16ga.com ~ View topic - O\U tang safety and barrel selector switch

Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 145 Location: minnesota

thats pretty good mfg......now lets all wait for the response Rolling Eyes

Guest

87016ga, it was probably just an immature and ill-tempered waste of time on my part. Some cats can't change their stripes, and thinking they ever will is a none-too-bright waste of brain cells that would be better put to use on more pleasurable pursuits.

But, for goodness sakes, you'd think the rest of us never set foot in the field, made a good shot or practiced safe hunting.

To hell it with it. I know a younger woman with striking curves who likes wild game, and I've still got birds in the freezer. Tonight after work, I'm going shopping for the fixings for a pheasant dinner for two. JMO, but that's a far better off-season use of time and engery. Wink

If I wasn't boycotting self-appointed experts, I'd ask 16gg if he has any safety tips or instructions on proper mechannics for that little endeavor. As it stands, I'll just have to trust my marginal planning skills and try not release the safety until just the right moment. Razz

Well, here we go again with the "you said this and implied that and I'm gonna take it personal because you are high on your own opinion and I've been doing it thus and so for years and now I'm upset because you seem to be contradicting me so I'm gonna take my marbles and go home." Hey!!!Give me a break. Its a public forum. We write for everyone and no one directly. that is what PM's are for. I'm not writing with you in mind MGF. I don't know you from Adam. Having a hissy isn't likely to change that either.

The line about Mr. Muggs points to the fact that safeties are designed by humans for humans and they work pretty well by and large. Again I did not have you personally in mind. I don't know about your hands and frankly, I don't care as long as you know what you are doing with the gun in them.

If you are having a problem with Beretta type safeties, why do you insist on owning and hunting with one? Aren't there other types available. What about all the other folks with Beretta safeties that don't seem to have that big a problem? What about Remington type button safeties behind the trigger? You have to use your finger instead of your thumb. I know a whole bunch of folks that hunt with them. They don't seem have a big problem adapting. What if the button is in front of the trigger? There are guns with that type. the folks who own them don't seem to have a big problem either. how about the safety right in the trigger? Only lawyers and whiners blame the design.

We are discussing points of view and ideas on this open public forum. My whole line of thought is that there is usually more than one right way to get something done. Some ways are better than others sometimes. Some work better than others for some folks and not so good for others. However, no one should be a slave to anything mechanical, safety systems included or any one method either. Learn to use it or get another gun. Seems simple enough to me. I'm no brain surgeon either. But gun safeties don't throw me. they don't throw most of my friends either. We just adapt. Simple. most of the folks i know think pretty good qwhen they do think. Its the times they don't that gets them in trouble.

One of the points raised in this discussion has been that certain safety systems and trigger groups or types are inherently more safe or sure than others. From a purely practical standpoint, I disagee. If this were true, then we'd all be required to still be shooting two triggered guns with simple push pull safeties. My point is that there is no such thing as an inherently safer safety. It always comes down to the shooter in any given situation. Its up to the shooter to learn how to use the tool he has purchased. If he can't, blaming the gun still does not fix his problem.

Another point that has been raised is that it is best to do a certain thing every time, like take the safety off on the flush. Again, I disagree. Under certain conditions, taking the safety of prior to the flush is just as safe. The key words here are under certain conditions. Bringing in Hypothetical scenarios has little to nothing to do with the real world. the here and now dictate the correct response or action.

Shooting a gun under combat conditions has nothing to do with hunting. If I can't plant my feet firmly on solid ground before preparing to shoot, then perhaps I should not be shooting in the first place. Not shooting is a choice and often the right one. If I'm in motion with a loaded gun in my hands, then the safety is always on. That is simple common sense. Further, i'd better know where my barrel is and what to do if i do fall. Having the safety on in this case is simply not enough. Its always up to the shooter to control his muzzle. That to is common sense. Its happened too. I've landed hard on my ass a few times, but the gun was still gripped in both hands and pointed straight up and away from my friends and I. The sore tail bone was worth it too. If I'm crossing ice or very broken ground, or even deep snow over ground I'm not certain about, my gun is empty. Thats even safer. If a bird goes up then, well too bad. Better luck next time. Simple enough.

