Safety on a Kahr???

PlayboyPenguin · Oct 9, 2009

Why in the world would a gun as pefectly designed as a Kahr need a safety? I can almost understand the loaded chamber indicator, as long as they removed that crappy labeling, but not the saftey.

NK777 · Oct 9, 2009

If you don't like it don't use it man. I would use it and that's probably why they included it because some of us actually like the silly thing. Just have to learn to flick it off as you draw. Really not a big deal once you get used to it.

coctailer · Oct 9, 2009

It is required to sell the Kahr in Maryland.

They all aren't going to be like that.

dario541 · Oct 9, 2009

Whatever you do, DON'T disable the safety on any firearm. And if you have a gun with a defective safety, get it repaired. If you ever use such a gun for defensive purposes and end up in court, a public persecutor and/or a hoplophobic defense attorney will make a lot of noise to a jury that you had a gun "...and it didn't even have a safety. And that is why the poor deceased criminal was killed ( or hurt, whatever)."

NoAim · Oct 9, 2009

dario541 said:
Whatever you do, DON'T disable the safety on any firearm. And if you have a gun with a defective safety, get it repaired. If you ever use such a gun for defensive purposes and end up in court, a public persecutor and/or a hoplophobic defense attorney will make a lot of noise to a jury that you had a gun "...and it didn't even have a safety. And that is why the poor deceased criminal was killed ( or hurt, whatever)."

I hear this BS line all the time.

- The gun had no safety
- The gun had a super high capacity magazine
- It was loaded with armor piercing bullets (.223, etc.)
- It was loaded with cop killing teflon coated
- It had a bayonet lug.
- The shooter had an arsenal of assault weapons in his house after a police raid (i.e. 3 total)

Bottom line is, if they have an agenda, they'll spout whatever trash they want. Whether the safety is there or not likely won't make one whit of difference.

And I'll proudly say that I've disabled or removed all my magazine safeties from all my guns that have had them.

glockguy · Oct 10, 2009

Id love to get my hands on one of those Kahr's with a safety. I feel 100 Percent safer carrying a loaded Firearm with a safety then i do with one with out.. Such as My G27 or my S&W 4053 neither have manual safeties, but i have very good holster for them that I know no one will be able to get my gun away from me unless they rip it from my dead hands

shibbershabber · Oct 10, 2009

The only safety a handgun needs is the operators brain.

Whats next? A manual safety on revolvers?

NK777 · Oct 10, 2009

shibbershabber said:
The only safety a handgun needs is the operators brain.

Whats next? A manual safety on revolvers?

Have you ever had a gun with a really light trigger? I would not recommend anybody carried either of my 1911's cocked and locked with out the safety on. They have pretty light, crisp, clean, short pull triggers. I realize there is a grip safety and all but I still wouldn't do it myself. On the other hand I have no issues carrying my ruger LCP with a round chambered and no safety. The LCP has a long heavy trigger though.

Gendaito · Oct 10, 2009

I guess those are new? My PM9 doesn't have a safety, or that ugly warning on the top of the slide.

A DAO semiauto like the PM9 doesn't need a manual safety.

NK777 · Oct 10, 2009

Gendaito said:
I guess those are new? My PM9 doesn't have a safety, or that ugly warning on the top of the slide.

A DAO semiauto like the PM9 doesn't need a manual safety.

I agree no DAO guns need safeties.

shibbershabber · Oct 10, 2009

NK777 said:
Have you ever had a gun with a really light trigger? I would not recommend anybody carried either of my 1911's cocked and locked with out the safety on. They have pretty light, crisp, clean, short pull triggers. I realize there is a grip safety and all but I still wouldn't do it myself. On the other hand I have no issues carrying my ruger LCP with a round chambered and no safety. The LCP has a long heavy trigger though.

Well you got me on that one :s0131:

When I carried a 1911, I carried half cocked w/safety off.

coctailer · Oct 10, 2009

Gendaito said:
I guess those are new? My PM9 doesn't have a safety, or that ugly warning on the top of the slide.

A DAO semiauto like the PM9 doesn't need a manual safety.

We probably won't see them here out West. They are specificly built to satisfy one state's requirement.

swoop · Oct 10, 2009

1911's yes, but the Glock & Kahr, I like them just the way they are.

jordanvraptor · Oct 10, 2009

Almost as bad as what they did to all the imported Tokarevs. It should at least be bigger so you can use it like a 1911's. Looks pretty small and probably be easy to miss if you did carry with it engaged.

There was a modification that I read about a long time ago for a safety on revolvers. Pretty rare but there are patents for it.

NK777 · Oct 11, 2009

shibbershabber said:
Well you got me on that one

When I carried a 1911, I carried half cocked w/safety off.

Very safe but I'd think fully cocking the hammer while drawing would be harder to master then flicking off the safety.

shibbershabber · Oct 11, 2009

NK777 said:
Very safe but I'd think fully cocking the hammer while drawing would be harder to master then flicking off the safety.

It took a little practice.

swoop · Oct 11, 2009

Colt cautions not to carry in the half-cock with one in the pipe. They claim that the hammer may perch on the lip of the half-cock notch, and that could cause the hammer to fall forward discharging the weapon. With that said, it still has a safety or two more than my Kahrs.