Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:04 pm
by Liberty
frankie_the_yankee wrote:Flint,
IMO, given that the hammer is always down, I regard an LDA as fully safe to carry with the safety off. In my view, the main benefit of the manual safety on an LDA is that it would make the gun slightly more confusing to sort out in the event that someone snatched it. This would give the snatch victim a few precious seconds to run away, draw a BUG, etc.
Para may state otherwise in their owners manuals, but that is just lawyer-speak (again, IMO).
I suppose the hammer would be down if there were one. The Para LDA isn't really a double action handgun and it has a fairly light trigger, I wouldn't want to carry it without a manual safety.
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:16 pm
by GrannyGlock
Most important safety is the trigger finger. My glock is always cocked when I carry, which is all the time.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:07 pm
by flintknapper
frankie_the_yankee wrote:Flint,
IMO, given that the hammer is always down, I regard an LDA as fully safe to carry with the safety off. In my view, the main benefit of the manual safety on an LDA is that it would make the gun slightly more confusing to sort out in the event that someone snatched it. This would give the snatch victim a few precious seconds to run away, draw a BUG, etc.
Para may state otherwise in their owners manuals, but that is just lawyer-speak (again, IMO).
The thumb safety goes beyond that on an LDA. It renders the trigger completely inoperable. So, the real "confusion" (and reason to have it on) comes when someone pulls the trigger and finds it has the full range of movement but doesn't move the hammer back or release the sear.
You get the "tactile" feeling that you're doing everything right (vs. feeling the trigger blocked) but the gun wont fire . It just takes a fraction of a second to disengage the thumb safety, so utilizing it only makes sense.