Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "Backward safety ?"

CZ has always gotten a lot of flack for their "backwards safety" where you have to pull the safety rearward in order to fire the rifle.

This got me to thinking why it is considered "backwards" and why do some folks find fault with it? For most of firearms history in order to fire a firearm it involved pulled a hammer rearwards but yet somewhere along the way in order to fire a non-hammered firearm they were mainly developed to push the safety forward in order to fire.

What was the reasoning behind the change? Is there something logical behind it that I am missing? I have done a lot of shooting with CZ and for me pulling the safety rearward to fire is no different than pulling the hammer rearward on a rifle equipted with them.

I have no problem pushing a trigger guard mounted safety to side before I fire it, or swiping a frame mounted safety down instead of pushing forward, although I will admit that I once had a semi-auto pistol that required pushing the safety up to fire was a bit disconcerting.

drover

Have had basically the same experience, probably due to using a bunch of different safeties (and hammer guns) over the decades.

But it might also be due to my very first .22 rimfire repeater, a Marlin Model 81 tube-magazine bolt, also has a "backwards" safety....

The safeties on my CZs never bothered me. I don’t get what all the fuss is about. It might be that of the many different rifles I own and hunt with, there are several different types of safeties. Cross bolt safeties on Marlins, trigger guard safety on a 7600, push safety on 700s, swing/wing safeties on Kimbers, Winchesters and Mauser. I suppose if you ran a 700 your whole life and nothing else, a CZ might give you some trouble.

Tokarevs

Have never had an issue with various safeties.
That said, the safety is why I don't own one of the mini Czs.
Or an old marlin 22.

Constantly check the safety when hunting, don't want one I might release
thinking I was pitting it on safe.

Had a experience with an old bolt action 12 gauge.
A guy handed it to me to load,we were hunting for whatever was killing
Chickens. Don't remember how, but it was only back at his house that I discovered
I had been walking around hot, and unsafed.

Lot of Monday quaterbacking gonna happen over that. IDGAF, but might agree!
Accidents are rarely the product of a single failure, I provided at least 1,
an odd operating gun provided a second.

Same with my first rifle, a Marlin 25.

There are whiners and doers.

It's never bothered me a bit. Humans are adaptable.

After you use it once you should be good to go.

I suppose that I could adapt, but don't want to and that backward safety is the reason that I've never bought a CZ rifle. The pulling back the hammer is a good analogy that I never thought about, but having had a bolt action Cooper, Winchester, Ruger, Remington and a Mossberg where the safety all went forward, I think that backward safety has cost CZ some market share. Okay, that lever safety on my Savage 99F is "backward" and that even irks me some.

Safeties are part of a package, learn how they work and move on down the road. Have a couple of guns w/o safeties…OMG! Wanna screw with someone’s noodle? Hand them an underhammer ML.

I've owned and hunted with single shots, bolt actions, pumps, levers, cock on open bolts, cock on close bolts, safeties of all types, long actions, short actions, etc.! Never once had an issue in the field because of unfamiliarity or indecisiveness with the firearm in hand. Guess I just don't know how bad such things can impact you.

CZ455 has backwards safety.
Annoying.
Might cost me some ankle meat if charged by an enraged chipmunk.

Always aware of it being different, so no big deal. Just seems silly though.

We found the "backward" safeties on early Marlin rimfires and CZ's did create problems for us and our kids. Mostly they weren't consistent with the other firearms used.

Thankfully, when Marlin changed its safeties on rimfire bolt guns the new safeeties were usable on the older rifle. We would peen out and restamp the F and S when we changed the safeties. I probably did it to at least 8 of them. Most of which are still in the family.

I have owned a few 452s, still have one in 17 HM2, and while I don't care for the safety, I don't think about it too much. I can see where it might be a potential liability issue, but I'm not an attorney.

My personal preference is for as much similarity between my gun's function as possible. I wouldn't want a trigger that I had to push forward.

And then there are the locks where you have to put the key in upside-down..

Missed a coyote one day because of a backward safety on a CZ 455. From pure habit just tried to push it L to R like every other rifle I own and no bang. Coyote was on the move so by the time I realized what had happed it was too late. Sold it, bought a 457 and have zero desire to go back.

How about shotguns that require the trigger to be released to fire?

Jim

My first .22 is a Glenfield bolt action (Marlin iirc) and it too has the “backwards” safety.