External safety for Glock?


PDA






hillbilly in MI
March 15, 2007, 10:19 PM
I have seen an aftermarket external safety available for Glock handguns. Does anyone have any experience with these?

I really like the design and function of the Glocks but a manual safety doesn't seem like a bad idea for CCW. I'm not knocking Glocks and am looking to get a 19 for CCW. A manual safety would seem to fix the only real issue that some have with Glock pistols. If I can have both the reliability of a Glock with a manual safety too, it seems to be a good idea to me.

Here is a link to the safety if you haven't seen them http://www.brownells.com/aspx/ns/store/productdetail.aspx?p=5532

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "External safety for Glock?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Shipwreck
March 15, 2007, 10:30 PM
Man, U will be dawged for sure now. "Manual safety" and "Glock", if said in the same sentence, are words that will drive Glock fanatics into a super tizzy.

I hope they don't beat U up too badly.

Personally, if U like the Glock frame and gun, and want a manual safety to boot, I think U ought to be able to have it. But, the Glock-o-philes will be out in force - spouting to you about keeping your hand off the trigger and such. U just wait...

If U had posted this on Glocktalk, U'd really have been in trouble. :neener:

hillbilly in MI
March 15, 2007, 10:59 PM
I was expecting some of the Glock fans to give me a hard way to go. My hide's tough enough to take some of that. Just to clarify, I do plan to get a Glock either way. But if I can have both the safety features built in and a manual safety without compromising the reliability and durability that attracted me to them in the first place it seems like a good idea to me. I've never complained about having both airbags and seat belts in my car.

Those who wish to make jokes - have at it. It won't bother me. Anyone with some experience with these safetys let me know.

GunNut
March 15, 2007, 11:00 PM
Obviously you can do what you'd like with your gun, but you're just asking for trouble altering the gun like that.

I'm trying to be objective regarding the Glock safety, but it's really hard:D

Really there are so many guns out there with safeties already built in them, why not just find something that comes from the factory that way?

If you want to tinker and change things around then buy a 1911.:neener: But leave the poor Glock how it was designed.

flinch
March 15, 2007, 11:03 PM
Hello,

I was looking at the possibility too. There were a couple of gun smiths I located through Google that will do it for $130. +/- . The shipping was only $3. +/-. By the time you buy the part and the jig and get your nerve up to cut into the plastic it seemed like the better deal. There is also a letter from Glock saying this modification did NOT void the warrenty. That should tell you something too.

GunNut
March 15, 2007, 11:04 PM
But if I can have both the safety features built in and a manual safety without compromising the reliability and durability that attracted me to them in the first place it seems like a good idea to me.

And I think that would be the main reason I would not mess with the gun.

Call Glock and ask them if they will warranty the gun with the safety added, then make your decision.

Oh yeah, great choice on the Glock 19. I've recently picked up a second generation Glock 19 and am loving it.

Steve

10-Ring
March 15, 2007, 11:05 PM
Glock will do what they need to to sell more units. The design is fine the way it is, but if they open up their market w/ an external safety option, who knows how many they'd sell :scrutiny:

thebaldguy
March 15, 2007, 11:06 PM
I would purchase a Glock pistol if it had a manual safety. I like everything about Glocks except for the lack of a manual safety.

outofbattery
March 15, 2007, 11:37 PM
I honestly think that after you carried it for any length of time,you'd realize that it isn't necessary.

Richiec77
March 16, 2007, 03:05 AM
There is a shop in the San Antonio area that I heard adds a manual safety now to all their new Glocks since they have had a ton of questions about it. I'll dig up some more info on the shop and whatever info I can. They would probably be able to answer any other Questions you have regarding their kit and how well the safety functions on their pieces.

From the one I have seen, it looks like it was that safety kit or something very similar added to it. Worked pretty good from the limited experience I had with it.

