Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?


PDA






Graystar
January 6, 2003, 01:48 PM
The Glock is an extremely safe gun and simply cannot fire unless the trigger is fully squeezed. Yet, there are always comments about the Glock and its lack of a "safety."

I don't understand this need to lock the trigger. Personally, I think external switch safeties are extremely dangerous. There are too many videos, on those reality shows, of store owners being shot because they couldn't shoot first (had the safety on.) And every once-in-a-while you get a gun that discharges when you release the safety. That's not very safe.

Glock got it right. If there is a finger squeezing the trigger, then someone *must want* the gun to go off. That's how they designed the gun. If you don't want the gun to go off, don't squeeze the trigger. And if there are little fingers on the trigger....well, that's a whole different problem, and one that a switch safety will solve for only 5 seconds.

The grip safety is a good system. However, that safety is turned off when you grip the gun. With a Glock, all safeties are active until you start to turn them off, one by one, by squeezing the trigger. So why would anyone want another safety?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Spackler
January 6, 2003, 02:32 PM
Some folks just like having a manual safety. Some agencies won't allow a pistol without a manual safety to be carried, unless it's a DAO, or Glock with NY trigger. It's surely a liability thing.

Then I think about this - how safe would I feel carrying a Browning Hi-Power, cocked, but without a safety? Or a 1911, pinned grip safety, and no manual safety, or manual safety off? It wouldn't feel safe to me. Glocks are pretty much "single-action only", and as such are cocked and unlocked (no manual safety). This doesn't cause a problem until somebody holsters it with his/her finger on the trigger and shoots themselves in the thigh (we've all heard numerous incidents like this).

Me, I carry a pistol that has a manual safety, and I carry it with the safety on. With proper training, it doesn't cause a problem.

10-Ring
January 6, 2003, 02:38 PM
Last year, one of the big rumors was that in order for Glocks to make it back into CA market, they would have to design an external safety. Glock passed the drop safety tests & got approved for sale in CA w/o that safety, but I'd think Glock would add some sort of safety device just to stay in some civilian markets.

T.Stahl
January 6, 2003, 03:26 PM
Not having to worry about external safeties was one of the reasons why I bought a Glock as my first (and for the next years only) handgun. I use my Glock 17L for two purposes:
- Competition, where NO loaded gun leaves the hands of the shooter.
- Home defense, where the last thing I need is a safety that I might forget to deactivate before I have to shoot.

Onslaught
January 6, 2003, 03:44 PM
Why would anyone want....
Because not everyone thinks like you do, and not everyone feels as comfortable with a short trigger stroke pistol that fires simply by pulling the trigger.

Personally, I too think the Glock is fine "as is", but I like to point out whenever I see someone saying "Why would ANYONE in their right mind want anything so stupid as a ...." that, if everyone were just like you, you wouldn't have anyone to yell at in traffic!

Freedom of Choice is a WONDERFUL thing! http://www.frinkian.com/images/smiles/new_usa.gif

denfoote
January 6, 2003, 03:51 PM
I think that those would be Glocksters in the MASSive People's Republic would love an external safety. Just so they could have the pleasure of owning a Glock!!!! :evil:

JPM70535
January 6, 2003, 04:09 PM
If you lived in Florida where T-shirt and shorts are the uniform of the day and concealment is a little more difficult than in the cooler climes, you might as I have,sometimes opted for Mexican carry to minimize bulk. Then you might feel a little aprehensive with the Glock's lack of a manual safety and nothing but that little trigger safety and a 3or 5 pound pull keeping your lower regions intact.

Before you fire back with reasons why I should always use a holster, let me say that 9i0 percent of the time I use an IWB Galco to hold my Para-Ordnance C7-45,and for those times I could certainly carry a Glock comfortably, but for the other 10 percent of the time I just Prefer a manual safety that disables to trigger until swiped off during the draw.

Now, fire away!!!

Andrew Wyatt
January 6, 2003, 04:31 PM
A manual safety means that should you be dumb enough to let someone take your gun away from you, the person might not know how to work it. (this is a bit of a long shot but it's one people cite as a bonus)

A manual safety also allows mexican or pocket carry safely.


Glocks are just fine open carry holster pistols, but they're not as good for CCW use as some other types, primarily because their safety is a holster. (in addition to their extra bulk because they're double stack).

there are lots of occasions where a trigger can be pulled without human intervention, and a manual safety prevents that.

jem375
January 6, 2003, 04:38 PM
Why not just put a grip safety on a glock like the Springfield's XD series?.........little safer, and that would stop a lot of the critics...

T.Stahl
January 6, 2003, 04:52 PM
Strange - Some people are worried that the trigger of a gun without an external safety might be pulled if they'd carry it Mexican style, in their pocket or without a holster.
But the same people aren't worried that the external safety of a gun carried without a holster might first be pushed off and the trigger could be pulled then. :confused:

STEVE M
January 6, 2003, 04:52 PM
Andrew hit on the weapon retention use of a manual safety.

You don't have to be stupid to have your gun taken away from

you and shot with it. It has happened before and it will happen

again. A manual safety is one more thing that can help to save

you.

For all of those that think no one can remember to wipe a

manual safety off: If you can't do that what makes you think you

will remember how to line up the sights and press the trigger

correctly? It all can be done, it's just a matter of training.

Don't knock something just because it isn't for you. We each

have our own needs, level of training, past experiences, ect. and

we need to pick what is right for us, and let others pick what is

right for them.

MrAcheson
January 6, 2003, 04:58 PM
The only safety on a Glock is a trigger safety. So the gun won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. Barring unusual circumstances like a mechanical breakage, this is true of <i>every</i> gun, trigger safety or no.

Many people have glocks with very light triggers, i.e. 3 to 4 pounds. They do this because lots of folks like Glocks, but hate Glock triggers. A light trigger helps mediate the horribleness of it. Unfortunately what this means is that if anything gets caught in that trigger guard unexpectedly, you may not realize it before its too late. This is also why a good holster that covers the trigger guard is a necessary safety device for a Glock during carry.

Just from non statistical evidence from Glocksters who have confessed to having NDs, the three most common times to have an ND seem to be holstering, unholstering, and cleaning. Cleaning because the trigger must be pulled to clean the gun (but this is not uncommon). Holstering because something (finger, top break, whatever) can get in the trigger guard while holstering and cause an ND if it manages to depress the trigger safety (entirely possible). Unholstering because an improper grip on the gun can cause an ND if a finger lands where it shouldn't (example I remember from TFL was a baby glock carried in thunderwear which had shifted after a days carry).

Incidentally Glock does make versions of their guns with manual safeties for someone in Austria, but evidentally does not import them to the US.

Humble Texan
January 6, 2003, 05:04 PM
If you buy a Glock then you probably wouldn't be interested in a manual safety but as to reasons why I like a manual safety,

I carry a DAO, striker fired, heavy trigger and manual safety engaged.

I use Glock as the example but this refers to all weapons that have no external safety.

1. Easy carry as mentioned earlier: Mexican style, in my backpocket, in my wife's purse, in a soft Smart Carry, etc.

2. Again, BG roadblock: As the Glock owners suggest, Glock owners are not sure they could handle a weapon with a manual safety under stress. I take them at their word so, I am sure I would get agreement that the BGs would be just as inept.

3. Handle all weapons: Learn with a manual safety and you still can handle a Glock in a pinch. Learn with a weapon without a manual safety and you pretty much have limited yourself to one manual of arms and again, the famous "Glock Owner Confusion" over manual safeties.

4. One in the pipe: Is it true that the Glock Manual recommends not putting one in the pipe when carrying?

5. More forgiving: Read recently about a six year veteran of carrying a Glock putting a 10mm round through the floorboard of his truck while trying to holster while sitting down. Had the training and the holster yet got the shock of his life. We are not perfect. Could have happened to anyone but if a safety had been engaged, probably no discharge.

6. Little hands: Regardless, I like having my home defense weapon with a manual safety. If I do screw up there's a better chance the little one won't suffer the consequences of my stupidity.

I would probably buy a Glock if it had a manual safety. That's how important it is to me and I know Glocks are good weapons.

To each his own.

New_comer
January 6, 2003, 06:25 PM
Glock has its own niche in the pistol market.

If I wanted a manual safety in my polymer pistol, I'd take a USP (DOH! :eek: Already have one... :D)

But, if I were to own a Glock, the manual safety is its HOLSTER. Would not pull it out unless I need to. ;)

Drakejake
January 6, 2003, 06:46 PM
Since human beings commonly make mistakes, the argument that Glocks are perfectly safe provided no one makes a mistake, falls of its own weight. Carrying the Glock with a round in the chamber is basically going around cocked and unlocked. The numerous accidental discharges with Glocks, often with fatal consequences, suffered by people who are trained to use them, indicates a real problem. In New York, I believe, the Glock trigger pull was made heavier to help prevent unintended discharges. But the hardcore Glockists will say: "Just hire policemen who never make mistakes!" I don't own a Glock, primarily because I consider tham less safe than either double action/single action pistols or single actions with manual safeties.

If Glocks can be made with manual safeties, why not do so while continuing to produce the less safe models for the daredevils?

Drakejake

TheeBadOne
January 6, 2003, 06:55 PM
Glock does offer a heavier tigger set for those who want one.

jc2
January 6, 2003, 09:16 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2579

FunYet
January 6, 2003, 10:05 PM
Well, I personally use my Glock 26 as a trail gun and like to keep a Glock Block in the trigger guard when the gun is riding around in my backpack. Even though it's holstered, and even though I have the holster tucked into a pocket of the backpack, I still like to know there's an added measure of safety. But that's just my own personal comfort level.

tex_n_cal
January 6, 2003, 10:09 PM
I believe in the early 90's, something like 40 percent of all police officers killed in the line of duty were killed with their own gun. :what:

A manual safety is designed to slow down the bad guy, hopefully allowing the officer to get to his BUG.

I never was confortable with the "safe" action, sold my G22 even though it was reliable. If I got one again I might well put the external safety on it. Glocksters would laugh, but it would then work almost as well as my 1911's :neener:

Daubs
June 7, 2006, 02:44 PM
Ok I did a Yahoo.com search for "Glock external safety" and this site popped up.

If you were like me and looking for a glock external safety modifacation then visit:

http://www.cominolli.com/glocksafety.htm

They also have a long list of gun smiths who can install this modifacation for you. If you were leary about a glock not having a manual external safety this will fix that and there is no reason not to own a glock now.

Happy shooting.

BTW make sure to visit http://www.glocktalk.com that's where I found this information.

Rexrider
June 7, 2006, 05:47 PM
Where do I start with this one?

1. Don't buy a Glock if you don't like the idea of a handgun without an external safety.

2. Human error is the cause of all NDs for all types of guns (not ADs that happen due to a defective firearm).

3. I consider mexican carry of any firearm far more dangerous than a loaded Glock in a proper holster. I would never stick a chambered 1911 in my pants. Mexican carry is an ND looking for a place to happen (IMHO).

There is concern about human error causing an ND with a Glock in a holster but no concern about human error involving a ND when mexican carrying?

4. Manual safety to prevent getting shot by your own handgun? If you have time to activate the safety then you had time pull the trigger. If a bad guy got his hands on your gun then you already failed to stop the threat. I would hate to bet my life on whether or not he bad guy can figure out how to turn the safety off. Heck, if you encounter a bad guy why not just unload and disassemble the gun before said bad guy can use it against you?

5. Stock triggers on Glocks are well over 5 lbs. I never tested mine but I have to guess the pull is around 7 lbs. The trigger also has a long pull. Not as long as a DOA or revolver but much more than a 1911.

6. Why do we never have this discussion over revolvers? No external safety to speak of. Do people mexican carry revolvers? What happens if a bad guy takes a revolver from you?

7. We really do have a lot of choices when it comes to firearms. We need to make choices that are right for ourselves.

Kruzr
June 7, 2006, 06:14 PM
A Glock without an external safety is perfectly safe provided you are "the only one in the room professional enough to carry one." ;)

Car Knocker
June 7, 2006, 06:45 PM
Nothing like bringing a three-year-old thread back to life just to sell something. And a first post at that!

