislike this design.
The move may have been because of lawyers or popularity? I have always thought the 77 mark one was a much better product than the 77 mark 2.
As far as safety goes--- proper gun handling and use of your mind is always the best and only safety. No mechanical device is superior.

Tailgunner -

KurtC -

I would like to see pictures of both your tang safety
arrangements. You can post here or e-mail me at,
bgw@citynet.net Thank you both for the offer and time.

James

Point made Blue , BUT if the faulty operator had been handling his rifle properly there would not have been a need for a lawyer. The little peices of machined metal that combined become a firearm can in no way be safer than the person operating it.

I sense the thread slipping off tangent, but that's ok, I'll say this before pushing it back on course. There are times when a manufacturer is responsible for injury to a customer, this does not mean that lawyer's are not one of the greatest evils in the universe (in general, there are exceptions of course).

Would the tang safety that blocks the sear be as safe as ones acting on the striker?

Anybody able to explain the working of the Enfield safety as I hear it is really good but cannot remember how it was described in function.

Red

I think the Enfield safety blocks the striker and locks the bolt, but again, that's just from memory. - Dan

One thing I didnt comment on earlier in the thread that I meant to comment on was. I really don't have a problem with any of the safeties but dislike the Remington the most. As far as hanging on something etc, I feel the tang safety may be safer than say a Rem 700 or simular, the tang safety is low and flat and less likely to hang on something and get knocked in fire position. I'm not picking on a side safety, I think the low flat safety on interarms is safe because its low and flat.

I've seen to many guns come out from behind the seat of a truck, huntin buggy or gun case with a bullet in the barrel, some are going to do it no matter what. Scares hell out of me.

I finally got around to getting some pics of a tang safety. It attaches by slipping over the underside rim of the rear tang screw hole. It is connected via a bar to a specially made Timney trigger. The assembly is on a Brno commercial 98 (recent EAA import).


They are handy for use in a quiet situation, but I believe you should still have a bolt safety for use while moving.

European American Armory. Until a few years ago, Brno still made commercial 98's for the European market. They were gloss blue with full or half length stocks. I had a full stock 9.3x62. During the same period, EAA contracted Brno to make some for the US market with a matte finish, no sights and a synthetic stock. They sold for around $300, while they lasted.

Since I didn't even remember where I had these, I will probably never get around to using them. I posted the action here and the safety here , should anyone need them for a project.

There is a difference in firing pin blocking safeties. The Mauser and Winchester cam the firing pin back off of the sear when the safety is applied.

Dave