RyanM
March 16, 2007, 04:04 AM
The safety I've seen looked pretty foolproof (as long as you don't try to install it yourself), durable, and reliable. Probably not necessary, but if it makes you more likely to carry the gun, go for it.

glocktoberfest
March 16, 2007, 05:21 AM
I honestly think that after you carried it for any length of time,you'd realize that it isn't necessary




I was thinking the same thing .

mljdeckard
March 16, 2007, 12:43 PM
I never recommend that people DISABLE existing safeties, especially on carry guns, (pinning thumb safeties, removing Glock trigger safeties) because if you ever used one, you would have a hard time convincing a jury and the DA that you weren't looking for an opportunity to kill someone.

BUT, this doesn't apply to ADDing safeties. There are good reasons to carry a Glock. There are good reasons to like safeties. There are many people who are used to 1911 style safeties. Massad Ayoob endorses this one, and he's a goy with some real-world Glock experience. If I went back to a Glock, (I'm still thinking about getting one for my wife,) I would look hard at installing one of these:

http://www.brownells.com/aspx/ns/store/productdetail.aspx?p=5532

CajunBass
March 16, 2007, 12:53 PM
I always thought Glocks had a manually activated external safety. It's right there on the trigger. :confused:

oceansands
March 16, 2007, 01:04 PM
thebaldguy
I would purchase a Glock pistol if it had a manual safety. I like everything about Glocks except for the lack of a manual safety



UHHHHHHH revolvers don't have a manual safety. Would you carry one of them?


THE ONLY TRUE SAFETY ON ANY GUN, IS THE ONE BETWEEN YOUR EARS! IF YOU DON'T USE THAT SAFETY NO SAFETY WILL EVER MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mainsail
March 16, 2007, 04:00 PM
I donít see the point of adding an external safety to a Glock. My Sig P239 doesnít have one, my Taurus 85 doesnít have one, and my Alaskan doesnít have one.

I would be afraid of, during a high stress situation, pulling the trigger and having nothing happen. Then if I had time to realize my mistake and try to thumb the safety down, finding itís all bound up because I am still putting pressure on the trigger. Iíve read a few too many incident reports where police officers had been shot trying to fire their weapon with the safety on.

The only time my Sig comes out of the holster is to unload it or fire it. When I need to do the latter, I want that to happen with as little delay as possible. Since itís never out of the holster in a loaded condition, itís as safe - or safer - than a handgun with an external mechanical safety.

Vern Humphrey
March 16, 2007, 04:14 PM
There is a plastic device called a Saf-T-Blok that goes between the trigger and frame. It's flanged to hold it in the proper position, and you pop it out with your forefinger while drawing.

http://www.securityandsafetysupply.com/products-duty-gear/clip-2.html

doubleg
March 16, 2007, 04:54 PM
Don't the aussie police use a glock special made at the factory to have an external saftey.

000Buck
March 16, 2007, 05:07 PM
You idiotic boob!! Just kidding. It would be cool if Glock had an option of an external safety, but like others said it is like a revolver and not many people have a problem carrying them around. Maybe look at a NY trigger to make it more revolver like with the heavy trigger pull?

One warning is Glocks are super dependable and reliable from the factory, but once you start messing around with stuff, no matter how simple, that all goes out the window. For a carry gun, dont mess with it!

g1726
March 16, 2007, 09:31 PM
They're not my personal cup of tea, but I did help a friend install one on a G30. The install went well, just took time and it has worked great for him. I wish the safety lever itself was deburred just a bit more, but that's just me getting picky.

The design of it is really quite simple, there's very little to it (which means little to go wrong) and installing it doesn't open things up to more dirt either. If it makes you feel that much better, go for it.

The Saf-T-Block that Vern mentioned also works well.

There, now you have at least one response from someone who's had experience.:)

okcorral
March 17, 2007, 11:13 AM
I too would purchase a Glock if there was another form of safety. For concealed carry the trigger can catch on a thread and the light trigger could be pulled. LEO's can safely carry them because of proper holstering which can't be done as easily when trying to conceal it.

