Auto safety Laurona O/U

[Red696]

22 minutes ago, Down South said:

So how do you modify a Laurona o/u to make the “safety catch”, manual.

You don’t 😂

[Fellside]

23 minutes ago, Down South said:

So how do you modify a Laurona o/u to make the “safety catch”, manual.

Ha ha ha ha 🤣. Good point. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Red696 said:

You don’t 😂

My apologies for my part in diverting your original thread.  I did think that the original query had been 'answered' and in an interesting way in that I had always thought that the removal of a short rod was a virtually universal answer.  It has been the case on the o/u's I have owned where I have addressed this issue.  Clearly not on a Laurona.

[Red696]

12 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

My apologies for my part in diverting your original thread.  I did think that the original query had been 'answered' and in an interesting way in that I had always thought that the removal of a short rod was a virtually universal answer.  It has been the case on the o/u's I have owned where I have addressed this issue.  Clearly not on a Laurona.

No apology necessary..  I need to take the stock off and do a photo for the thread it may help explain why I’m struggling.

[Scully]

36 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

However 'busy' the peg may be, keeping up with the activity should not be at the expense of safety.  Snapping the gun shut 'as fast as possible' isn't my idea of being as safe as you can be.

I fail to see what difference it makes how fast the gun is closed, nor why keeping up with the action would mean you’re unsafe; speed is down to economy of movement. 
According to those with auto safe the gun is still ‘safe’ at that point anyhow, so what difference does it make how fast it’s done? It’s at this point the loaded gun is then swung up through a line of beaters, irrespective of whether there’s a safety involved or not. 
Can you not see how nonsensical the point of a shotgun safety is?

If an auto safety is fitted then there is no choice but to use it, but it adds absolutely nothing to safe use of a shotgun, and I for one feel uneasy shooting next to someone who believes they’re a good thing. 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

So in your experience would you care to share best safe practice for loading a gun in the field and in the cage 

I’m sure it would be helpful for the novices on the forum 

a little bit to add ive shot a lot of big days with busy pegs it’s rare to be busy when the beaters are close and very easy to stop and unload if you think there getting close before the horn goes 

I have seen two accidental discharges that I think could have been prevented by a auto safety 

both were jacket buttons catching the trigger on windy days on non auto safety guns 

If you think it’ll help I’ll do so OF, but I’m no authority; I simply can’t abide the use of safeties on shotguns. I genuinely believe it gives the user a false sense of security. 
ND’s will occur simply by the law of averages ( although I’ve never seen one ) which is why if the gun can’t be broken it is imperative the user has the muzzles pointed in a safe direction and no finger near the trigger. It’s that easy. 
 

[JohnfromUK]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

Can you not see how nonsensical the point of a shotgun safety is?

Simple answer - No.  It serves a purpose and is not 'nonsensical' to me.  It prevents one method (accidental trigger pull) by which a gun can be accidentally discharged.

Instances I have heard of of guns 'going off on closure' all relate the guns being 'snapped shut' rather than gently closed. 

16 minutes ago, Scully said:

but it adds absolutely nothing to safe use of a shotgun

I cannot agree with that either.  It bolts the triggers and prevents accidental pulls releasing the lock (see those examples mentioned above of triggers being caught on coat buttons).

18 minutes ago, Scully said:

I for one feel uneasy shooting next to someone who believes they’re a good thing.

Another view I cannot understand.  Having and using a safety catch does not make anyone unsafe.

I do however entirely agree that having a 'safety' (manual or automatic) must not alter the primary safety of muzzle direction awareness.

We will have to agree to differ as we do have different views.

[Down South]

32 minutes ago, Red696 said:

I need to take the stock off and do a photo for the thread

Just do it safely, wood up or whatever! 🤪

[Red696]

33 minutes ago, Down South said:

Just do it safely, wood up or whatever! 🤪

The days of always having ‘wood up’ are fewer then I’d like

[Centrepin]

1 hour ago, Red696 said:

a photo for the thread it may help explain why I’m struggling.

That would help, it could be compared with others.

 

47 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

  It prevents one method (accidental trigger pull) by which a gun can be accidentally discharged.

 

No such thing as accidental discharge, it's either deliberate or negligent.

[Gordon R]

Quote

No such thing as accidental discharge, it's either deliberate or negligent.

A mate had a discharge on closing - Conquest by Sportami - in the mid 1980s. Broken spring, which let the hammer fall when slammed shut. I closed the gun normally - no problem. He tended to slam it shut - discharged again. 