MCgunner
June 7, 2006, 07:15 PM
Take all the safeties off the 1911 and you basically have a glock. No thanks. I don't want one for CCW. However, I might have one for playing games like IDPA or something. Out in the real world, though, I want either safeties or a long and heavy enough DA/DAO to make carrying the gun and holstering it plenty safe. My preference is for DA/DAO guns for CCW. I also like revolvers. I don't care much for the trend in single actions without safeties, which is what I consider "safe action" and other guns with 4 lbs triggers and now way to lock the seer.

I've got no problem with 1911 condition one and that's what I'd carry if I couldn't shoot a DA gun effectively. I know all about the safety rules, no finger in the trigger guard, so don't pull all that on me. I taught pistol classes for a while and had a NRA instructor certification. I believe in a good blend of safety hardware and safety software.

The more redundancy in safety, the better, so long as it doesn't interfere with the purpose of the gun, self defense. A 1911 grip and thumb safety doesn't interfere with its effectiveness and a revolver or true DAO doesn't either. It does take training. Departments seem to think Glocks need less training because of their simplicity, but I think that's a mistake from a safety stand point or you wouldn't have stuff like that idiotic DEA guy shooting himself in the leg with a Glock in front of a bunch of kids in a friggin' classroom. :rolleyes: No, Glocks need just as much training as any other gun IMHO.

"the only one in the room professional enough to carry one."

Yeah, that's the guy I'm refering to....ROFLMFAO!!!!

kennyboy
June 7, 2006, 07:33 PM
The only safety on a pistol should be your trigger finger. These pistols are designed for life/death situations. In those situations you want to be able to unholster your weapon and lay into your adversary. In such a scenario, a safety is only a hinderance and potential death warrant. The best way to be safe is to be a safe shooter.

Snarlingiron
June 7, 2006, 07:47 PM
It's real simple. Glock built the thing with the advice of many military and leo individuals. No external anything. So, when you pull the trigger it goes bang. First time, every time, all the time. I bought my first Glock about 1 year ago. I have fired about 6000 rounds through it since then. Two, count 'em, two misfeeds. In 6000 rounds!!! Sorry, guys it really don't get any better than this. The absence of the decockers, safetys, etc. etc. is really the point. If you don't think you are competent enough to keep your finger off the trigger until you want to go bang, then get a Beretta or a Ruger. Obviously, the idiot with the Fawty wasn't in spite of telling everyone he was. Thing is, if I draw the thing, my decision has been made. I am going to fire. If someone is not dead at the end, it is because I made a mistake.

I was like many others in the beginning. "Hell's Bells, I ain't going to have no Plastic Gun!!" A few trips to the range with a friend that is a fanatic Glockster sold me. Now, I can't imagine having anything else. I cary my Glock 19 everyday with one in the pipe, and I don't feel unconfortable in the least.

THE GLOCK IS UNEQUIVOCALLY THE FINEST AUTOLOADING PISTOL DESIGN EVER EXECUTED!! DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH IT!!! If there was ever any pistol that is NOT for playing games, this is it!!!

If you can't handle it, get something else, that wil likely get you killed because it doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger.

I will have to say that I can't agree enough that you can never have enough training whatever tool you choose.

Car Knocker
June 7, 2006, 08:47 PM
THE GLOCK IS UNEQUIVOCALLY THE FINEST AUTOLOADING PISTOL DESIGN EVER EXECUTED!! DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH IT!!! If there was ever any pistol that is NOT for playing games, this is it!!!

If you can't handle it, get something else, that wil likely get you killed because it doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion - doesn't mean it's right or wrong, just that it's their opinion.

DMSHEPARD
June 7, 2006, 09:15 PM
It seems that most of these replies are coming from people who do not know the Glock inside and out, and I am talking about BOTH people for and against.
The Glock design uses 3 safeties, just some of them are internal and you can't see them.
1. The "I'd rather a long DAO trigger bit". THe Glock trigger is long, first the trigger loads the spring that "cocks" the firing pin, then you have to actually make it fire, which in itself is a heavy pull. Doesn't this put the Glock in the same catagory as a DAO? Uncocked and unlocked?
2. It was not designed for Mexican carry, or to be left in your local kindergarten unattended. It was designed to be put into action very quickly with the least possibility of failure. Those who question Glocks simplicity are probably the same people who won't buy a new gun with mag safeties, saying it is just one more thing to go wrong in an emergency. Going to have your cake and eat it too?
3. This post is not intended to piss anybody off, but it seems that most of the people are just fighting to get their opinion approved. Are you insecure in your choice of weapon? The effort that has gone into developing and testing these guns was done by people far more qualified than most of us (including me).

I usually just delete a response like this, having vented by the time I have finished, but-THIS HURTS----->:banghead:

Snarlingiron
June 7, 2006, 10:05 PM
Everybody is entitled to their opinion - doesn't mean it's right or wrong, just that it's their opinion.

Couldn't agree more. Prior to getting the Glock I had a variety of 1911 style pistols, including Hi Powers. Nothing really wrong with any of them...I just really, really love the Glock.

Guess I tend to wax a little over-enthusiastic. :D

JohnKSa
June 7, 2006, 10:15 PM
Take all the safeties off the 1911 and you basically have a glock.The trigger safety and the wider than normal trigger guard make Glocks more snag resistant than most pistols.

With the trigger in the forward position, there are two different parts that positively block forward movement of the firing pin, and even if they both break, there is not enough energy stored in the partially cocked striker spring to fire the pistol.

Glocks are not for everyone, but they're safer than most folks realize. They're certainly more drop and snag safe than a 1911 with no safeties.the three most common times to have an ND seem to be holstering, unholstering, and cleaning.I posted a poll awhile back and got well over 100 responses from people who had unintentional discharges. Of the NDs, over 80% were from people intentionally putting their finger on the trigger, and over 60% were from people intentionally pulling the trigger.

While one can argue about the 20% or so who put their finger on the trigger but didn't mean to fire (in direct contradiction to the gun safety rules, I might add), it's clear that the more than 60% who INTENDED to pull the trigger weren't going to be saved by an extra safety lever. There is no safety device which can defeat the INTENT of the shooter without rendering the gun useless.

There were no snag related discharges, and only 6% of responses were due to the finger accidentally being in the triggerguard (holstering discharges would make up some of these). If we believe the poll responses, these types of unintentional discharges aren't nearly as common as it might seem.

pablo45
June 8, 2006, 12:22 AM
I totally agree, there is no need

Double Naught Spy
June 8, 2006, 01:43 AM
The only safety on a pistol should be your trigger finger. These pistols are designed for life/death situations. In those situations you want to be able to unholster your weapon and lay into your adversary. In such a scenario, a safety is only a hinderance and potential death warrant. The best way to be safe is to be a safe shooter.

You could say just about any sort of semi-auto pistol like a 1911, Glock, Kahr, Beretta, etc. was designed for life or death situations, even revolvers. So that point is sort of meaningless as a unique justification for Glock.

I had no idea that Glocks were so much faster than 1911s with 1911s being all hindered with that slow manual safety, and yet, first shot times with 1911s are often quicker than with Glocks. Interesting. Of course, it could be the shooter, not the gun.

Big Gay Al
June 8, 2006, 02:07 AM
Well, call me old fashioned if you want to, but I have problems with any firearm, where part of the disassembly instructions have you pull the trigger for the slide to come off.

But that's just me. ;)

Xigris
June 8, 2006, 02:25 AM
After reading all of the discussion so far, I'd say the answer to the original question is NO - don't change the Glock.
Simply let those who like it the way it is, carry it. For all of those who don't like it the way it is - there are plenty of very good alternatives.

I own a few Glocks (G20, G21 & G29) and they're great. But the pistols I carry most often are an HK USP 40 compact and a Sig P229 SAS.

Blacklabman
June 8, 2006, 09:34 AM
I do not care for external safeties. Besides fit and feel ,this is one of the reasons I prefer Sig's.
Yes the Sig's are SA/DA, with the first shot being the long/heavy DA pull. However the fact that Sig's do not have an external safety, is a fact I enjoy.
On the whole not having an external saftey issue. Glock got it right.

45auto
June 8, 2006, 09:40 AM
Before the Joint forces ditched the proposal for a new handgun, the vast majority of handguns to be purchased were to have a manual safety.

So, if Glock wanted to compete for the "big sales", they would have had to design a manual safety. I suspect, in the future, if they do replace the Beretta, it will probably have a manual safety also...that just a guess.

Obviously, the potential "biggest customer" wants a manual safety. There must be a reason for that. Now, before eveyone says the "Goverment" doesn't know what they are doing or how stupid they are, just keep in mind we have the finest armed force the world has ever seen...so I think they make a lot of good decisions. That doesn't mean it's the best option for everyone, but it probably "ain't stupid" either.

Anybody walk around with a rifle or shotgun without the safety on? ;)

Edit: You can have two Glocks. One with manual safety and one without. It doesn't have to be one or the other! It exist now, but it's an "after market" modification.

loadedround
June 8, 2006, 09:54 AM
How about asking that DEA Halfwit who shot himself in the footwith his Glock. Maybe he was too "professonal" to need an external safety. Still LMAO over this guy...our government agents at work protecting us!

Big Gay Al
June 8, 2006, 10:34 AM
How about asking that DEA Halfwit who shot himself in the footwith his Glock. Maybe he was too "professonal" to need an external safety. Still LMAO over this guy...our government agents at work protecting us!
Don't under estimate the value of that agent. He taught us all a valuable lesson. Regardless of the mechanical devices, the most important safety is YOU. If you don't engage your brain, something bad might happen.

Of course, he also showed us another lesson. Always drop the magazine (clips to you neophytes out there) BEFORE racking the slide to empty the chamber. Other wise, you just did that for nothing. ;)

I still say I don't like any firearm that has you pull the trigger to seperate the slide from the frame. :D

Zach S
June 8, 2006, 10:48 AM
After reading this thread, I wish my glock had an external safety.

I normally shoot 1911s with a high thumb grip. So I pretty much shoot all autos with a high thumb. If my G19 had a thumbsafety, maybe it would slide-lock when the mag was dry... Other than that, the lack of an external saftey doesnt bother me.

Snarlingiron
June 8, 2006, 11:20 AM
How about asking that DEA Halfwit who shot himself in the footwith his Glock. Maybe he was too "professonal" to need an external safety. Still LMAO over this guy...our government agents at work protecting us!

I saw an interview with that idiot the other day. He is sueing the DEA claiming that their allowing the video to get into the public domain has ruined his career. I guess he forgot about shooting himself. Listen for the sucking sound as another idiot that caused his own demise latches onto the government teat.

There is a reason that the expression "Shoot yourself in the foot" is so commonly used to describe idiotic acts.:evil:

ball3006
June 8, 2006, 12:30 PM
dangerous because of no safety lever, how come so many other gun manufacturers make a "lever safe trigger" such as Glocks have. I can't see how someone can carry a stubby Glock mexican style. Not enough barrel to be secure in the waist band. I carry mine in my jacket pocket all the time, along with a Kel Tec too. No problem. You have to remember not to grab the pistol by the trigger when pulling it out. To be a safe gun owner, you HAVE to have a SAFE MINDSET. It is when folks get lax, they shoot themselves in the foot, or elsewhere........If you don't like Glocks, buy something else......I believe a Jennings has a manual safety........chris3

SSN Vet
June 8, 2006, 03:48 PM
If you don't think you are competent enough to keep your finger off the trigger until you want to go bang

If you can't handle it, get something else, that will likely get you killed because it doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger, get a ...

I think external switch safeties are extremely dangerous.....owners being shot because they couldn't shoot first

So....you have to be "competent" enough to keep your finger off the trigger....if you can't "handle it" get and external safety gun.

But...external safety guns will "get you killed" if you are not "competent" enough to remember to flip the safety off.

So what requires more competence?
1. not actuating little metal flipper called the trigger when you don't want "bang"
or
2. actuating little metal flipper called safety when you do want "bang"

Let's face it.....safely handling a firearm requires competence & safely carrying a firearm for self defense requires even more. This is true whether you have an external safety or not.