Once my feet are planted, and the way is clear, taking the safety off hurts nothing. I can always put it back on if things change... as they often do. If I was prone to suddenly falling down unexpectedly even with firmly planted feet on solid ground, then I'd better find another pastime that does not involve loaded guns. In such a case, who'se to say I would not lose my balance while I'm taking the safety off, flush or no flush. Common sense would demand it.

As for Hunter Safetie Courses, I'm all for them. The best ones I've been involved with stressed using common sense and the brains in your head. Advocating using one's brains is hardly a bad thing. The worst were the ones where the instructor droned on from the book, spooning up stuff he probably understood, but never asked the class to think about. I can remember one in particular in Florida where the instructor started advocating a certain make rifle for hunting because it had a Mauser type feeding system and was safer and jam proof in his opinion. The problem with that was there were probably a bunch of guys with push feed bolt guns and lever actions in the class. He seemed to bypass them entirely. He was just too locked onto his own idea of what was right. He was too egocentric and one dimensional. Perhaps he should have told them that regardless of what type of rifle they hunted with, operating it safely was their responsibility. He didn't. Now there was a pedant.

Guest

OK, I won't take my marbles and go home. Let's play! Here's my first tip for "everyone and no one directly."

When a person is an expert on everything and writes like he or she knows all and arrogantly disparages others' experiences, makes blanket statements about planning, coordination, whether someone belongs afield or not -- no one in particular, of course -- that person may strike a sour chord in others. Perhaps not everyone, but perhaps individuals. And of course, everyone in general is made up of individuals, but I suppose addressing things to everyone in general and no one in particular gives one a more secure stage and a certain license to behave in any manner one wishes.

I think everyone here is or rapidly can become familiar with posters' general themes and tones and can certainly discern who tends to be preachers of the only true way, throw hissy fits and generally behave like a blowhard.

Among those everyones and no ones are probably men and women who countless times in places of work, gun clubs, bars, church socials, schools, web boards, etc. had people just give up on speaking to them and walk away. Some probably realize sometime in their lives that there is a common thread and and modify their behavior. Others probably will, for life, maintain the steadfast belieft that "I am right and I am superior" and will take on all comers forever. They will call people out in public, by name, but tell them its inappropriate for them to do the same.

Yada, yada, yada. Everywere, it seems, the chief of the gun club coffee table, the bar room blowhards and web board kings are the same. There's one in every crowd. When it is time for him to point to his experience, his number of days in the field, number of guns owned, number of posts made, etc. it is to prove his vast knowledge, superiority and correctness ... and it is fully appropriate. Disagree, employ a similar tack or call them on a relatively obvious lack of manners, and you are throwing a hissy fit.

Not speaking of anyone in particular, of course. Just everyone, everywhere in general.

The ancient writer was correct: There is nothing new under the sun. On the other hand, perhaps all that is required for banality to prevail is for good men to type nothing.

Good shooting, everyone Very Happy

Or maybe he's reached that time in life where sharing his time won knowledge and experiences seems the appropriate thing to do. Maybe he's learned that taking a positive tack is the best way. Maybe He's writing about what he believes will help folks down the road. Maybe he's passing on knowledge to a younger group. Perhaps what he's writing will make someone think a bit before doing someting that could be done a little better, or for a bit less cost, or with better consequences. Maybe he's hoping more folks will begin to think more for themselves rather than take it all as gospel and at face value. I guess its all in how you look at folks and life MGF... that and what's in your heart.

PS: You are the one who bought the Beretta in the first place aren't you. Getting all P.O. ed on the forum isn't gonna make it any better. Laughing

Member Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 743

Guy, there are indeed safeties which are mechanically superior (thus, safer) than other safeties. Perhaps you've never owned a gun with both a standard safety and intercepting sears. Quite a few higher quality sxs have them. The typical safety only blocks the trigger. Intercepting sears block the hammers. In effect, the gun is equipped with two safety mechanisms rather than one. Your typical gun can fire even when on safe, from a hard jolt (like being dropped on the ground). That won't happen with a gun that has safety sears. Lots of British sidelocks (and copies thereof) have them; most boxlocks do not. People tend to think the Brits a bit snobbish in their belief that the sidelock is the superior gun, but a gun with intercepting sears certainly is safer and thus superior in that regard.