I like the XD because of the grip safey for this reason. It's still a point and shoot gun but the extra safety might prevent an accident when holstering or de-holstering.

oceansands
March 17, 2007, 11:34 AM
okcorral
I too would purchase a Glock if there was another form of safety. For concealed carry the trigger can catch on a thread and the light trigger could be pulled. LEO's can safely carry them because of proper holstering which can't be done as easily when trying to conceal it.

I like the XD because of the grip safey for this reason. It's still a point and shoot gun but the extra safety might prevent an accident when holstering or de-holstering.

OK, Sorry but I'm going to have to shoot some holes in your statement.
1. What thread is going to slide into the trigger guard and pull the trigger. My guess is, if my sweet shirt gets caught up in my gun when re-holstering, it is going to cause a bind so I can't push it in far enough to even reach the trigger.
2. Proper holstering should be something WE ALL DO!!!! Not just cops, thats is an irresponsible thing to say. That shows that you don't take care when handling a fire arm, but you rely on the safety.
3.I have been carring a GLOCK safely everyday for over a year, and many people have been carrying them for many many years.
4. As far as the XD is concerned...... you still have a grip on the grip safety when holstering, thus when your magical thread grasps the trigger you're still going to have an ND!
5. If your so worried about a light trigger then you can always get an 8# connector. If you don't know they make an 8# connector, then you haven't done enough home work on GLOCK to make an educated decision on GLOCK therefore you make a wide and sweeping comments like your above post!!!

Auto-revolver
March 17, 2007, 01:37 PM
Alex Hamilton of Ten Ring Precision which is located in San Antonio, Texas will do a very fine job of installing the external safety; he writes a column for one of the handgun magazines. He put this type of safety on a Glock I had, and it and the Glock functioned fine.

GARY1911A1
March 17, 2007, 02:33 PM
If Glock states it's OK to do this then I would consider doing it. Does anyone have a link to this? For conceal carry for a 1911 type person it might work. I wonder if it will be legal for GSSF?

okcorral
March 17, 2007, 07:24 PM
-- oceansands --

What I mean by proper holstering is that it's much easier to holster a firearm OWB non-concealed like you would find on any police officer.

These tiny IWB's I see everywhere just make me nervous about trying to squeeze something down my pants without another safety to prevent AD. The XD grip safety is not fool proof safety but it is one extra form of protection. The XD sub-compact is also slightly smaller than the compact glocks as well including the 26 and 27.

It's really personal preference and the extra safety on the XD makes me feel better carrying it that I do a glock.

Beretta, Glock, Sig, XD, S&W, H&K, and the likes are all excellent firearms and it simply boils down to the one you're most comfortable with.

Trope
March 17, 2007, 07:52 PM
I think a good holster works well as a safety for a glock.

hillbilly in MI
March 17, 2007, 10:03 PM
Thanks for the input everyone. I thought this question was opening a can of worms but I hadn't seen anyone else address it. I did know about the heavier trigger option. It just didn't seem to be as good for me as a manual safety did - there's a reason 1911's are so popular (not wanting to turn this into a 1911 vs. Glock thread). I happen to like everything about the Glocks except for the lack of a manual safety and even this only for CCW use. LEO's and military (the originally intended users Glock was designed for) don't have to move clothing out of the way to holster/ draw their sidearms like concealed carry does. I'm used to the idea of turning a safety off as the firearm comes on target (hunting, 1911's) so this doesn't seem as inconvenient as an extra heavy trigger does. I don't think the lack of a thumb safety would bother me at all if I was looking at a pistol for home defense, but carrying it around that close to my body and under clothing, I would like the extra reassurance of a safety.

Thanks again to all those who gave their opinions and especially to the ones who have used or installed this kit.

fogdor
March 17, 2007, 10:56 PM
I always thought Glocks had a manually activated external safety. It's right there on the trigger.