Some people feel they need to deploy their self defense weapon very quickly and that risk of forgetting to toggle off the safety along with the risk of not being able to toggle off the safety quickly enough outweigh the risk of forgetting to remove their finger from the trigger guard after firing it and shooting themselves in the leg when reholstering.

Other people may not think that they need to deploy their self defense weapon in such a speedy manner, and therefore balance the risk rewards the other way.

Both these positions have logic behind them.

What has no logic behind it is the continual mindless banter that those who balance the risk rewards differently (because they are different people in different circumstances) are "complete idiots who are negligent and unsafe" or "fraidy cats who can't handle it".

Note that even the professional military minds come down on different sides of the risk reward balancing act.

Glock built the thing with the advice of many military and leo individuals. No external anything. So, when you pull the trigger it goes bang.

and

if Glock wanted to compete for the "big sales" (U.S. Military), they would have had to design a manual safety....Obviously, the potential "biggest customer" wants a manual safety. There must be a reason for that

Why might Glock consider putting a manual safety on their fine firearms? How about to offer more choices! What a concept.

This shouldn't ruffle anybody’s feathers, obviously those who can "handle it" and are "competent enough to keep your finger off the trigger"......should also be competent enough to keep their finger off the external safety (that is...not accidentally engage it when not desiring it).

Of course those smarty pants Austrians will have to develop the worlds first safe action safety, to prevent accidental engaging of the safety, to go along with it.:neener:

Jonathan
June 9, 2006, 12:42 AM
The "finger-is-the-safety" concept is continually paraded around, despite studies that have shown that trigger-finger control is not something you can control 100% of the time.

Under the right conditions, even trained people will reflexively clench their fingers, leading to a situation in which the trigger is pulled. It's not their fault, and it might not even be possible to overcome with training: it's just a function of how your central nervous system works.

In addition, pull weight is insufficient to guard against this effect: although this is just from memory, I recall figures of 15 to 20 pounds of force being measured for these simulated accidents. A long trigger can guard against the jerk reflex, but even that's not a sure thing.



For this reason, an external safety is required. Modern designs can effectively eliminate the concerns of mechanical failure, and a grip or integral trigger safety can help against non-holster accidents, but neither guards against the AD I've mentioned above. Of course, if a person flips off a safety while drawing, but before bringing up to aim, then the benefit is lost.

JohnKSa
June 9, 2006, 01:18 AM
Jonathon,

The idea isn't that you put your finger on the trigger and then try to keep from pulling it voluntarily through training, the idea is that you keep your finger completely OFF the trigger (most recommend that it be out of the trigger guard entirely and indexed on the frame of the gun above the trigger) until ready to fire. As stated by the second rule of gun safety.

The finger on the trigger idea generates two possibilities.

First Possibility: The person has a finger on the trigger when the situation does not warrant it.

If a person is walking around with a finger on the trigger, in direct contradiction to the rules of gun safety, it seems a stretch to think that this same careless person will remember to have engaged the manual safety. If he can't remember to keep his finger off the trigger, why is it reasonable to think he will be careful enough to engage a manual safety? Along the same lines, why would we think he could remember to disengage a manual safety when he actually needs to fire.

Conversely, if a person can learn to engage and disengage a manual safety properly, why do we accept that he can't learn to keep his finger off the trigger until ready to fire? Especially since that's something he's supposed to be doing already!

Second Possibility: The person has a finger on the trigger when warranted by the situation.

If the situation is such that it DOES warrant having a finger on the trigger, then it's hard to imagine that that the person will have left a manual safety engaged to prevent an accidental pull. If a manual safety IS on at this point, it's probably on by mistake!

Richard.Howe
June 9, 2006, 02:32 AM
Glocks are just fine open carry holster pistols, but they're not as good for CCW use as some other types, primarily because their safety is a holster

Just like a revolver, right?

:confused:

thales
June 9, 2006, 09:01 PM
*


No, a Glock is not just like a revolver. In stock condition, the Glock's trigger is considerably lighter and shorter than the trigger of any double action revolver I have seen; S&W, Colt, Ruger, High Standard, Taurus, etc.

In addition, a lot of people seem unhappy with the Glock's standard trigger pull, so they modify it to make it crisper, shorter and lighter. Accordingly, a brand new Glock ought to have a manual safety, and a Glock with a modified trigger should be considered a "range only" pistol without one.

Some people think "just keep yer booger hook off the bang switch (ya moron), and you won't have an accident and you don't need a manual safety". With equal logic you could say, "You don't need seat belts in your car, just don't have a collision". Or, "You don't need a smoke alarm in your house, just don't let a fire start in the middle of the night". The point being, of course, that pistols are manipulated by people who fail to do things 100% right 100% of the time.

It is not difficult to learn the rules of safe gun handling and practice them faithfully under normal circumstances. But people get complacent and casual in handling their guns, just as they do with Skil-saws, and that complacency is a major source of accidents. Like the cop who reholstered his Glock in a holster with a safety strap that entered the trigger guard, causing an accidental discharge. (He was keeping his booger hook off the bang switch, but he was not perfect enough to foresee such an accident. I guess Glock and Fobus weren't either.) Ditto another cop who did much the same thing with his Glock, but with an elastic cord from his jacket. (This sort of accident has happened with revolvers, too.) Ditto the infamous "professional" DEA agent. It may be fun to call him a moron, but his main fault was complacency. Now I know none of us are dumb enough to let any such thing happen to us. But unless you have never run your car out of gas, never cut yourself shaving, and never burned yourself with a hot skillet, then you should learn rather than laugh. It can happen to anybody and a manual safety can help.

We normally handle our guns routinely; range, home, holster, etc. We can all reasonably expect to live a lifetime without needing to use a pistol to defend ourselves. If we do have such a need, then normal safe gun handling practices will rapidly be replaced by conditioned reflexes, physiological alert responses, and instinct. In a self-defense emergency, we can expect to experience tunnel vision, hearing compression, time dilation, loss of fine muscle coordination, exaggerated muscle tone, etc. We can expect to be extremely frightened and excited and in one heck of a desperate hurry. We can expect to soil our drawers and not notice it until later. The likelihood of an accidental discharge (with unintended and possibly tragic consequences) increases dramatically in such circumstances. This can also happen to anybody and a manual safety can help here, too.

If the idea is that a manual safety is one more device that has to be mastered and that is likely to interfere with the reliable function of the pistol, then the only rational response is, "Master it!" I don't see how the same people who can't be trained to operate a manual safety can be expected to "keep their booger hook off the bang switch".

Please don't call that little lever on the face of the Glock's trigger a "safety". It is trigger block that is disengaged by pulling the trigger (intentionally or not), and it is some special kind of stupid. It has essentially no function.

My Glock is getting a thumb safety.


*

Jonathan
June 9, 2006, 09:06 PM
John,

I'm not under the impression that people who keep their finger on the trigger can be helped with a simple safety: that's a serious violation of basic safe practice.

I was referring to the standard technique of a straight index finger along the slide. Here's some quick quotes from one review:

...33 male and 13 female officers of different ranks and years of service, were sent into a room to arrest a "suspect" and to "act in a way they thought appropriate" while doing so. The officers were armed with a SIG-Sauer P226 that was rigged with force sensors on the trigger and grip. All the officers were instructed that if they drew the gun during the exercise, they were to keep their finger off the trigger unless they had made the decision to shoot, per their training and department regs.

As the role-play evolved, 34 of the 46 officers drew the gun and one officer actually fired, intentionally. Of the 33 others who drew, all insisted that they had followed instructions to keep their finger outside the trigger guard, because they'd not made a decision to shoot.

The sensors told a different tale.

Seven of the 33--more than 20 per cent--had in fact touched the trigger hard enough to activate the sensor. Even the officer who eventually fired his weapon "not only touched the trigger twice before actually firing and once again afterwards, but also had his finger on it long before actually firing," Heim notes. Yet he too maintained he'd kept his finger well clear of the trigger until the very split-second before he fired.

They also discussed how easy it is to fire when the finger is actually kept on the trigger, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. The two other factors that could be applicable to the insufficiency of conscious trigger control are "sympathetic contraction" and "hand confusion". The first involves an unintentional action as the result of some intentional motion, and the second is when you effectively confuse one hand for the other for an intentional action.

In my opinion, both of these are inherently less of a threat, and in addition, both should be more avoidable with training.

nitesite
June 9, 2006, 10:51 PM
I own a S&W 442 Airweight Centennial .38-Spl revolver and have pocket carried it numerous times without any kind of holster. The long and fairly heavy trigger pull makes me feel quite safe with this unprotected handgun in a pocket, even when drawing it from a concealed location.

Would you carry a SubCompact Glock in the same pocket sans holster or whatever protects the trigger?

I carry the G29 but would never carry it unprotected in a pocket like I do with a hammerless J-frame. For me it requires a good holster to feel comfortable.

JohnKSa
June 9, 2006, 11:07 PM
Jonathon,

I addressed the possibility that a person would put his or her finger on the trigger when the situation didn't warrant it in my earlier answer. Keeping your finger off the trigger is a very simple thing to do/not do. Simpler than manipulating a manual safety. If a person can't learn when to put/not put a finger on the trigger, it's a stretch to believe they can learn to operate a manual safety reliably.

While you say that you aren't talking about people putting their fingers on the trigger by mistake, the quoted study in your post clearly is speaking about exactly that.Please don't call that little lever on the face of the Glock's trigger a "safety". It is trigger block that is disengaged by pulling the trigger (intentionally or not), and it is some special kind of stupid. It has essentially no function.It is a snag safety designed to prevent the trigger from being accidentally snagged. It actually works quite well. It is NOT intended to prevent a person from firing the gun when they pull the trigger. Saying it won't do that as if that is an indictment is sort of like saying that seatbelts don't prevent accidents and therefore they have no function.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
June 9, 2006, 11:14 PM
"Safe", and ,"Safety", are relative terms! If you don't FEEL safe with a certain type of firearm, or carrying a certain type of firearm a certain way, THEN DON'T BUY IT:neener: ....Move along, nothing to see here, just more gun hate:banghead: !

yhtomit
June 9, 2006, 11:36 PM
One of the recent posts says that the Glock-style trigger-lever doohickey is intended to counter the danger of snags; I certainly hope it has some function, but I'm looking for an explanation of how the heck it makes the trigger safer. (On my XD-45, I have a similar trigger doohickey, so this is not just a quest for random knowledge.)

If something's small enough (people have mentioned thumb flaps and jacket cords) to fit into the trigger guard, and strong / taut enough to exert trigger-pulling force, what does that little lever have to do with the price of beans? :) My obviously poor understanding is that it's designed so that the pressure exerted on the trigger has to be something close to straight back (in line with the bore); is that the sole advantage? (And if so, am I being thickheaded to find it underwhelming?)

A grip safety I can (ha ha) grasp, and I know there are folks with either natural genius or expensive engineering degrees designing guns for Glock, Springfield, and anyone else using that little snake-tongue trigger, and I hope it is a truly useful passive safety device as is claimed, but I'm baffled by it.

Cheers,

timothy

JohnKSa
June 10, 2006, 12:34 AM
Timothy,

First of all, the Glock triggerguard is proportionally thicker than most other trigger guards. That means that a snagging object must reach further past the edge of the trigger guard to get to the trigger than in many other common guns.

Second, just reaching past the edge of the triggerguard to the trigger still isn't enough. The trigger safety can not be deactivated by pressure just anywhere on the front trigger surface.

Unlike the XD, pressure on the front sides of a Glock trigger or on the front edges will not deactivate the trigger safety. Like the XD pressure at the top of the trigger will not deactivate the trigger safety. The curve of the trigger tends to cause snagging objects to ride to the top of the trigger before they really catch with any force, and the trigger safety lever can not be deactivated by pushing at the top of the trigger.

Lastly, in a poll on unintentional discharges from this forum, in nearly 150 responses from people who had unintentionally discharged a firearm, not a single person had experienced an unintentional discharge from snagging the trigger. It seems that modern firearms are quite resistant to this type of unintentional discharge. It also seems that this is a fairly rare way for someone to accidentally/negligently discharge a firearm.