I don't see any inherent problem with Beretta-type safety/selectors vs Browning (or Ruger). It is indeed more difficult to switch barrels AND take the safety off in response to a flush--even an anticipated one--but on the other hand, the Beretta operates straight ahead rather than laterally, thus eliminating that potential problem. Same deal with using your finger to flick an SKB barrel selector, then your thumb to take off the safety. Hard to do as compared to the systems that combine the safety/selector--but it's a very reliable system. You pays your money, and you buys what you like. Or, you can go with a DT gun, simple forward and back safety. In addition to the option this gives you to select very quickly, it also gives you an option in case you have a misfire with the first barrel--from which it is fairly difficult to recover if you have a single, inertial trigger, because you need to go back to your barrel selector. Easier to simply move a finger to the other trigger--although there are people that have difficulties with more than one trigger too.

So yes, there are some safeties, selectors and triggers that are superior--in some respects at least. If you have a mechanical ST, that's superior to an inertial trigger in the sense that if you have a misfire, all you need to do is pull the trigger a second time. Just to give another example.

And I agree that taking the safety off before the flush CAN be just as safe--as long as you don't move once you've done it. You start moving again and sorry, no, it's not as safe. But I still haven't heard from you, Guy, or anyone else, why you would do that. I learned to shoot with a single shot .410 with a hammer. Pulling back a hammer, especially for a kid wearing gloves, is a lot more of a challenge--particularly once the bird's in the air--than is thumbing off a safety. But I learned that way, learned that you don't take the safety off (or pull the hammer back) until you're ready to shoot--and unless you're a fan of the old "Arkansas" trick, you don't shoot a bird until it's in the air anyhow. So I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why you'd want to do something which is POTENTIALLY less safe. What's the gain in taking off the safe before the flush, to offset the additional safety risk? Inability to get the safe off in the same move in which the gun is mounted? If a kid can learn to do that with a hammer single shot, surely a non-handicapped adult can do it with a gun that has a safety. Particularly bad advice for a kid learning to hunt. "Now you can take the safety off, Billy." Bird doesn't flush, Billy forgets to put it back on when he starts moving, you forget to tell him to put it back on. Why toss in a potential risk unnecessarily, for no gain?

Common sense is great, but newbies need to learn from more experienced shooters/hunters because when guns (or anything else) are unfamiliar objects, "common sense" does not apply. You check a gun to see it's unloaded, common sense tells you if it's unloaded, it can't possibly hurt anyone. So why not horseplay and point it at your buddy? Because you never do that with guns, no matter what "common sense" tells you. Just one of those rules--like some of the things you have drummed into your head in the military. They don't always seem like "common sense", but they'll almost always keep you and everyone else out of trouble. In which respect, military recruits are a whole lot like people in hunter ed courses. And in ours, we have a bunch of instructors around at almost all times, so if the guy giving the class happens to miss something, someone else will pick up on it. Plus we have good materials to teach from so that we don't overlook any particular style of action. In fact, when we're teaching that particular class, we have examples of guns with all common types of action lying out there to help us demonstrate. Much better training than I got at home in that respect, because all we had--until we chipped in and bought my dad a bolt action shotgun--was a couple single shots. Pump? Auto? How do they work? Probably why I gravitated to doubles, because I was familiar with break action guns, and I knew right away that one with two barrels just had to be the coolest thing going.

Lary, I will have to respond on Monday. I answered, hit the send button, and it all disappeared into cyberspace...again. I wonder where all those lost posts go. Rolling Eyes

Guest

16gg, which part about the difference between safeties and barrel selectors is confusing you?

To clear it up one more time and give you another chance to grab the lectern:

1. I do not like to fiddle with the barrel selector during the point or flush.
2. I generally leave the barrel selector set so that my bottom (more open) barrel is ready to go first and my top (tighter) barrel is ready to go second.
3. This is (a) not uncommon (b) a preference (c) has nothing to do with operating the safety or (d) a lack of manual dexterity.
4. I personally happen to leave a tang safety engaged until making the mount. There's nothing inherently unsafe in that, and it says nothing pro, con or neutral about assessing the shot piror to the flush. This particular practice, however, is commonly taught and is prefered by a great many fine hunters, guides and dog handlers. To be in the majority doesn't make a person right, but it doesn't make him wrong, either.
5. I got into this thread because somebody ask about the exact types of guns I've spent hundreds of days in the field and on the range with, and I shared an honest opinion based on that experience.
6. Can I operate my guns' barrel selectors without looking. Of course. And I do. Do I ever switch it over to top/tight first? Sure. If I know I'm shooting backup only or have reason to anticipate a long flush. But I generally set up for close first, far second, and don't spend a lot of time pondering it. Most first shots on upland birds over pointing dogs are relatively in close, so my default is for minimal choke. And I'm perfectly happy with my two Berettas and my B.Riz. But, yes, while not a huge deal, those little selector buttons can be a bit of a PIA when there's a negative wind chill and you're wearing even minimally warm gloves. And I don't care if you have the hands of a surgeon and have shot more birds than Rudy Etchen.
7. There is nothing inherent in any of this to suggest that I or anyone else with similar practices or preferences isn't doing it right, isn't safe, needs more practice with their guns' controls, has a coordination problem, or is about to pull a Cheney.
8. Waltz around with your safety off all you want. You're on the East Coast and I'm in the Midwest. Trip and it isn't going to be me or my dog catching a load of shot.
9. Positive tack? In the heart? Spare me, great Nobel laureate of the 'net. Personally, I will continue to give back by helping (shells, rides, loaner guns, clay birds) with my friends' and relatives' and clubs' efforts to get interested young people to the range and by getting some decent shells, clothes and gear into the hands of kids who might not otherwise literally have a shot ... and I will continue to try to do so without hurting those kids' or their parents' senses of pride and dignity.

Boys, that's all from me. I have wrestled with the pig and gotten all dirty, and I should have known better. I wish you all many safe and happy days afield with the people and dogs you love.

(And 16gg will be along shortly with exact instructions on how to get that done.)

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

If there was a cost effective way to make a Ruger Red Label a two trigger gun, I might still own mine-I never did get used to the selector/safety, and sold it. I muffed some easy otherwise shots on grouse when it got stuck in the middle.

Grouse seem to flush when I'm thinkng about a girl, (wife, these days!) or I have to pee, or when I've hit my head on a low branch. I think they plan it that way.

K.I.S.S. theory (keep it simple, stupid) demands two triggers in my world. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

Just a thought, Larry, while I appreciate the engineering and work that goes into an intercepting sear safety gun, the folks I choose to hunt with could all be trusted with a trap or pigeon gun, sans safety, in the field. The people I've met over the years who I don't feel inclined to hunt with wouldn't be improved with intercepting sears on their guns. Not to me, anyway. I was all impressed with intercepting sear guns for a lot of years 'till it dawned on me that the good guys could make due without them pretty easily. And that they wouldn't help the unsafe guys all that much.

Best,
Ted

Member Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 743

Ted, I agree with you that KISS is the way to go. I don't know about the Red Label--they're all too heavy, except the 28--but I'd sure like the Gold Label better if it had double triggers.

And I also agree that safety is mostly in the hands of the guy holding the gun, not the design of the gun. However, there's no question that a gun with intercepting sears is inherently safer. That guy with the safety-less pigeon gun stumbles and falls (or it happens even with a gun equipped with just a trigger block safety), and the results can be nasty. Here's one that happened at a shoot I attended a couple years ago: SxS, broken open but loaded, lying on an old cable spool. Someone bumped it, knocked it off, it hit the ground, closed, and fired. A shooter took several pellets in the leg as a result. Sure, wouldn't have happened had the shells been removed, but on the other hand, it would not have gone off with intercepting sears. I look at the safety on a gun much the same way I do seat belts in a vehicle. Safety is still the operator's responsibility. But if something unexpected does happen, that's when the safety mechanisms come into play. Couple years back, I survived a complete roll-over (hit a patch of "black ice") without so much as a scratch because I was buckled up. Given the crushed condition of the roof of my pickup, I'm guessing I might well not be typing this had that not been the case.

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

I don't know, Larry....the intercepting sear gun would have been safer IF the safety was on, and a guy who leaves a broken gun, loaded, and unattended won't be hitting the good grouse spot near Kerrick, MN with me any time soon-most of the few intercepting sear guns I've seen DIDN'T have an automatic safety either, guess we will never know for sure if it was on.