We all know what you're trying to say, but I must point out that little flappy thing on the glock trigger is not a manually activated safety. Depending on your point of view, it's either an automatic passive safety device (like a firing pin block) or it's marketing fluff.

glockman19
March 18, 2007, 01:33 AM
My external safety is my trigger finger

ZeroCool
March 18, 2007, 02:03 AM
The Taurus 24/7 is a lot like a Glock with an external safety.

Pretty sure the .45acp version will be my next pistol.

outofbattery
March 18, 2007, 08:31 AM
We all know what you're trying to say, but I must point out that little flappy thing on the glock trigger is not a manually activated safety. Depending on your point of view, it's either an automatic passive safety device (like a firing pin block) or it's marketing fluff.


It most certainly is manually operated,if you do not manually apply pressure to the trigger safety,the Glock will not fire.

fogdor
March 18, 2007, 05:32 PM
It most certainly is manually operated,if you do not manually apply pressure to the trigger safety,the Glock will not fire.

Nope, it automatically disengages when you apply pressure to the trigger, and automatically engages when you release the trigger.

By your logic, every trigger is a "safety."

An example -

"It most certainly is manually operated,if you do not manually apply pressure to the trigger safety,the Colt/Beretta/Browning/Smith & Wesson will not fire."

briansp82593
March 18, 2007, 05:34 PM
there is a glock that came from the factory with a safety... i forgot who it was made for but here it is
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r27/beretta96/g17s_left.jpg

fogdor
March 18, 2007, 05:37 PM
Don't post that! Don't you know glocks are PERFECT! :)

Seriously though, you can't buy one of those, they were made at the request of one big government contract. Which government, I do not recall.

briansp82593
March 18, 2007, 05:54 PM
i feel sorry for it :( poor glock, leave them alone they rule... (esp. gen 2's) :evil:
i say the only thing wrong with the glock is the stock sights and unsupported chmbr. back on topic... safety+glock=:barf:

Skpotamus
March 18, 2007, 06:00 PM
If you don't feel right not having a safety on your glock, you should do one of two things: 1) carry the gun for a week or so without a round chambered and get used to to the trigger never going off unless you pull the trigger (what most people do). or:
2) You should probably look at another gun.

What's the number these days? 70% of US law enforcement is carrying or authorized to carry a glock. I don't know of any that have the external safeties added.

One of the first things I teach in my NRA courses is NOT to rely on an external safety device. A very good demo I use at a boyscout camp I teach at is a broken mossberg. That gun will fire with the safety on. Proper trigger finger discipline and competency with your firearm are what you need to develop, not "I thought it was safe because the safety was on" syndrome.

fogdor
March 18, 2007, 06:04 PM
A common myth among the "glock faithful" is that to practice trigger discipline, you absolutely MUST carry a firearm without an external safety. To date, no one has actually proven this assertion, but they like the sound of it so much, it just pops out of their keyboards all the time...

G95
March 18, 2007, 06:09 PM
I would feel alot safer if all glock owners (except me) modified their pistols to add after-market safeties, carried them with an empty chamber, and kept all their magazines on their belt loaded with shotshells or snap caps

briansp82593
March 18, 2007, 06:19 PM
I would feel alot safer if all glock owners (except me) modified their pistols to add after-market safeties, carried them with an empty chamber, and kept all their magazines on their belt loaded with shotshells or snap caps
HAHAHAHAHA!!! :neener:

Skpotamus
March 18, 2007, 06:23 PM
Fogdor, I'm not saying external safeties aren't good. I'm saying that too many people use them as a crutch for poor safety habits.

There was a video floating around a few years back where a female officer shoots her partner in the leg with her beretta while he was cuffing a suspect. She thought her safety was on....

Have you ever attended a funeral because someone "thought the safety was on"? I have.

I either carry my 1911's, or my glocks. When I'm uisng my 1911's, I carry them cocked and locked.