As I mentioned earlier, nearly all of the negligent discharges in the poll (over 80%) were the result of the shooter INTENTIONALLY putting a finger inside the trigger guard, and in the majority of negligent discharges, the shooter INTENTIONALLY pulled the trigger. There is no safety device that can defeat the INTENT of the shooter without rendering the gun useless for its original purpose. The rest of the negligent discharges (6%) were from accidentally getting a finger inside the trigger guard, and the remaining 10% or so were decocking accidents (not something that's applicable to Glocks.)

There are now a good many firearms on the market that have relatively light Glock style trigger pulls that do not have manual safeties, and yet we rarely see those firearms being publicly denigrated for their lack of safety or safeties. Unfortunately, the Glock is a pistol that many love to hate--that causes most of the "problems" that Glocks supposedly have. This is compounded by the fact that few people really take the time to really "decode" the internal workings of a Glock and base their assessments of its safety (or lack thereof) on a flawed understanding of the internal function of the pistol.

thales
June 10, 2006, 12:34 AM
*


"I'm looking for an explanation of how the heck it makes the trigger safer."

Well, yhtomit, you obviously have not been drinking your koolaid.

If you contrive to inadvertently pull on the side of the trigger, which is maybe 1/8" or so wide, without simultaneously pulling on the "safety lever" then it has just "saved your butt" thereby proving the wonderful perfection of Glocks. Of course, if you inadvertently pull on the "safety lever" while inadvertently pulling the trigger, causing an accidental discharge, then you are obviously a negligent, communist, heretic pansy, and you should enjoy whatever misfortune comes you way.

Got it?


*

JohnKSa
June 10, 2006, 12:53 AM
thales,

It should be plain that the trigger safety is NOT intended to prevent a person from pulling the trigger. And if it weren't plain in the first place, it should be now since I've said it at least twice.If the idea is that a manual safety is one more device that has to be mastered and that is likely to interfere with the reliable function of the pistol, then the only rational response is, "Master it!" I don't see how the same people who can't be trained to operate a manual safety can be expected to "keep their booger hook off the bang switch".The problem with this argument is that it applies equally to NOT having a manual safety.

Here it is turned around:

If the idea is that keeping one's finger off the trigger has to be mastered in order to be safe with a pistol, then the only rational response is, "Master it!" I don't see how the same people who can't be trained to "keep their booger hook off the bang switch" can be expected to operate a manual safety.a negligent, communist, heretic pansy, and you should enjoy whatever misfortune comes you wayI'm not saying you're a heretic or anything else. I'm just saying that the Glock model of operation is a successful one--so successful that it has been repeatedly copied/emulated. In today's litigious society, it's not terribly likely that a design which can be shown to be inherently unsafe would remain extremely popular and profitable--let alone much copied. So while some people might WANT a manual safety, I think it's quite safe to say that it's not a necessity nor is there a deficiency in the design that warrants such an addition.

Lastly, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't modify your pistol. It's yours and if you want a manual safety and can afford it, you should have one. It would be presumptuous of me to tell you what to do with your own posessions. As it is presumptuous for you to imply that people who don't make the same choices that you make or who don't follow the same line of reasoning that you choose are suicidal cult members.

Jonathan
June 10, 2006, 02:04 AM
John, based upon your previous post (#49), I don't think you understand.

I started off (http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2498045&postcount=43) by clearly stating that it just isn't reliable to intentionally keep your finger off the trigger. That has been my point the entire time, and the finger-intentionally-on-trigger (http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2499548&postcount=47) was provided just as an aside.


In many ways it's very much like the four rules. If you break one, just a little bit, there will probably never be any accident due to the redundancies of the other three. However, it will always be just a fraction less safe than if you were following all four.

Glocks use maybe three out of the four rules, and the more classic designs use all four. That's just the way it is, plain fact.

thales
June 10, 2006, 02:14 AM
*


Welll, if the trigger "safety" is NOT intended to prevent a person from pulling the trigger, then it has no function at all. If a person intentionally pulls the trigger, then they disengage the trigger "safety". Fine, it does not prevent an intentional trigger pull.

If a person unintentionally pulls the trigger, as in the aforementioned holstering incidents, or if, for example, they are wrestling to get their gun back, or if they mistakenly grab for their gun if they have dropped it, or if they are clumsy grabbing for their gun in an emergency, or if the trigger unfortunately gets pulled a million other unintentional ways, then the trigger block "safety" does nothing to prevent a discharge, and therefore has no function at all.

If you happen to pull the trigger sideways, or if you can contrive to unintentionally pull ONLY on the side of the trigger then it will not go off.

So if the function of the trigger blocking "safety" is NOT to prevent a person from pulling the trigger, then just exactly what is the function of the Glock trigger block "safety"? I mean, other than looking all cool and tactical?


*

thales
June 10, 2006, 02:46 AM
*


The problem with this argument is that it applies equally to NOT having a manual safety.

I don't think it applies quite equally, because the consequences are quite different. They are not symmetrical at all.

If you fail to disengage a manual safety, whether trying to shoot or not, then your gun doesn't fire. If you have unintentionally pulled the trigger, then the manual safety has just prevented an accidental discharge. If you were actually intending to pull the trigger, it takes about a half a second or so to notice and then disengage the manual safety.

If, on the other hand, you unintentionally pull the trigger of a loaded gun without such a safety, then you have just accomplished an accidental or negligent discharge. This is irreversible, and while it may not have a tragic result, it certainly could and sometimes does.


*

JohnKSa
June 10, 2006, 03:32 AM
Jonathon,

Explain the logic that tells you that someone who can't learn to reliably keep a finger off the trigger CAN learn to reliably operate a manual safety?

Next, explain why a person who can't reliably follow the three rules of gun safety should be handling a loaded firearm in the first place.if the trigger "safety" is NOT intended to prevent a person from pulling the trigger, then it has no function at all.No, that is not correct. An airbag is not intended to prevent an accident, but it does have a function. Diet and exercise is not intended to prevent a person from dieing of old age, but they are still beneficial. A wrench is not intended to prevent tooth decay but it is far from useless.

The Glock trigger safety obviously doesn't do what you want it to do--but that doesn't mean it does NOTHING. It only means it doesn't do what you want it to do.what is the function of the Glock trigger block "safety"?I've explained quite carefully what the function is, and what's more, I've done it more than once. It's one thing for you to say you don't understand, it's quite another to pretend that it hasn't been explained when it has been--repeatedly and in detail.If you fail to disengage a manual safety, whether trying to shoot or not, then your gun doesn't fire.Which, in a self-defense scenario, could get you and/or someone you're trying to defend killed.you unintentionally pull the trigger of a loaded gun without such a safety, then you have just accomplished an accidental or negligent discharge.Which will be harmless if you follow the PRIMARY rule of gun safety.

Do you notice that the pesky rules of gun safety keep popping up in this discussion? That's because THEY, not manual safeties are the key to safe gun handling.

The bottom line here is that if a person can't follow the basic rules of gun safety, they're not going to be safe with any gun regardless of how many safeties it has. If they can, then it's sufficient to have a gun that only fires when the trigger is pulled.

thales
June 10, 2006, 05:00 AM
*


It is a snag safety designed to prevent the trigger from being accidentally snagged. It actually works quite well.

Do you mean that it is designed to actually prevent accidental discharges caused by things like holster safety straps and elastic waist cords on jackets? It doesn't look like it works all that well.

I've explained quite carefully what the function is, and what's more, I've done it more than once.

Okay, I think I follow you. The trigger block is not a safety. It is not designed to prevent an intentional or unintentional trigger pull from a finger, whether yours or anyone else's. It is designed to prevent accidental trigger pulls caused by snags from things like safety straps, elastic cords, etc. And, of course, it works much better at this function than those deadly manual safeties that can get you killed. And if you were to have an accidental discharge that turns out badly in a self defense (or holstering) situation, then you were negligently failing to follow the most basic three (or was it four?) rules of gun safety. Therefore, you must be some kind of idiot, obviously, who cannot be trusted to own a gun, no matter how difficult the circumstances may have been.

Now, where did I put my koolaid?.


*

jc2
June 10, 2006, 08:14 AM
As I mentioned earlier, nearly all of the negligent discharges in the poll (over 80%) were the result of the shooter INTENTIONALLY putting a finger inside the trigger guard, and in the majority of negligent discharges, the shooter INTENTIONALLY pulled the trigger.
John, you are giving far, far too much credence to your "poll."
It is a snag safety designed to prevent the trigger from being accidentally snagged. It actually works quite well.
Actually, it hasn't worked very well.
Next, explain why a person who can't reliably follow the three rules of gun safety should be handling a loaded firearm in the first place.
The safety rules actually work pretty well for the range, they do not always work very well for administrative handling. Anyway you cut it, the Glock has a long and distinguished of accidents involving administrative--cleaning, holstering, etc.--handling.

Jonathan
June 10, 2006, 04:44 PM
Explain the logic that tells you that someone who can't learn to reliably keep a finger off the trigger CAN learn to reliably operate a manual safety?

Next, explain why a person who can't reliably follow the three rules of gun safety should be handling a loaded firearm in the first place.

Here's the logic:

You can't "learn" to keep a finger off the trigger because the AD as discussed is from a reflex action. You can learn to use a safety because it's a positive, conscious decision and action.

I don't need to address your second comment because it's off-topic and not relevant to the ongoing discussion.

Snarlingiron
June 10, 2006, 05:13 PM
Soooo, Thales, what do you carry? You have pontificated at length about the Glock's deficiencies, what is your picture of perfection?

JohnKSa
June 10, 2006, 10:38 PM
It doesn't look like it works all that well.It works well enough that it has been copied by multiple manufacturers. ;)And, of course, it works much better at this function than those deadly manual safeties that can get you killed.I didn't say that it worked better, only that it did its job adequately and that the design of the pistol didn't REQUIRE the addition of another safety in order to be safe. Clearly either approach has some advantages and disadvantages.And if you were to have an accidental discharge that turns out badly in a self defense (or holstering) situation, then you were negligently failing to follow the most basic three (or was it four?) rules of gun safety.Well, short of parts breakage (or similar mechanical failures), there are no "accidental" discharges, there are only negligent discharges. So yes.Therefore, you must be some kind of idiot, obviously, who cannot be trusted to own a gun, no matter how difficult the circumstances may have been.An obvious overstatement intended to have dramatic and emotional impact but carrying no "debate value."Now, where did I put my koolaid?Implying that those who disagree with you are suicidal cult members does not give your argument any additional weight.You can't "learn" to keep a finger off the trigger because the AD as discussed is from a reflex action. You can learn to use a safety because it's a positive, conscious decision and action.It can be argued that squeezing (once the finger is on the trigger) is a reflex action, however I have not seen any information to support the idea that actually putting the finger on the trigger is a reflex. It is a very common habit and sort of a natural thing to do given that firearms are generally designed such that the trigger is placed in a way to ensure that a comfortable grip puts the index finger in easy reach of the trigger, but that's far from a reflex.

The rules of gun safety are critical to any discussion about gun safety and/or gun safeties. If you ignore them, it makes it easy to argue that it's critical to add more safety features to firearms. This is why internal locks have become required in some states and also how manual safeties have been added to already functional designs at the behest of people who know more about civil actions than gun safety. It's also how the people who want to add even more technical "safety" gadgets to firearms rationalize their goals.

Ignoring the gun safety rules bypasses the critical fact that gun safety is all about the responsibility of the shooter, not about the gadgets on the gun.John, you are giving far, far too much credence to your "poll."Perhaps--I'm willing to use the results from another poll if you have one.Actually, it hasn't worked very well. ... Anyway you cut it, the Glock has a long and distinguished of accidents involving administrative--cleaning, holstering, etc.--handling.Again, I'm willing to examine the results of any credible evidence you can provide. For reference, I'm not talking about a list of anecdotes, for it to carry any weight, it would have to be something with a little more scientific basis.

mindwip
June 10, 2006, 11:11 PM
For the poeple talking about Safetys, and how you might forget to engage it, what about a seatbelt :rolleyes:

At least for me i put on my seat belt every time i get in the car, and have been doing it for 5 years. I never forget, i never think to my self "Daniel now remember to engage that seatbelt". No i throw it on with out knowing i did. This happens a lot to me, i get in the car and need to get out again, like i forgot my school books so i try to get out of the car with it still on,:cool: then i eye the belt saying "hay how did you get there", i had no knowledge of me putting the belt on its just there magicly.:o


Training, training, means you dont forget:p :p Lets not forget the cops that got shot picking up there brass on the ground. Training means everything.