I recall the look of horror on a few faces when a hole appeared in the ground.

[Wylye]

I think you lot have too much time on your hands! Move on for goodness sake!

[Scully]

4 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Simple answer - No.  It serves a purpose and is not 'nonsensical' to me.  It prevents one method (accidental trigger pull) by which a gun can be accidentally discharged.

Instances I have heard of of guns 'going off on closure' all relate the guns being 'snapped shut' rather than gently closed. 

I cannot agree with that either.  It bolts the triggers and prevents accidental pulls releasing the lock (see those examples mentioned above of triggers being caught on coat buttons).

Another view I cannot understand.  Having and using a safety catch does not make anyone unsafe.

I do however entirely agree that having a 'safety' (manual or automatic) must not alter the primary safety of muzzle direction awareness.

We will have to agree to differ as we do have different views.

No one ‘gently closes’ a gun on a driven day, no one. They may not be snapped shut but neither are they gently shut. 
I’ve never experienced a ND and those caused by buttons or whatever are proof ( if it were needed ) that muzzle awareness is king.
Safeties simply aren’t necessary on a shotgun. 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’ve never experienced a ND and those caused by buttons or whatever are proof ( if it were needed ) that muzzle awareness is king.

Please explain how muzzle awareness prevents ND from buttons or whatever.  I don't want my (or anyone else's gun going off for any reason other than intentionally however good their muzzle awareness is.

 

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

No one ‘gently closes’ a gun on a driven day, no one.

I disagree.  The majority of experience shooters (that I know anyway) handle their firearms carefully.

[Scully]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

Please explain how muzzle awareness prevents ND from buttons or whatever.  I don't want my (or anyone else's gun going off for any reason other than intentionally however good their muzzle awareness is.

 

I disagree.  The majority of experience shooters (that I know anyway) handle their firearms carefully.

It doesn’t. ( I never claimed it did ) Accidents will happen, hence the reason for muzzle awareness. 
What sort of ‘accidental’ scenario do you envisage where someone would have the muzzles pointed at an individual with their finger on the trigger? 
As do I; you can close a gun very fast without slamming it shut. 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

hence the reason for muzzle awareness. 

Of course muzzle awareness is the prime safety measure for a loaded gun i but as you say accidents will happen and there have been examples quoted here - buttons, snapping shut to name two examples given members contributing here have encountered.  These are frightening and dangerous things and ANY measure that can reduce that type of happening has to be a good thing.  One barrel going off could cause the gun to injure the holder, or jump from his grip and drop to the floor causing damage or even setting off the other barrel.  Any 'unexpected' discharge even if in a totally safe direction has the makings of a nasty accident.

[London Best]

In my experience the most dangerous shooters are the ones who keep a gun broken with cartridges in the chambers, ‘to be 100% safe’, and then slam barrels to action when a bird presents.  
If a (faulty) gun is going to fire, that will be when it happens.

[Scully]

21 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Of course muzzle awareness is the prime safety measure for a loaded gun i but as you say accidents will happen and there have been examples quoted here - buttons, snapping shut to name two examples given members contributing here have encountered.  These are frightening and dangerous things and ANY measure that can reduce that type of happening has to be a good thing.  One barrel going off could cause the gun to injure the holder, or jump from his grip and drop to the floor causing damage or even setting off the other barrel.  Any 'unexpected' discharge even if in a totally safe direction has the makings of a nasty accident.

A gun discharging on closure can occur irrespective of a safety, as can it also if dropped in the manner you describe above. Safeties don’t prevent this. 
There is no possible scenario of a person being shot ‘accidentally’ which the application of a safety would prevent, without those muzzles being pointed at an individual while a finger is on the trigger. Unless you can think of one of course. 

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, London Best said:

In my experience the most dangerous shooters are the ones who keep a gun broken with cartridges in the chambers, ‘to be 100% safe’, and then slam barrels to action when a bird presents.  
If a (faulty) gun is going to fire, that will be when it happens.

Absolute rubbish! 😂 Most trap shooters stand in such a manner, as do many many game shots standing on a peg, as do I. 
At the start of a drive I will stand with the muzzles of a loaded and broken gun resting on my boot, and only when the birds start to appear do I close the gun.
Once the drive has started I will stand with a loaded gun pointing at the sky just like a traditional gun, albeit without a safety. What would be the point? 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

A gun discharging on closure can occur irrespective of a safety, as can it also if dropped in the manner you describe above. Safeties don’t prevent this.