The friends I speak of carry their doubles broken, and unloaded when we hunt-the dog lets us know when game is at hand, and the guns aren't loaded and closed until the hunters are well set. A safety makes no difference at all in this case, only the qualities (or lack thereof) of the hunters in attendance.

These gentleman can do the same with a pump gun, closing the action almost silently at the sight of the pointing setter. There isn't really a reason to take birds that aren't pointed by the dog, in our hunting.

That said, thanks for pointing out the main reason I don't attend "shoots", as it were, or hunt with strangers. In the words of David Lee Roth, the only thing for sure about a crowd is the room temperature will go up, and the communal IQ will go down.

Best,
Ted

Sorry to interrupt this verbal slap fight, but I finally shot my B. Rizzini, and this is to confirm that the one dot showing on the selector fires the I\C bottom barrel. I only fired it twice before it got dark, cause I was assembling my new Do-All Aerial Assualt auto trap. It spits 'em out pretty good.

Pugilists, you may resume your sparring match.

Member Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 743

Or . . . gentlemen, start your engines! Smile

Ted, you must not have seen many intercepting sear guns. I know some German boxlocks have them, and they may well have manual safes. However, high quality Brit sidelocks have automatic safes for a very good reason: they're used in driven shooting, and having a gun off safe when that pass from the gun (shooter) to the loader and back to the gun ballet is going on would not be a very good idea.

The broken, loaded or unloaded thing sounds pretty good. However, the places I hunt grouse and woodcock, a broken gun would likely gather all sorts of crud in the action, and about the time you go to close it, it would not close--and it takes very little to keep a double from closing. Had a flattened-out #8 shot on the watertable of my French guild gun the other day while shooting skeet and it took me some time to figure out why it would not close, the flattened piece of shot blending in fairly nicely with the surface of the watertable. A piece of wood or leaf in the wrong place can result in that same problem.

Lots of things you can do that make sense from a safety standpoint. A fellow with whom I've hunted for over 30 years is a lefty. When we hunt together, he's always to my right, so that our muzzles naturally point away from each other. I wouldn't worry about him no matter which side of me he's on, but it's just become second nature to me.

And regardless of the above, I still can't see any reason at all for taking a safety off before a bird's in the air.

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

In England, with actual matched pairs (a very small percent of an English gunmakers production is matched pairs, by the way) used by very wealthy folks for actual driven shooting, I imagine lots of Brit doubles have automatic safeties still working.

In the states, the very great majority prefers manual safeties, on their one intercepting sear gun. Kirk tells me the first thing to go are the automatic safety, followed by the short forcing cone.

My Tobins are typical, I suppose. The 16 has an automatic safety, that I left in working order. The 12 didn't have an auto safety, but, the parts are all there-just rotate the little rod 180 degrees when the stock is off, and you now have an auto safe gun. I'd be willing to bet the English guns are no different.

I don't have a preference to either type of safety. Usually, my gun is open anyway.

I've handled (not hunted with, just played with) lots of intercepting sear Brit guns stateside, and few had a functioning auto safety. But all have had several American owners. I've also handled quite a few in Europe, and can tell you the folks on the continent prefer non-auto safeties as well. As Hervé says "anything the English do, we do the opposite". Like, drive on the left. Or, use non auto safe guns.

A leaf or twig holding your gun open? Sounds like a ringing endorsment for a Darne to me Larry! But, I agree, I can wait for the bird to be in the air before the safety comes off. If you don't get a shot at a grouse, you can usually find him again. My friends and I aren't in a real big hurry.

The only time I ever saw a gun jammed with vegetation was MY 1100 Remington, in the very early days of steel shot, hunting in Western MN-when I set the gun down on a hay bale in the goose pit, a piece of straw worked up behind the trigger. It was actually no big deal. Could have happened to any gun I suppose, open action or not.

You be careful at those "shoots" now, you hear? I heard about one of the Shooting Sportsman BBSers putting a 20 gauge shell in a 12 gauge gun at one of those. Didn't a 28 gauge damascus gun let go at one of those a few years past as well?

Shivers me timbers. To be surrounded by such incompetence, with money, no less.
Best,
Ted

Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 145 Location: minnesota

larry:
i believe your final statement awards you game,set, and match on this thread Exclamation

i too, have experienced crud in the action of break guns, especially frustrating when the dogs beeper is going off and his tail is straight in the air Exclamation

i think we have all "been there,done that"