And yes i will take the 20% chance that i wont shoot my foot,
And yes i will take that 40% chance that if a bad guy gets my gun, he may have to take 1sec to look at the gun and find the safety.
And yes i will take the 1% chance that some kid/idoit wont shoot him selfin the head with my gun

All this can be yours with simple training, and please dont say safetys slow you down either.

dcloudy777@aol.com
June 10, 2006, 11:13 PM
Actually, this thread has convinced me... why [I]would[I] I want an external safety on a Glock, when I can have it on something nice like a 1911 or a Hi-Power? :neener: Okay, just kidding Glock guys... lighten up, will ya?:D

DanO

JohnKSa
June 11, 2006, 12:16 AM
DanO,

You're right, of course.

There are many different makers, each making several different models of guns. The result is a wide variety of available operating systems and philosophies all of which have advantages and disadvantages.

One might say there's something for everyone. This ought to be a good thing, but people are not content to pick something that works for them and leave it at that. For some reason, many also find it necessary to prove to everyone else that their choice is best and that other choices reflect negatively on those who make them.

There are a few people who are really interested in the whys and wherefores of design and operation, but it's usually more about ego than it is about gun design.

I own a few Glocks, but I also own a few Rugers, some Berettas, a couple of Walthers, a few CZs, etc. Some of them have manual safeties, some don't. For some applications I choose a gun with a manual safety, for some applications I don't. It's not a matter of which design is best, it's a matter of which one fits the particular application at hand the best.

But, let's not get too reasonable here...wouldn't wanna steal anyone's rant. ;)No i throw it on with out knowing i did. This happens a lot to me, i get in the car and need to get out again, like i forgot my school books so i try to get out of the car with it still onContinuing in the vein of your analogy, it would seem that while "engaging the safety" (putting on the seatbelt) has become automatic, you apparently sometimes forget to "disengage it" (remove your seatbelt.) I can see how that might happen. :D ;)

mindwip
June 11, 2006, 04:05 AM
Thou one could argue that i trained so that i never leave the car with the engine on, thus me existing with the belt on shows that the "safety works":neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:



But really, i was just showing that if you train to do it, you will without thinking. If you look at my example then yeah you could say i might sometimes forget to put BACK on the safety, but it will never be a problem when i am facing down a BG. Not to mention i never trained to take a belt off with the car running, as in my example, so it does father show that training matters.

I always put on my seatbelt and start the car at the same time
I always take off my seatbelt and turn off the car at the same time

But when i but on my seatbelt and the car is on, and i try to get out i forget about the seatbelt, why because in my mind the belt is always on when the car is on. Hence were there is a conflict, this could be corrected with training, but i dont want to, its a good idea to never exist a car with the engine on(good way to get it stolen), so i try to get out and am stoped my the seatblet then i should turn off the car. This would work perfet for a safety, just as it does in my car, the seatbelt is there when it needs to be 100% of the time, when i try to leave the car with the engine on i am stoped by the seatbelt thus REMEMBERING me to trun off the car and take the seatbelt off, at the same time.

Me trying to get out of the car with the engine on, is the same as shooting your foot, This proves that training saves you, not hurts/along with a seatbelt-safety. My example fits into that perfectly.

of course to each his own but i like my seatbelt

MCgunner
June 11, 2006, 11:45 AM
The only safety on a pistol should be your trigger finger. These pistols are designed for life/death situations. In those situations you want to be able to unholster your weapon and lay into your adversary. In such a scenario, a safety is only a hinderance and potential death warrant. The best way to be safe is to be a safe shooter.

Yeah, whatever, I can draw and fire my DAO Kel Tec plenty fast and accurate and the 1911s, with all their safety feathers, are faster than Glocks at the IDPA matches. Look at the qualification time requirements for enhanced pistol vs service pistol and you'll see the 1911s require better scores for qualification in any given skill level. Enhanced pistols, 1911s, finish at the top of any match. That means they're faster into action than the Glocks. You can't argue with the numbers.

I carry a true DAO as an armed citizen. In 30 years of carrying, legally or not, I've had to draw a weapon ONCE and didn't have to fire it then to stop the issue. I carry every day, though, and would as soon carry a little more safely. Sure, I know how to handle a gun, but there's no need to make the gun any more ready to fire in a pocket. :rolleyes: But, then, I like revolvers and I don't get in gun fights every day.

Cosmoline
July 7, 2006, 02:43 AM
Maybe I'm missing something here. What's the difference between carrying a Glock with one in the pipe and a S&W J frame with no external hammer? No sane person suggests carrying only four in the J frame. But in fact its simple trigger is less safe than the Glock's.

MTMilitiaman
July 7, 2006, 03:58 AM
My initial reaction to the question "why would someone want an external safety on a Glock" is to shrug my shoulders and suggest "I don't know. Some people could screw up a wet dream."

There are those who suggest Glock owners prefer Glock's because they do not feel profecient enough to deal with a manual safety. This is not true. I have enough experience with 1911s and USPs to understand and accomidate the frame mounted sweep down safeties, and enough experience with Ruger and SIG DAs to use the decocker. What really gets me is the slide mounted sweep up safeties like the Beretta. That is bass-ackwards to me. And of course their is a flip side--if you are not confident enough in your profeciency with a handgun and your mastery of firearms safety to use a pistol with no external safety, then maybe you are relying too much on the safety and should go back to Firearms Safety 101. In truth, with proper firearm behavior, the presence of or absense of an external safety is of little consequence. Without proper behavior, an external safety is still of little consequence, because, as they say, there is always a better idiot. There is always someone who will manage to put a hole through their foot then complain that one external safety wasn't enough. I know my Glock doesn't have an external safety and that keeps me vigilant. Something about knowing their is no room for error and recognizing the consequences tends to keep my mind alert. I can't rely on an external safety, therefore, I don't.

Pistol Toter
July 7, 2006, 09:38 AM
I carry a Glock; and I carry a snub nose revolver. I carry one about as much as I carry the other. Are the triggers the same? Absolutely not! If I single action my revolver, the trigger is comparitively light. If I fire it double action it requires signifcantly more effort. My Glock is stock and it is whatever it measures, I've never checked it; but, is pretty light. If I am carring the Glock and when I go to bed at night I remove it from the holster, which incidentally covers the trigger and I place it on the dresser. I do this act with much care. When I rise in the morning and dress, I must reholster the gun, if much care was used in unholstering, then extreme care is employed when reholstering as my leather has a retention strap. Some may ask why a strap? Well I feel safer with it that way! Am I 100% happy with my Glock? Yes. Would it be any safer with an external control to block the trigger? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Accidents will happen, most are avoidable and some, welllllll, you look at and ask, how the heck did that happen and can something be done to prevent it in the future?, When I handle my Glock, I employ or use and extra amount of caution and care because I am in charge of a mechanical device that is very dangerious and with little effort can and will inflict a wound that most potentially is fatal. Fatal to me or someone around me. Does my revovler have any more or less potential? No. The question was why would..... because it makes the person more comfortable with what he or she is doing. Is it more or less safe? The answer is a objective, subjective response. It is connected with a number of "IF THEN" statements. Handleing a firearm is dangerious at best, they are always loaded and if mechanically sound will fire if the trigger is pulled. If a mechanical contrivance is installed to block that motion it must be working properly and engaged. One must train to drive a car, one must train more to drive a tractor trailer truck, that's a FACT! It is easier to have a bad accident in a vehicle that is 65' + long than one that is 10' long. Apply that logic here and act accordingly. I am 53 years old and have never had a negligent or accidental discharge. Does that mean it will never happen? I have had minor accidents in my automoble and I had several minor accidents while operating long nose tractors pulling 53' trailers. Were they all avoidable? The answer is; at some point / instant in time, is absolutly YES. All of the mirrors and sophistacated breaking systems, attention to detail of traffic flow and patterns and on and on, et al; someone, me or the other fellow messed up. I hope you get my point.

progunner1957
July 7, 2006, 09:49 AM
Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?
Raging paranoia?:eek:

Putting an external safety on a Glock makes as much sense as putting one on a DA revolver (hell, or on a SA revolver).

The thing with guns is, if you don't want it to go BOOM and make a hole in something, THEN DON'T PULL THE TRIGGER!! No gun ever made went BOOM all by itself.

Why some people cannot accept this is beyond me.:confused:

If someone is afraid of guns, maybe they shouldn't get one. Or maybe they should get one and actually learn how to safely operate and handle it (what a concept!)

Lone_Gunman
July 7, 2006, 09:54 AM
I own Glocks and love them, but still wish they had an external safety. That said, I realize they won't go off unless I pull the trigger.

But then, neither will a cocked and unlocked 1911.

MCgunner
July 7, 2006, 11:04 AM
If this is a double post to someone else's, sorry. There is one possible way I'd carry a Glock concealed. I'd use one of these... http://members.aol.com/saftblok/ ... along with a good trigger covering stiff leather holster or kydex and the NY trigger spring. I'd prefer not using this this thing, but trained with, would probably be pretty quick.

Cosmoline
July 7, 2006, 01:47 PM
But a cocked and unlocked 1911 has a VERY VERY light trigger pull and no secondary safety as part of the trigger itself. A bit of clothing will set it off. The Glock has the safety in the trigger and even if a finger-like object gets in there and catches it, it still requires a good five pounds on a two-stage trigger to set off. That's not as much as a Ruger, but it's on par with a lighter DA revolver such as a target or slicked up S&W action. I'm really not seeing the problem here.

longeyes
July 7, 2006, 02:27 PM
If you don't want to use a holster, or can't, use a Saf-T-Blok, as needed.

MCgunner
July 7, 2006, 03:40 PM
That's not as much as a Ruger, but it's on par with a lighter DA revolver such as a target or slicked up S&W action.

A revolver with a 4 lb trigger would never go off. They're a bit longer throw, too.

Cosmoline
July 7, 2006, 04:30 PM
Some are pretty short. I've owned a slicked up Dan Wesson that had a throw nearly as short as a Glock's, and no two stages or safety trigger either.

All my BS alarms go off when I hear about the Glock "AD's" from LEO's. I suspect we're dealing with people who are trying to holster the thing with their finger on the trigger. Certainly anyone who caps off a round because they never checked the chamber before breaking it down for cleaning has nobody to blame but themselves.

GeorgiaGlocker
July 7, 2006, 05:02 PM
The problem with external safties is that in the heat of the battle you can always forget to remove the safety from the off position. Then what good is your gun to you then? By the time you remember, it is probably to late. I own two Glocks and I don't have a problem with not having an external safety. The only problem one would have is if you are are certain DEA agent who is the only one qualified in the room to operate a Glock 40.... and then shoot yourself!

dhoomonyou
July 7, 2006, 05:22 PM
someone has this as there sig line:

Keep your booger pick off the bang switch.

BluesBear
July 7, 2006, 11:59 PM
What's the difference between carrying a Glock with one in the pipe and a S&W J frame with no external hammer?The J-frame isn't constantly partially cocked. There is a hammer block that rests between the hammer and the frame until the trigger is pulled. And with the internal hammer J-frame guns that means a somewhat heavy, long, traditional double action trigger pull.

Now I know that Glocks pass all of the standard drop tests but there is absolutely no way you could drop a Centennial hard enough to cause it to fire.

gitarmac
July 8, 2006, 01:06 AM
I didn't think my glock trigger was light until I got a ruger GP100. I have 3 glocks and decided on my G26, my CCW gun, to put a ny1 trigger. It's not really revolver like, it starts out easy and the final trigger break is a little harder. I have 3.5lb connectors on my G34 and G21, for GSSF shoots.

I just got the new trigger today, I liked it when I dry fired it, it makes me feel a little better about carrying it.

