[Yohan]

So, I was thinking about this the other day. Many people argue that Glocks don't have an external safety- but don't the majority of revolvers lack one also? There's the trigger pull issue, but Glocks may be ugly as heck, but I guess guns and guns, and I was thinking maybe I should stop bashing Glocks until I actually try one out. Until then- they're still ugly.

[Nightcrawler]

Well, I think they're not pretty, but they're not hideous, either. The 10mm/45 frames just don't fit my hand very well, though, and I can't MAKE them fit. The old ones without the finger grooves weren't so bad, but the new ones just don't work for me. I don't like the trigger pull, though I found the trigger on a Springfield XD40 to be much more agreeable.

[4thHorseman]

The "safety" on a revolver is the long heavy trigger pull. Not at all like Glocks, short light trigger pull. Glocks also have a trigger type safety in the trigger mechinism that revolvers don't have.
I have never heard of an accidental discharge from a double action modern revolver. Never. I don't see how one can be possiable either. Everytime I hear on the news an accidential shooting with a revolver and it "accidentally went off" is bull hockey. It just doesn't happen. It is a concentrated predetermined action to pull the trigger so the hammer drops on a revolver in double action mode.

[BamBam]

I was thinking maybe I should stop bashing Glocks until I actually try one out
Yohan,
Then you wouldn't be a typical Glock basher.

The Glock "Safe Action" trigger system (to me at least) feels somewhere between a SA and DA. The firing pin isn't retracted untill the trigger is pulled but travel is much shorter than with a DA.
It takes a few magazines to get used to but, to millions of people, it's not a problem.

Ugly? Some consider a Hummer ugly.

Come to the Dark Side! :evil:

[Tom B]

Most Glock arguments that I read are whether the Glock trigger is a DA or SA. What does it matter what it is called with regard to safety? The bottom line is exactly what you said. How much pressure does it take on the trigger to make the pistol fire.

[WESHOOT2]

There is reliable, accurate, and ergonomically correct.

Looks don't matter with tools.

[dude]

A Glock is the same saftey-wise as a revolver..............if you carry the revolver with the hammer cocked back! (and yes, I've owned and shot a Glock)

[stevelyn]

Glocks have three passive safeties. To fire one requires, like any other handgun, a finger mashing the trigger. The most important safety device is resting inside the thick bone container between your ears.
The beauty of a Glock is that when you need it, you don't have to fumble with a safety or take any other action other than drawing and shooting. In a life-threatening situation, this is an advantage.
If one is uncomfortable with the trigger pull (they are 5#) you can have an 8# New York trigger installed, or a New York Plus at about 10-12#. If OTOH you are comfortable and confident w/ the Glock trigger and would like to squeeze out a little more accuracy, a 3 1/2# is also available along w/ titanium strikers and Ti striker safety blocks. I'm not certain of what value the Ti safety block provides, but the striker being lighter reduces locktime due to having to overcome less inertia to start forward travel. Slam fires aren't an issue since the safety block has this covered.

[LeonCarr]

The Glock does not have a "hammer that cocks back". It is safer than a double action revolver. The firing pin is not "active" until the trigger is pulled.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[bad_dad_brad]

A glock trigger is not at all like a cocked DA or SA revolver trigger. It is unique however. Not to belabor the internal safety devices of the Glock, because it has been explained before, and they work.

But what about the actual trigger? Well first, if you look at a Glock, and the trigger is pulled back to the frame, it is completely safe. It can not fire. This is a Glock that is un-chambered and is immediately recognized as such (of course, it could also be a rare dud round loaded that did not fire).

Second, when partially cocked and chambered the Glock has a trigger within the trigger. Just brushing the side of the Glock trigger accidently will not cause it to fire (for instance when holstering it). Try that with a cocked revolver and it will go boom.

Third, the Glock trigger has about 1/2 inch of take up when pulled, which is completing the full cocking of the internal striker. Now at complete takeup we can finally compare a cocked revolver with a Glock trigger. Even then, the stock Glock trigger offers more resistance than the average SA or cocked DA revolver.

I am sitting here right now dry firing a G19 and a cocked DA SP101 for comparison. Two different worlds as far as the trigger is concerned.

Comparing Glocks with revolvers is as common as comparing apples and oranges.