It can, and safety's don't in themselves make a gun safe - we agreed on that way back in this thread.

The safety catch/trigger bolt can prevent unintentional (i.e. ND) discharges.  That is also a fact.

Why on earth do you think manufactures almost all fit safety catches?  The only significant quantity of guns that don't have then I can think of are hammer guns and they have a 'half cock' position instead in which the triggers cannot discharge the gun.   They are fitted because the vast majority of shooters want and use them.

We have agreed to differ.  I will continue to use my (auto safety) as I always have, and I'm sure you will continue to use yours as it suits you.

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It can, and safety's don't in themselves make a gun safe - we agreed on that way back in this thread.

The safety catch/trigger bolt can prevent unintentional (i.e. ND) discharges.  That is also a fact.

Why on earth do you think manufactures almost all fit safety catches?  The only significant quantity of guns that don't have then I can think of are hammer guns and they have a 'half cock' position instead in which the triggers cannot discharge the gun.   They are fitted because the vast majority of shooters want and use them.

We have agreed to differ.  I will continue to use my (auto safety) as I always have, and I'm sure you will continue to use yours as it suits you.

I never use one.
You can repeat your mantra ‘til the cows come home, but if we all agree safeties don’t render a gun safe, then again, what is their point? 
I’m assuming you can’t give an example of the scenario I outlaid in my last post?  
I have no idea why manufacturers fit safeties, and if asked I’d wager many would struggle to come up with a meaningful or convincing answer, just as has happened here. 
It would be interesting to conduct a poll ( someone else can do it as I can’t be bothered ) to see how many folk would prefer their shotgun to be fitted with a safety, but more revealingly, why? 
I know many in the USA are fitted nowadays because of fear of litigation. 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m assuming you can’t give an example of the scenario I outlaid in my last post?

No, I can't - unless anyone know of a gun that shoots somewhere other than where the muzzles are pointing. 

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

I have no idea why manufacturers fit safeties, and if asked I’d wager many would struggle to come up with a meaningful or convincing answer

Then let me give you my suggestion as to why they fit them; it is because it helps to sell the product - and that is because most people want them.  In fact I think they would not sell nearly as many without safety catches.  Just my view.  I have three guns with no safety catch, all hammer guns, two breech loaders and a muzzle loader - and all have a 'half cock' position from which they cannot be fired without manually fully cocking the hammers first.

12 minutes ago, Scully said:

I know many in the USA are fitted nowadays because of fear of litigation. 

Which presumably means that there is believed to be a case that they have a purpose and not having them would result in possible legal action for being negligent by 'leaving off' a safety fitting?

 

[London Best]

46 minutes ago, Scully said:

At the start of a drive I will stand with the muzzles of a loaded and broken gun resting on my boot,

44 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

 

I have never understood why clay shooters adopt such a stupid position. 
I can only assume it is because trap guns are so heavy they cannot hold them properly. Then again, the original live pigeon trap guns were also very heavy but you don’t see old pictures of them on anybody’s foot.

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No, I can't - unless anyone know of a gun that shoots somewhere other than where the muzzles are pointing. 

Then let me give you my suggestion as to why they fit them; it is because it helps to sell the product - and that is because most people want them.  In fact I think they would not sell nearly as many without safety catches.  Just my view.  I have three guns with no safety catch, all hammer guns, two breech loaders and a muzzle loader - and all have a 'half cock' position from which they cannot be fired without manually fully cocking the hammers first.

Which presumably means that there is believed to be a case that they have a purpose and not having them would result in possible legal action for being negligent by 'leaving off' a safety fitting?

 

You may be right as to why they are fitted, but I doubt if anyone when questioned, could give a valid reason why they want one; no one can unless you count ‘just because’ as a valid answer. 
Until someone conducts a survey we’ll never know. 🤷‍♂️

Again, we’ll never know. It could be for the same reason it is deemed necessary to print ‘warning: contains hot liquid’ on some takeaway coffee cups! 
I know Ruger are anal about litigation, which is why safety warnings are stamped onto barrels and their factory triggers are truly abysmal. 
There are no safeties on revolvers so possibly they’re not ALL stupid? 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

I have never understood why clay shooters adopt such a stupid position. 
I can only assume it is because trap guns are so heavy they cannot hold them properly. Then again, the original live pigeon trap guns were also very heavy but you don’t see old pictures of them on anybody’s foot.

Why is it stupid? 
You assume wrongly.