JohnKSa
July 8, 2006, 01:52 AM
...but there is absolutely no way you could drop a Centennial hard enough to cause it to fire.For a Glock to fire from being dropped, the following parts would have to be compromised.

Firing pin safety which prevents the striker from moving forward far enough to contact the primer until the trigger is pulled to the rear would have to be broken or jammed in the up position.

In ADDITION to this, the rear of the trigger bar and/or the downward protrusion of the striker would have to break since the interaction between these two items also prevent the striker from moving forward enough to contact the primer until the trigger is pulled.

It's not sufficient for something to force the trigger bar down. Until the trigger is pulled, the safety ramp prevents the trigger bar from being pushed down enough to clear the downward protrusion of the striker. With the trigger in the forward position, the trigger bar and safety ramp work together to turn the trigger bar into a second striker safety.

FURTHERMORE, according to Glock, there is not enough energy stored in the partially cocked striker to fire the pistol. So even if the above parts (that's partS--it takes at least two failures) were compromised and allowed the striker to fall, it still shouldn't fire the pistol.

I suppose it's also theoretically possible that a TREMENDOUS impact could shear the trigger safety lever and provide enough acceleration force to move the trigger through it's normal arc of motion. I can't see this happening from anything short of a cataclysmic event.

Bottom line, if a Glock fires without the trigger's being pulled, at least TWO parts are broken/damaged/modified, AND there has been some sort of very ill-advised modification to the striker or striker spring.

It's safe to say that your statement would be equally correct if you inserted the word "Glock" in place of "Centennial".

carpettbaggerr
July 8, 2006, 02:07 AM
Putting an external safety on a Glock makes as much sense as putting one on a DA revolverSure does. Click and enjoy.......
http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

S&W620
July 8, 2006, 02:54 AM
Personally, I see both sides of this argument. I don't think that wanting an external safety on a glock is a bad idea, if that is what YOU want. Nothing wrong with trying to be as safe as you can. I am a glock owner and I personally don't think they are unsafe nor do I feel the need for an external safety. If an external safety is a must for you, do it. Then again if you want an external safety, maybe a Glock is not the right choice for you in the first place. There are many other types of guns that have external safeties built into their original design. I suppose this falls into the category of "you are the one who has to shoot and operate it so do whatever the hell you want."

JohnKSa
July 8, 2006, 03:03 AM
I suppose this falls into the category of "you are the one who has to shoot and operate it so do whatever the hell you want."Yup--pretty much sums it up for me. I only start to bristle when someone feels the need to rationalize/justify their "want" by trying to prove that Glocks aren't safe.

Jamie C.
July 8, 2006, 08:51 AM
I've shot 1911-type pistols for so long that my thumb automatically goes through the motions whether the safety tab is there on the gun or not.... it's just a reflex/habit.

So, as for putting a safety on a Glock... sure, go ahead... may as well give my thumb something useful to do. ;)

Doesn't bother me to not have one on it though... and I do agree that Glock's trigger block is of little practical use. One could probably get close to the same level of "safety", concerning trigger snags, simply by making the trigger more narrow... ( Remove that 1/8 inch on each side that everybody worries about causing trouble by catching on things. :p )

Honestly, I have always thought the little flapper on the trigger was simply a marketing gimmick... Just there so Glock could claim to have one more safety feature.

Still, for all that, Glocks work just fine as they come out of the box.... Any changes one thinks should be made are just personal preference. *shrug*

Speaking of that, I've often though about putting a manual safety on a G-19, and replacing the trigger with a solid one... This would suit me just fine, but would probably throw some other folks into convulsions. :evil: :neener: :D

Anyway... to each his or her own.


J.C.

Lone_Gunman
July 8, 2006, 10:39 AM
The Glock has the safety in the trigger and even if a finger-like object gets in there and catches it, it still requires a good five pounds on a two-stage trigger to set off.

There are many many 1911s out there with 5 pound (or even more) trigger pulls.

Don't get me wrong here. I like Glocks, and a stock G19 is one of th guns I carry most often. I think you just have to be real careful, but then that goes without saying with any firearm.

The safety on most guns is just an added level of protection from doing something stupid. Keeping your finger off the trigger is great advice, but humans are prone to make mistakes. Thats where external safeties might save you.

Also, another thing to consider is that if a criminal gets ahold of your gun, the presence of a manual safety might slow him down for a few seconds and give you a chance to get the gun back or run away. There are documented cases where police officer's lives have been saved by the fact that a criminal couldnt figure out how to get the safety off of a police officer's gun that they had wrestled away from him.

There are advantages and disadvantages of the safety, and advantages and disadvantages of not having a safety. The Glock would be a fine weapon either way. I wish they would offer some models with an external safety, and see how well they did with consumers. I suspect the models with the safety would sell better. But at this point, Glock will never offer a gun with an external safety, because it would be construed in court as an admission that their product was unsafe, and subject them more liability in the event of a negligent discharge.

Cosmoline
July 8, 2006, 02:28 PM
Also, another thing to consider is that if a criminal gets ahold of your gun, the presence of a manual safety might slow him down for a few seconds and give you a chance to get the gun back or run away.

Maybe this is a concern with LEO's, but I'm not planning on arresting anyone. If I feel justified in drawing and the guy still rushes me, I'll be emptying the pistol into him. Having extra cumbersome safety devices to confuse the bad guy reminds me a little of putting a trauma plate on the back side of your chest to protect against snipers.

Besides, no mechanical safety can make up for poor training.

Honestly, I have always thought the little flapper on the trigger was simply a marketing gimmick... Just there so Glock could claim to have one more safety feature.

I feel the same way about the 1911 grip safety.

Lt. G
July 8, 2006, 04:10 PM
I bought a Glock 26 from a buddy about a year ago. It had a comnilli, (mispelled), safety on it. It also has metal belt hook/retainer/clip on the outside ,(no holster needed).

At first I was a little apprehensive about the slip it IWB with no holster bit. After a little practice, (empty gun,chamber), it was simple and very easy.
During those practice sessions I noted that it would be real easy to catch the trigger on clothing and possible ND. This is where the external safety helps. I engage the safety then carefully place the weapon IWB.

Deploying the weapon and pushing the safety down is almost second nature, (I work with a lot of 1911s), I own more glocks and when my paycheck permits I will get them all equipped with the external safety. I do love 1911s and other pretty guns but I live in the humid state of Florida. Glocks do not need TLC everyday.

Lone_Gunman
July 8, 2006, 07:12 PM
Would anybody be opposed to Glock making two models: one with external safety, and one without? And just let people have a choice?

I mean I can get variations with other brands. Why not with Glock?

tsuehpsyde
February 3, 2008, 12:15 AM
I'd like to point out that the Sig P229 (not sure about other models, but I will comment on the one I know about) also does not have an external safety. If the other models are the same (I'm guessing they are), it's rather strange how nobody bags on Sig for doing the exact same thing as Glock. :p

gallo
February 3, 2008, 02:42 AM
The Glock is an extremely safe gun and simply cannot fire unless the trigger is fully squeezed.

Aren’t all guns extremely safe until someone pulls the trigger?

I don't understand this need to lock the trigger.

I can think of one reason: Mexican Carry.

The grip safety is a good system. However, that safety is turned off when you grip the gun.

That’s the whole point of the grip safety.

It’s hard, but not impossible, for kids under 5 to activate a trigger and safety grip mechanism at the same time. This make the XD a little safer in my opinion. But this should not even be debated. Get gun safe.

KenW.
February 3, 2008, 03:18 AM
Because of this: something gets caught inside the trigger guard upon holstering, is one I've seen. Like the drawstring lock thingamabob on a coat.

Warren
February 3, 2008, 03:49 AM
From Gunblast.com's Shot show diary (http://gunblast.com/SHOT_2008_0.htm):

"Springfield Armory is offering their excellent XD pistol with an external ambidextrous safety that effectively mimics the feel of the popular 1911 safety."

So there you go a poly gun with a grip safety and a 1911 type safety AND the anti-snagger.

Don't like GLOCK's offering? Then you need merely go buy an XD.


Plus there is this "Siderlock crossbolt safety for the Glock trigger." which looks like it will keep the trigger from going back at all.

So really, there is no point in arguing about the issue. You can set your gun up however you want it. No safeties...or maybe all of them! Your choice. Capitalism! WooT!

steelhead
February 3, 2008, 11:16 AM
///////////

Badger Arms
February 23, 2008, 07:31 PM
http://www.glockfaq.com/images/pics/g17s_left2.jpg

http://www.glockfaq.com/images/pics/g17s_top.jpg

See here: http://www.glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s

SAWBONES
February 24, 2008, 12:13 AM
Why, indeed?
Redundancy can be a good thing when it means you have spare benefits, but not when it effectively hinders use of an emergency tool which is already sufficiently provided with safety measures.

Jack2427
February 24, 2008, 01:16 AM
I own a G22, my only Glock. I use the T block AND I had a safety installed. I have spent several tours on overseas contracts as LE/Security trainer. We gave the Iraqis several thousand Glock 17/19s, same with a couple of other military/LE organizations that we were trying to jump start. Why Glocks there? They are cheap, and the manual of arms is incredibly simple, read easy training. Same reason we give folks like that AK 47s. Most of the folks I trained saw a handgun as a symbol of authority or badge of office, and did not much care if they could hit anything with it. One group was an exception, the female Iraqi Police trainees, to a man, oops, person, they wanted to shoot well, probably something to do with how their men had been treating them.
My reasons for wanting a safety? Can you spell "gun grab"? I have carried arms professionally for almost 50 years now. I have never lost a weapon to gun grabber, but have had some close calls. When I work in close confines with lots of people around I carry my BHP, half cocked with the safety on. Let some grabber try to figure that one out, before I get out my 940 BUG and ruin his day. As I become older I become aware of two things:
1. I am not as strong as I once was
2. I want to get older and weaker

I am not the man I once was, but I am the man I was at least once.

KenW.
February 24, 2008, 03:03 AM
Once again I state that all factory safeties on a grock are entirely PASSIVE.

It should require an active and intentional decision to disengage a safety device BEFORE ENDING SOMEONE'S LIFE, other than the finger on the trigger. And that device should be able to be disengaged while that finger as at the ready.

FranklyTodd
February 24, 2008, 08:00 AM
Nonetheless, I've pasted two posts of mine together from a thread/argument I had over at the Glock forums after putting the Cominolli on my Glock26. Here they are if anyone is interested. Starts with reasons why, then goes to a range report:

Quote on:
I won't be drawn into an argument of whether Glock SHOULD have a safety. I like that they don't for those that don't want them, and that one can be easily added. It would be nicer if Glock offered it as a factory option, but the Cominolli is very tried and tested. At least a few LEO agencies installed them for all their guns.

As for why, for me personally, I wanted it? M&P340 is about 3/4" of 10-12lb trigger pull; G26 is 1/2" of 5.5lbs. For me (not you? fine by me), that's too light for me to carry for civilian CCW. I've shot these, and of course a 1911. To me a Glock feel closer to a 1911 without the manual safety - which also should be fine with "trigger discipline" and the "safety between your ears," (heck a 1911 even has a grip safety!) but I don't see too many carrying cocked and unlocked. I tried the NY1 trigger spring before the safety (which makes the pull about 8lb), and it was an improvement (safety-wise, not the feel of the trigger), but with such a short pull and no cylinder rotation/hammer, still didn't feel comfortable. Without the safety, I was carrying the 26 condition 3 (not often - mostly carried the 340). I know people say: carry without one in the chamber for 24 hours (or a few days), and if the trigger isn't back, you are good to go! Well, I intend to carry for 30 more years, if I live that long, and a 24 hour test isn't good enough for me. I've driven my car for almost 25 years without an accident (knock on wood), that doesn't mean I don't wear a seatbelt... ;)

Others will say if Gaston Glock intended a safety... Well, it's not like a thumb safety is a foreign concept, 1911 has had one for 100 years. For me, I have the best of both worlds - a model 1926, or maybe call it a 2611... :)

A manual safety provides the comfort to me that allows me to carry with one in the chamber, and bringing the gun to bear is a fast, simple, one-hand operation, compared to a two-hand rack, or awkward one-hand rack. It played NO part in my decision, but for those that put stock in "experts" here's some literature, including an article by Massad Ayoob, whom I had never heard of before internet forums, but who gets quoted constantly as an authority. http://www.cominolli.com/readingroom.html

My first autoloader and 20 year gun was a Taurus PT92 DA/SA with manual safety (obviously way pre-dating CCW in Ohio). Turning off the safety is a natural part of my gripping the gun (when readying to fire, of course). I would have loved a similar setup for CCW, but it just doesn't exist in a platform as small, concealable, reliable, and powerful as the G26. I looked!