A more viable comparison would be a tuned trigger on a DAO revolver with a Kahr semi-automatic. That was the intent of the manufacturer (Kahr) to produce a semi-automatic that had a trigger pull as stated.

[WESHOOT2]

I don't ever remember having to "fumble with a safety".

Odd, ay? :what:


I have, however, been involved with a number of "I've accidently shot my Glock (and myself)" situations.
Fumbling with entire gun? :evil:

Oh my what have I done...................

[BamBam]

A Glock is the same saftey-wise as a revolver..............if you carry the revolver with the hammer cocked back! (and yes, I've owned and shot a Glock)
Ummmm.......
Have you ever owned or shot a revolver?

If so, why would you post such inaccurate information?

[dude]

yes (lots), and with the knowledge and expierence with both..........I feel a Glock is just as 'safe' as a carrying around revolver with it's hammer cocked.

......where is this inaccurate information you have a problem with??

[MJRW]

Its innaccurate in that it doesn't at represent the situation. There is no trigger block system on a revolver as there is on a glock. The mechanisms to fire are engaged on a revolver whereas they are not on a glock. The trigger pull is lighter on a cocked revolver than it is on a glock. It simply isn't comparable.

[BamBam]

Dude,

I hope I didn't sound too harsh.......I looked at some of your posts and you seem to be a straigh-up guy.

A cocked revolver is "ready to go"; the hammer/firing pin spring is compressed and only a few pounds of trigger pull is required to fire the weapon. Also, only a couple of millimeters of trigger travel are required to do so (whatever the "creep" is). Just dropping the revolver could cause a discharge.

On a Glock, the firing pin spring is not compressed and the firing pin safety is blocking the pin. It will not discharge if dropped. Trigger pull is about eight pounds. Trigger travel (stroke) is probably 15 mm (I'll measure later).

I'm not saying that you haven't, but people should detail strip a Glock slide and understand how it works before they decide that it isn't "safe".

I wouldn't dream of holstering a cocked revolver. I've holstered a chambered Glock literally thousands of times.

[sm]

What WS2 said, both times.

I don't bash what tool fits another that allows criteria.
Glocks don't like me .

Two , NIB Glocks. First gun the trigger is broken. Second gun I open box and the front night sight is off, rattling around in box.
LEO's they belonged two just laughed Just asked I that didn't handled the squad car --they wanted to make it home,in one peice:D

[dude]

I'm not talking 'mechanisims' or tech stuff as I know about the Glock's inner workings and was quite happy with my Glock 30 (not happy enough though). I just dissagree that a chambered Glock is as 'safe' as a revolver. The revolver's trigger pull is so much more substantial that the comparison is nutty.

I'm a P7 guy anyways from back in the early 80s and having tried the Glock design for a bit, it just does not do it for me.

I in no way consider them to be unsafe..........I just don't feel they are as 'safe' as revolvers for several reasons.

[BamBam]

A Glock is the same saftey-wise as a revolver..............if you carry the revolver with the hammer cocked back!
Dude,
I think that maybe you meant to say "if you don't carry with the trigger cocked back".

I'd agree, the double action pull of a revolver is more substantial than that of a glock.
The single action of a revolver, however, is much lighter than that of a Glock. Unless the revolver is a real turd.

[dude]

no, with the hammer cocked back

.....but thanks for 'assuming'

[Ala Dan]

I like 'em both; but I perfer SIG'S!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[CMcDermott]

The difference is in the holster.

Te holsters used by the "cool" cops with the revolvers all had a "cutaway" so your finger could be in the triggerguard when holstered - it made for a faster draw don'tyaknow :rolleyes: .
Then the Glocks were ordered with standard holsters without the cutaway - so now these fumblefingers are shooting themselves as they holster their Glocks with their fingers on the trigger.

[Standing Wolf]

I've rented several Glocks, and it's conceivable I could even buy one someday, but the triggers are creepy. I think they're ugly, but the triggers are nothing like revolver triggers.

[bad_dad_brad]

Glocks. Shooters either love em or hate em. Personally I really like the Glock trigger, but I was never spoiled by the crispness of a cocked SA M1911. I also like the Glock's simple design and functional reliability.

If I were forced to pick only one handgun, it would be a Glock, probably a G19.

But as the philosopher once said, "I agree with your right to disagree."