To be candid, the safety was installed yesterday - I've dry fired it about 3 times so far. :) I may end up hating it and selling it - I hear they go for a lot with the safety on gunbroker. What I've noticed so far is that a natural gripping motion brings your thumb in contact with top of the safety - I think it will be very natural to sweep it off as part of presentation. I will practice with it for a few weeks and probably 1000rds before I carry it and rely on it for SD. Whatever I end up thinking about it - good or bad - maybe I'll post at that time. If I hate it, I'll sell it and stick with the Smith, or keep looking. A SIG DA/SA without safety, but with long 10lb first pull is intriguing, or an HK USPc var. 1, but both are huge by comparison...

Ok, there's my reasoning. If any disagree, that's completely fine, I am not the safety nazi, and would not seek to convert anyone to my way of thinking. But my way of thinking isn't wrong, it just might be different than yours, and hey, no problem with that!

RANGE REPORT POST:
I know many (most) of you would never put a safety on your Glock, and I totally understand your position, and do NOT seek to change your mind. I personally decided I wanted a subcompact with a manual safety, and that's a very hard thing to find! I explained my reasoning [above].

I finally got out to try my Glock 26 with a Cominolli safety installed, and wanted to give an honest report. I had it installed by Ronnie B at http://www.boomboomtactical.net/. He does some crazy "bling" customization too, for those into that. Good guy, easy to work with.

For those unfamiliar, it looks like this:

On Safe:
http://i16.tinypic.com/6jasrir.jpg

Ready to Fire:
http://i3.tinypic.com/716wked.jpg

First the good: It performed exactly as advertised, no gun-related problems of any kind (admittedly with only 200rds so far - a few hundred more will go through it before I trust it completely). With the safety on, you can rack the slide (convenient for loading/unloading), but not pull the trigger. All the factory safties are still functional. The position of the safety is such that in the process of gripping the gun to fire, your thumb (for a righty) hits it, so sweeping it off will be no problem, and plenty fast. Here's an article by Massad Ayoob about how it affects speed of draw: http://www.cominolli.com/images/AmericanHGart2.pdf

It is fairly easy to turn the safety off with your thumb (but it is tight enough, and there is a "click"); it's actually quite stiff the other way, which is good - would seem to reduce any chance of the safety engaging when you don't want it to. :eek:

Also good, for me, is it made carrying with one in the chamber more comfortable. I know the safety is between my ears (if I only had a nickel...), but the safety between my ears works in conjunction with the Caminolli; you can actually have both "safeties" functioning. :neener:

The Bad: As you can see from the picture, you must cut (or have someone cut) the frame. This doesn't bother me much with a Glock - I love 'em, but they aren't exactly works of art... If I take it off, it will be perfectly functional, just with that notch. It is also going to wear a line on the frame next to the notch - again, I don't really care.

The only bad thing to me is that the lever is kind of sharp and gets in the way. I haven't decided whether to tuck my thumb under it, or leave my thumb on top of it like some people shoot a 1911. It will take some getting used to, but so far I think it's a keeper. I shot it just as well even with the adjusted grip. It does not impact carry with any of the holsters I have - although I suspect the lever might wear a spot on my Nemesis pocket holster, but I don't use that much anyway.

I can't think what else anyone might like to know - any questions, feel free to ask. Any criticism, feel free, but I've already heard how a Glock is like a revolver (no it's not) about trigger discipline and the safety between my ears, the four rules, how a Glock has never gone off by itself, how Gaston Glock intended it, etc., etc. All fine points, but really, already beat way to death.:barf:

To each his own, and safe shooting to all!

FranklyTodd

PS: it's three months or so since adding the safety. Still like it very much, but admittedly carry my M&P340 10X as often.

DerbyDale
February 24, 2008, 08:22 AM
Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?


I don't know, ask this guy... :neener:LINK: Cop Shoots himself in the leg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0)

Carl N. Brown
February 24, 2008, 08:32 AM
The Glock is essentially a "double action only" (or trigger
action) automatic.

It does not have a safety for the same reason a double
action only revolver does not have a safety: if the user is trained
to use the gun as designed, a seperate safety is an unnecessary
complication. The gun is safe from accidental discharge unless
the finger is on the trigger. The finger should be on the trigger
only if the sights are on an identified and intended target.

Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?
It would be an advantage if weapon retention failed: if your
Glock was taken from you by a protaganist unaware that there
was a manual safety (people have had "safeties" installed on
revolvers for that reason.) I am trying to think of a rational
reason, and that's about all I can think up.

FranklyTodd
February 24, 2008, 08:51 AM
Glock is essentially a "double action only" (or trigger
action) automatic.

It does not have a safety for the same reason a double
action only revolver does not have a safety

Anyone who's shot a DAO revolver and a Glock would call B.S. on this. It might be the same reason, but there really isn't any comparison. Trigger pull 3/4" at 10lbs, or 1/2" at 5.5lbs. I am NOT SAYING A GLOCK IS UNSAFE W/O AN EXTERNAL SAFETY. I'm just saying it's not incomprehensible or nonsensical to add one. The Glock is NOTHING like a revolver, on so many levels.

if the user is trained to use the gun as designed, a seperate safety is an unnecessary complication. The gun is safe from accidental discharge unless the finger is on the trigger. The finger should be on the trigger only if the sights are on an identified and intended target.

Wouldn't all this be true of a cocked-and-unlocked 1911 also (and yes, many modern 1911 have passive drop safeties)? Would you carry that way?

Ok, I already regret typing this post, as it's a very, very, very tired argument. I'm going to post it anyway, but I'm just going to be a spectator now...

JohnKSa
February 24, 2008, 01:59 PM
Wouldn't all this be true of a cocked-and-unlocked 1911 also (and yes, many modern 1911 have passive drop safeties)? Would you carry that way?There are many reasons why a cocked-and-unlocked 1911 is different from a Glock, the most pertinent is that Glocks are never cocked unless you've pulled the trigger nearly all the way to the rear. Also interesting that after comparing pull weights and pull lengths of Glocks & revolvers and stating that they affect the safety factor, you completely ignore that issue when comparing a 1911 and a Glock. To paraphrase a quote I read somewhere: "The Glock is NOTHING like a 1911, on so many levels." ;)Trigger pull 3/4" at 10lbs, or 1/2" at 5.5lbs.If a heavier trigger makes you feel safer, Glock offers factory parts that are easily user installed to make that modification. You can have a pull heavier than 10lbs if that's what does it for you.

FranklyTodd
February 24, 2008, 04:40 PM
Glocks are never cocked unless you've pulled the trigger nearly all the way to the rear.

That's semantics - so it's 60% cocked? Fact is, you pull a 1911 with approx 4lbs of pressure and it (usually) goes bang, pull a Glock with 5.5lbs, and it goes bang. I didn't say a Glock was just like a 1911 (and didn't initiate comparing Glock to anything - it is what it is); I said if you want to analogize a Glock to another gun, it's closer to a cocked-and-unlocked 1911 than a DAO revolver with a 10-12lb. pull. Adding a NY1 or NY2 trigger is a fine solution - I never said one thing against that plan. In fact, I never said anything negative about a stock Glock. When people take a stock Glock and CCW it with a 3.5lb connector I think they are making a bad choice, but I wouldn't even pass judgment on that.

I said for ME, I wanted an EXTERNAL/MANUAL safety. That's what "does it for me." I'm perfectly content with my set-up, but am not proselytizing in order to convert others. The statement I find ridiculous is that someone "can't even imagine" or "can't think of a rational reason" (beyond weapon retention) to have an external safety. Someone who would make that statement is either grossly lacking in imagination, or simply has a completely closed mind. Again, I could care less how you carry yours, and similarly could care less of what you think about how I carry mine. I was sharing MY experience so that others can learn from my experience/mistakes, not passing judgment on anyone else.

Big Gay Al
February 24, 2008, 07:05 PM
But a cocked and unlocked 1911 has a VERY VERY light trigger pull and no secondary safety as part of the trigger itself. A bit of clothing will set it off. I can't believe we all missed this before.

A cocked and unlocked 1911 does indeed have a secondary safety. The grip safety. If it is not depressed, the gun won't go off.

mgregg85
February 24, 2008, 07:10 PM
Even more questionable, why would anyone want an external safety on an SA XD? Its safer than the block already, so why would it need one.

FranklyTodd
February 24, 2008, 08:37 PM
I can't believe we all missed this before.

A cocked and unlocked 1911 does indeed have a secondary safety. The grip safety. If it is not depressed, the gun won't go off.


Note, it was Big Gay Al that said a 1911 with its safety off is safer than a Glock, not me!!! ;)

why would anyone want an external safety on an SA XD? Its safer than the block already, so why would it need one.

I could be wrong, but I think Smith and Springfield are moving towards having the safety optional. If that's the case who would be against having the choice? There's still something about having two conscious steps before the gun will go off - all the passive/automatic safties in the world can't replace that. I'm NOT saying everyone or every gun needs two steps (safety off / pull trigger), but I am NOT alone - I guarantee you that the XDs/M&Ps with a manual safety will sell, and sell well. I do hope they are optional - I'm really not advocating that ALL pistols need manual safties, I swear!! I hope there's always a choice.

If I openly carried (i.e., like a cop) I might choose to go striker-fired, sans safety. Even if I CC'd in a rational state I might be ok with it - put it on the the AM, take it off in the PM. However, CCW in Ohio means a lot of on and off, and because of the use of pocket holsters, SmartCarries, and IWB holsters during the insane number of administrative handlings, many in an awkward seated position in the car - my carry guns will either have a long, fairly heavy first pull with some sort of visual shooting cue - i.e. rotating cylinder or moving hammer (Sig/HK), or else if it is an internal striker fired pistol it will have a manual safety. :neener:

Nothing I've found with a factory safety can hang with a G26 in terms of size, power, and reliability, so - had to add the Cominolli! :cool:

I'm such a hypocrite - I swore like 5 posts ago I was stepping to the sideline on this one... :rolleyes:

Safe shooting to all, no matter what flavor you carry! :p

FT

PS: What is this??? http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/trigger_lock.html Edit: nevermind - looks like Europe-only Glock factory safety.

JohnKSa
February 24, 2008, 09:08 PM
That's semantics - so it's 60% cocked?No, by spring LENGTH it's about 50% compressed. But in terms of stored spring energy it's only about 26% of maximum. In other words there's not enough energy stored to fire the gun. As I said earlier, a Glock is not cocked unless someone is pulling the trigger and has it almost all the way to the rear.Fact is, you pull a 1911 with approx 4lbs of pressure and it (usually) goes bang, pull a Glock with 5.5lbs, and it goes bang.When it suited your argument you asserted that both pull weight AND pull length were important in distinguishing between Glock and DA revolver triggers. Now when it suits your argument in comparing Glock and 1911 triggers you completely ignore pull length and compare only on the basis of pull weight.

In addition, when a stock Glock trigger pull is measured at any point other than the absolute point of the trigger where leverage is maximized, they're usually 6lbs or more.

You claim that a revolver trigger with a 10lb pull and 3/4" of travel is significantly different from a Glock trigger. The Glock trigger pull is 40% lighter than a DA revolver with a 10lb pull and has a trigger travel that is about 33% shorter. A 1911 trigger pull is around 1/4" of travel and about 4lbs in weight which means it is 33% lighter and 50% shorter than a stock Glock trigger. Similar relative differences in both pull length and pull weight as in comparing a DA revolver to a Glock.If I openly carried (i.e., like a cop) I might choose to go striker-fired, sans safety.Actually, OC is a situation where most agree that a pistol with a manual safety is better than one without. Any time your gun might be snatched, there's value in having the grabber waste some time determining how to get your gun into action.