[Nick96]

Someone stated they have never heard of an AD with a DA revolver. Well, I have - actually two. Not personally, but people I know. The most "off the wall" case - off duty cop drops a snub .38 in his girlfriend's purse and they head out for a night on the town. He goes to retrieve the .38 in the parking lot of the night spot and BAMM - one hole in leg.

Okay, alcohol likely involved. Gun is buried under a mountian of the various and sundry stuff ladies carry in their purses. A guy who has a familiarity with firearms that likely contributes to a laxidasical attitude. But the fact remains, the "safe action" of the revolver wasn't "safe enough" to prevent the AD.

Now, consider the slickest factory DA revolver - long DA pull at about 10 pounds. Now the Glock - short stroke at about 6 pounds (factory).

The moral of this story is - there is no "safe" gun. But it appears the greatest likelyhood of an AD would be with a short stroke - light pull trigger, rather than a long stroke medium to heavy pull one.

IMHO, Glocks should be reserved for "real" holsters with trigger guards, and in possession of only well trained persons in full grasp of their wits when around them.

Bottom line - if you tend to be somewhat lax in religious gun handling safety - the revolver is probably the lesser of the two evils.

[Mike Irwin]

"The most important safety device is resting inside the thick bone container between your ears."

Quite frankly, given the frequency of failures, not only with firearms but other devices in every day life, the "gray matter safety" is pretty much worthless.


I, too, have heard of negligent discharges with revolvers -- because of GMS failures.

[cratz2]

Glocks are as safe as most any other pistol or revolver. Most of the negligent (not accidental ;) ) discharges happen when fingers are on the trigger and they should not be. Holstering a gun with a finger in the trigger guard just might lead to trouble... down your leg.

The most important safety on any gun isn't activated by the thumb or palm web or trigger finger... it's between your ears.

And 4thhorseman, I assure you there has been at least one accidental discharge with a DA revolver. When stress is high and you're scared poopless (can I say that? :p ) and you're finger is on the trigger, I don't care if it's 2 lbs or 10 lbs, a trigger pull ain't that far. I promise!

[Handy]

Insisting that one weapon is as safe as any other is silly if you first have to ensure that the shooter NEVER screw up.

As human error is the root cause of 90% of every kind of accident ever, this is a naive attitude. At some point in your shooting life, you WILL mishandle a gun. Maybe you will be fortunate enough to mishandle a gun that has a margin of error built in, rather than one with an unblocked 5.5 pound trigger.

I've stumbled on steps, dropped glasses and veered onto the shoulder while driving. I'm not perfect enough to never put my finger in the wrong place. Perhaps the Glock "Perfection" refers to what is required of the shooter.

[10-Ring]

As long as you use proper handgun safety techniques & use a quality holster when you carry your firearm, both are safe.

[cratz2]

I've stumbled on steps, dropped glasses and veered onto the shoulder while driving.

But as long as you do these things without your finger on the trigger, the Glock shouldn't do anything it's not designed to do.

Your point is taken but walking up steps and holding a glass are not as critical as holding a firearm in your hand for a defensive or offensive purpose and one should certianly be more cautious when holding a firearm than when walking up steps.

I would agree that there may be a lack of required training and reiteration of that training among some law enforcement agencies, but I refuse to admit that the gun itself is any less safe or more safe than any other contemporary design. Guns are desinged to go bang when pressure is put on the trigger. That is what the Glock does. Simple as that. If there are folks that don't understand that simple fact, then they certainly should not be allowed to carry a gun. And they certainly should be allowed to carry a gun and a badge.

[4thHorseman]

"Most of the negligent (not accidental ) discharges happen when fingers are on the trigger and they should not be. "- cratz2

I agree with you 100%. And I agree with the the differential you make between, accidential and negligent. I consider accidential discharge as NO intentent to pull the trigger. I consider negligent discharge as pulling the trigger (with your finger) and the weapon going off sooner than one expected or not expected.
I state again, Revolvers do not accidentially go off in the double action mode.
For example, I remember our local news station once stated a teen shot his friend when the 38 revovler he was handling "accidentially went off." Again I say, bull hockey. He pulled the trigger with the intention of firing the weapon.
With any weapon with a light rigger pull, accidential discharge is more common. That is why there are not many guns out there with a 1/2 pound trigger pull.
You call it what ever you want, the ideas of Glocks being unsafe is real. Notice I said "idea". There are New York triggers out for them, and now they even have little plastic plugs that fit behind the trigger so it won't go off.
What is out there for a revolver? Nothing that I know of. You might reason after 100 years, the idea a revolver is "safer" than a Glock has a following.
I do think one type of gun can be "safer" than another type of gun. Any one that doesn't is a real threat to himself and his bystanders.
The idea that "the safety between you ears" is the ONLY safety needed is a fatal error. Some things don't always work that way, that is why they use the term "accidents".
If the gun works well for you, hey that is great. I encourge all of you to be safe with any weapon. That includes a knife.
I tell my son, "once the bullet leaves the barrel, all the praying in the world, all the sorrow one has, can never return the bullet back to the barrel. The deed is done.":)

[Handy]

Cratz,

The only issue I have with the "training" arguement is that 90% of all pistol training is developing trigger finger muscle memory. Your body learns that the most natural place for that finger is the trigger, no matter if your brain is telling it otherwise.

Just as it is incredibly important to keep a car in its lane, it is important to keep mindful of what the trigger finger is doing. But in both cases, sometimes things get away from you.

A Glock trigger (to continue the analogy) is like a car with bad alignment. If you let down your guard, things will get bad real quick.


Just as has been the point of every magazine article about cond. 1 carry, Glock carry really should be for those at the top of their game. Just because the rule is simply stated, that doesn't mean it's a simple rule to practice.

Personally, I would prefer vigilance, AND a safety system that looks out for breakdowns in that vigilance. Why not give yourself every advantage?

[4thHorseman]

Handy, very well put.:)

[243_shooter]

Hi all..

I've been reading all the glock threads with great interest.. New to the world of pistols, longtime rifle shooter (and this may effect my thinking).. Before I started my serious research on the subject of carry piece's I wanted a glock. Now that I recently received my carry permit I've been trying to decide which road I want to go down.

I would seem to me the logical choice would have been for them just to add an additional external mechanical safety for those that chose to use it?

Perhaps I'm just paranoid, or inexperienced but I don't like the thought of just pulling the trigger causing a boom with no other actions involved. I don't see myself carrying either a glock, or a DA revolver for that very reason.

With all that said, I've pretty much decided on one of the millenium series for my cc piece, just need to decide on what size hole it's going to make. I like the thought of a DAO trigger _and_ an additional external mechanical saftey.

Am I being over-paranoid here? In my short 29 years on this world Murphy's kicked me enough times he's started to (finally) get my attention.

Leo

[cratz2]

Handy, I agree to a point. I do. Sometimes, I just get tired of hearing about how Glocks are so unsafe because they go bang when the trigger is pulled. I mean, I'm a 1911 guy. I don't even really like Glocks much. But they're fairly cheap and reliable and lots of agencies issue them. For general police officers, I think DAO is the way to go for issue guns. As little mandatory training as some (not all - I'm not trying to pick a fight with LEOs) officers get, I can see where a short, light trigger pull increases the likeliness of shooting oneself in the foot or leg when holstering.

Of course, I also have to wonder what the percentage is of such discharges compared to years carrying a certain gun. I think this goes back to training but also weighs in experience and how scared one is. I don't speak from experience but I'd have to imagine the first time a rookie officer has his pistol trained on a subject, tensions will be high. And I'm sure once the decision is made to reholster, tensions are still high, esp if the officer is alone and making the transition to handcuff the subject.

It's still the fault of the officer for having his or her finger on the trigger when it should not be, but I can concede that a short light, trigger facilitates unintended discharges.

[Handy]

Cratz,

I hear you. My "issue" with the Glock is not a lack of external safety. It's the fact that the design incorporates an extra spring to help you pull the trigger. That just seems a little nuts.

I think Glocks, especially the 9mms, are good, proven guns. But they are not the answer to every handgun need and their pervasiveness among newer shooters is worrying.

I also don't agree with the common attitude that trigger pull is the second most important element of a good handgun, just after reliability. Handguns aren't sniper weapons, as long as the trigger is reasonable, they'll do the job.

Thanks.

[T.Stahl]

I never had an ND with any weapon, except for .22lr target rifles while closing the bolt and touching the trigger.

But I did have sorta failures-to-fire with safety equipped rifles (G3, MG3, SL8), because I forgot to push off the safety.


There's one significant difference between Glocks and revolvers:
I still have to find a wheel gun with a cylinder that will hold 33 rounds. :D