FranklyTodd
February 24, 2008, 09:53 PM
When it suited your argument you asserted that both pull weight AND pull length were important in distinguishing between Glock and DA revolver triggers. Now when it suits your argument in comparing Glock and 1911 triggers you completely ignore pull length and compare only on the basis of pull weight.

Of course - I'm a lawyer... ;) Actually, I was trying to make a point, not formulate a mathematical proof.

I recognize the weapon retention issue, but I'm ignoring it, since I will have a safety on mine, and will not ever open carry. In my head the whole discussion was about ADs and NDs, and the risk of both are directly proportional to the number of administrative handlings, I would think. I don't want to cloud the issue with weapon retention, which only supports having a safety.

I was responding to an individual who claimed he couldn't even imagine or even find it rational that one might prefer a manual safety on a striker-fired pistol.

I think comparing a Glock to a 1911 is VERY STUPID. However, comparing a Glock to a DA revolver is EQUALLY STUPID. My whole point in bringing up the comparison with a 1911 was to illustrate how stupid it was to say a DAO revolver has no safety, ergo, a safety on a Glock is dumb - you have gone on to exhaustively, mathematically prove how stupid it is, congratulations! I still claim that in the spectrum of trigger pull length/weight, a Glock is AS CLOSE to a cocked 1911 as it is to a DAO revolver. You pretty much agreed: Similar relative differences in both pull length and pull weight as in comparing a DA revolver to a Glock.
But recognize, you've conceded the Glock is 1/2 way between what almost everyone considers a safe carry gun - DAO revolver, no safety - and an absurd gun that NOBODY would carry - cocked-and-unlocked 1911. So if the Glock is 1/2 way to an ABSURD gun, can't we at least agree that is is a judgment call whether one would like to have a manual safety on it??

Now, will you please acknowledge that desiring a safety for a Glock/XD/M&P is a rational choice (even if you think it's ultimately a bad choice - rational basis is a low standard of decisional review) for some people, some of the time - or are 100% of the people who would prefer a manual safety on a Glock/XD/M&P complete morons? If I could just extract that admission, I'll shut up, I promise...

JohnKSa
February 24, 2008, 10:17 PM
...you have gone on to exhaustively, mathematically prove how stupid it is, congratulations!No, I've proved that IF one believes there's a significant difference between a DA revolver trigger pull and a Glock trigger pull they must also acknowledge that there's a similarly significant difference between a 1911 trigger pull and a Glock pull.I think comparing a Glock to a 1911 is VERY STUPID. However, comparing a Glock to a DA revolver is EQUALLY STUPID.I tend to agree....a Glock is AS CLOSE to a cocked 1911 as it is to a DAO revolver.Well, given that we agree that both comparisons are "VERY STUPID" I suppose that this claim is valid in at least one sense. ;)But recognize, you've conceded the Glock is 1/2 way between what almost everyone considers a safe carry gun...I've conceded nothing, I've only shown that the conclusion of your comparison between a 1911 and a Glock is inconsistent with the conclusion of your comparison between a DA revolver and a Glock.Now, will you please acknowledge that desiring a safety for a Glock/XD/M&P is a rational choice...I never said it was irrational. I have said (in various posts on this forum--some on this thread, some not) that there are guns out there with similar characteristics that have manual safeties for those who feel the need for such accoutrements, that there are aftermarket Glock accessories for those who want Glocks but reject the philosophy behind their design and furthermore that there are Glock factory parts available for those who want a more "revolver like" trigger pull--at least in terms of pull weight.

FranklyTodd
February 24, 2008, 10:43 PM
double post somehow - see below...

FranklyTodd
February 24, 2008, 10:45 PM
IF one believes there's a significant difference between a DA revolver trigger pull and a Glock trigger pull

Aw, c'mon, you won't concede that a DAO revolver is a vastly different animal than a Glock? You seem knowledgeable enough that I assume you've shot both... :rolleyes: Your credibility is plummeting... :scrutiny:

I have said . . . that there are guns out there with similar characteristics that have manual safeties for those who feel the need for such accoutrements.

Name one that's similar to a Glock 26 in size, power, and reliability. CZ Rami 2075P is the closest I've found, and it's cocked and locked only - can't put the safety on with the hammer down in DA mode. It's also unproven compared to the Glock in terms of reliability. Beretta PX4 Storm SubCompact is somewhat bigger, and you flip the safety UP to fire - sorry, can't change that habit!

Actually, don't bother to try to name one, I've already looked - you've at least arguably conceded I'm not irrational. At least I have that going for me.

If I had to do all over again, for a carry auto I would give more scrutiny to the HK P2000SK DA/SA. No safety, but an external hammer and a longer, heavier first pull. I fully admit I've never shot one, but even so, it's my second choice after the Glock 26 with the Cominolli for sub-compact autos. :neener: Actually, if I had it to over again, I'd probably buy an HK USPc Variant 1 and deal with the extra size, since my 90% daily carry has evolved into an M&P340 snub anyway!

Pleasant sparring with you John!

Best regards, FT

Big Gay Al
February 25, 2008, 07:18 PM
I can't believe we all missed this before.

A cocked and unlocked 1911 does indeed have a secondary safety. The grip safety. If it is not depressed, the gun won't go off.
Note, it was Big Gay Al that said a 1911 with its safety off is safer than a Glock, not me!!!
No, I said that a 1911 "does indeed have a secondary safety. The grip safety." I didn't necessarily say it's safer than the Glock.

However, since you brought it up, I've yet to shoot myself in the leg with my 1911. ;)

Arizona_Mike
March 25, 2013, 04:14 PM
Sorry if I trigger a zombie thread apocalypse.

Personally I have no use for this on a pistol but I am looking for one for my dedicated carbine (and soon to be registered SBR) lower. Any non-gunsmithing alternatives? I tried the Siderlock but it malfunctions with my carbine's striker (trigger fails to reset or fires on reset)! I also decided that I don't like the effect of the intended operation on trigger discipline.

Mike

Soldiernurse
March 26, 2013, 12:44 AM
Ten-Ring Precision, SATX, installed a (Cominolli) Thumb Safety on my Gen 4 Glock 19. No regrets. It's still a Glock that shoots great. So, all the Glock Purist bring on the hate.

Kiln
March 26, 2013, 12:53 AM
Some folks just like having a manual safety. Some agencies won't allow a pistol without a manual safety to be carried, unless it's a DAO, or Glock with NY trigger. It's surely a liability thing.

Then I think about this - how safe would I feel carrying a Browning Hi-Power, cocked, but without a safety? Or a 1911, pinned grip safety, and no manual safety, or manual safety off? It wouldn't feel safe to me. Glocks are pretty much "single-action only", and as such are cocked and unlocked (no manual safety). This doesn't cause a problem until somebody holsters it with his/her finger on the trigger and shoots themselves in the thigh (we've all heard numerous incidents like this).

Me, I carry a pistol that has a manual safety, and I carry it with the safety on. With proper training, it doesn't cause a problem.

Yup. For me it is equal to carrying a revolver with the hammer cocked.

I've never liked not having a safety of some sort other than the trigger safety.

Just saying "don't pull the trigger if you don't want to shoot" isn't good enough. Lots of people have been injured while holstering these guns because of holsters catching on the super safe no safety triggers on Glocks.

Collector0311
March 26, 2013, 01:08 AM
I'm 180 lbs and can carry my Glock21 concealed with a clip-draw and Mic-holster combo. The Mic-holster darn near alleviates most of this critical rhetoric about the lack of an external safety.
Oh and the trigger safety is technically external....just sayin.

HB
March 26, 2013, 02:55 AM
To me the glock is a duty weapon and as such should be carried in a heavily constructed OWB holster. Ask Plaxico if he would have wanted a safety...!

HB

Kiln
March 26, 2013, 02:37 PM
To me the glock is a duty weapon and as such should be carried in a heavily constructed OWB holster. Ask Plaxico if he would have wanted a safety...!

HB
I've seen quite a few "shot myself with a Glock because the holster was worn" threads. That's why I don't really trust the Glock. At least with the Springfield XD and XDM there is a grip safety to help offset that when holstering.

Zerodefect
March 26, 2013, 02:58 PM
Because you can't Speed Reholster a Glock when transitioning back to rifle.

Something you run into when:
-Rifle training, especially CQB.
-3 gun comps
-Swat/Combat training

I take my time holstering my Glock. So when I do 3 gun or carbine practice transitions, I prefer a 1911.

Obviously for civvy CCW needs, I could care less about speed reholstering. (a bad idea in almost allways)

ku4hx
March 27, 2013, 10:09 AM
...I could care less about speed reholstering. (a bad idea in almost allways)
"speed reholstering" made me think of "instant landing" as in plane crash. There are times to be obsessed with speed and there are times not to be. When, in a confrontational situation, is it going to be advantageous to be ultra fast at taking your personal protection device out of service? Still makes me thing of a plane crash. But in my one and only real world confrontation, I don't remember holstering my gun at all.

And since I wasn't practicing for a three gun shoot at the time, all other guns were in the safe.

IMTHDUKE
March 27, 2013, 12:16 PM
Ask Plaxico Burress.

gym
March 27, 2013, 03:19 PM
I worry about my dogs and grandkids jumping on me. That "could" possibly get a trigger pulled if it were sitting in a soft material like the clip on suede holster or even in a fanny pack. I pocket carry my 26 but use the trigger block in a remora holster and am very aware of where those little hands and paws go, when my dogs jump up or a grandkid starts climbing.
I know several guys who don't chamber their guns, I have never believed in that in the 4+ decades of carrying. My gun needs to have a round in the pipe so I know at least my first shot is leaving the barrel. Plus sometimes you can get a bad round and then you have a real problem, It happened at the range during a reload this passed week, it just didn't feed that one bullet. It was out of spec. I would not want to end up shot because I had an issue with chambering my gun.
If the military and police can use safety's so can the average guy, a 1911 is the perfect example, the safety is off by the time you are on target.

Certaindeaf
March 27, 2013, 03:43 PM
Hey Graystar, why indeed anything.. have you figured it out yet/become satisfied or have anything to contribute?

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 126
User Name Posts
JohnKSa 13
FranklyTodd 7
thales 5
MCgunner 4
Jonathan 4
Snarlingiron 4
Cosmoline 4
Big Gay Al 4
Lone_Gunman 3
mindwip 2
Kiln 2
jc2 2
KenW. 2
T.Stahl 2
Car Knocker 2
Andrew Wyatt 1
SAWBONES 1
Kruzr 1
dhoomonyou 1
steelhead 1
progunner1957 1
DMSHEPARD 1
gallo 1
New_comer 1
45auto 1
tex_n_cal 1
Richard.Howe 1
IMTHDUKE 1
Still 2 Many Choices!? 1
DerbyDale 1
Collector0311 1
10-Ring 1
JPM70535 1
Graystar 1
jem375 1
nitesite 1
S&W620 1
Xigris 1
mgregg85 1
ku4hx 1
Double Naught Spy 1
MrAcheson 1
FunYet 1
Onslaught 1
carpettbaggerr 1
Carl N. Brown 1
gitarmac 1
GeorgiaGlocker 1
Zerodefect 1
ball3006 1
Humble Texan 1
BluesBear 1
Blacklabman 1
MTMilitiaman 1
loadedround 1
Daubs 1
tsuehpsyde 1
TheeBadOne 1
longeyes 1
Badger Arms 1
Zach S 1
Jamie C. 1
kennyboy 1
HB 1
Arizona_Mike 1
denfoote 1
Drakejake 1
Lt. G 1
Jack2427 1
SSN Vet 1
yhtomit 1
gym 1
YZ 1
Spackler 1
STEVE M 1
dcloudy777@aol.com 1
Rexrider 1
Pistol Toter 1
Warren 1
pablo45 1
Soldiernurse 1
Show Thread & Close Window

9mmepiphany
March 27, 2013, 04:13 PM
The original thread is 10 years old and before the recent response that had been a 5 year lapse.

I'm thinking that a valid discussion would justify a new thread if folks are that interested

If you enjoyed reading about "Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!