I'm not some rabid glock addict spouting out about blasphemy against the holy polymer temple. I'm saying don't use mechanical devices to cover up deficiencies in your training. If you feel that you have to spend an extra $150 on your gun to make it "safe", then pick another gun.

NRA instructor #147989697

fogdor
March 18, 2007, 06:26 PM
What makes me feel safe? People making sound decisions. If you don't want to carry a weapon with an external safety (and do it safely) that's great, I'm all for individualism. But don't try to justify your opinion with a logically flawed argument, especially under the guise of "helpful advice".

To aid all the loyal glock fans, here's an idea with some merit:

Perhaps, adding an external safety might compromise the reliability of the glock?

HorseSoldier
March 18, 2007, 06:29 PM
Don't the aussie police use a glock special made at the factory to have an external saftey.

I think Glock made one for evaluation by the Tasmanian police, who had an external safety requirement, but I was under the impression they'd gone with something else.

They were also prepared to put a manual external safety on the version of the Glock 21 they were going to submit for evaluation by SOCOM, and supposedly had some prototypes ready for testing when the pistol trials got scrubbed. That feature did not make it onto the commerical Glock 21SF, though.

fogdor
March 18, 2007, 06:42 PM
The manual safety argument is a circular one - if you're smart enough to practice trigger discipline, you're smart enough to use a manual safety. Likewise, if you're too stupid to practice trigger discipline, then a manual safety isn't going to save you.

My gut feeling is that adding a manual safety to a glock might make it a small bit "safer", but I have no hard facts to back up that argument, so that's NOT what I'm arguing :)

What am I arguing?

Simple - Don't argue with logical fallacies.

Some "bad" arguments:

"The best safety is between your ears" - That's true with every firearm, whether they have a manual safety or not.

"Keep your booger picker out of the trigger guard until you're ready to fire" - See above.

"The glock has a manual safety, it's on the trigger" - No (sigh) that's not a manual safety.

Some "good" arguments:

"You probably want to choose a firearm that came with an external safety" - You must trust your firearm. Having to fundamentally alter it suggests a lack of trust.

"Try carrying a week with it cocked over an empty chamber to get comfortable with the idea" - See above.

thebaldguy
March 18, 2007, 08:43 PM
I knew I would get ripped on for wishing for a Glock with a manual safety...

:D

It's just my preference. I prefer pistols with a manual safety/decocker. Yes I know, revolvers have no manual safety. But I prefer my semi-auto pistols to have one. If you don't like it, it's just another Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Sig, Taurus, etc. that's available for me!

I stand behind my statement. I would buy a Glock if it had a manual safety like the picture.

Plink
March 18, 2007, 10:26 PM
Fogdor, I have never seen it put so well! Thank you.

I'm forever hearing Glock owners say they don't trust themselves with a manual safety. That has always made me just shake my head in wonder. You expressed the reason why perfectly.

As for the trigger widget being a "safety". Well, anything that stops something from pulling the trigger, unless something pulls the trigger, isn't much of a safety.

All of the various forms of negligent discharges we've heard of with Glocks could have been avoided with proper safety discipline. But considering that most people can't even figure out something as simple as a 4 way stop, lane discipline or right of way, sometimes simpler isn't always better.

I've always wished Glock would offer some variety in their lineup. For example, guns with grip safeties like the XD (one of my favorite 1911 features), and perhaps with manual safeties and no trigger widget. They'd appeal to a wider variety of customers, myself included.

ArchAngelCD
March 19, 2007, 12:27 AM
I thought this forum was THE HIGH ROAD!!!!
hillbilly in MI asked a serious question and also asked if anyone had any experience with the safety he linked to. I can't believe all the sarcastic and condescending answers he got. He didn't bash Glock and only expressed his opinion that a manual safety would be a good idea. In response he got nasty answers like he should use his head, keep his finger in his ear and leave the God-Like Glock alone. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. This is THR, isn't it?? Well if it is, then start acting like it.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing... :p

Prince Yamato
March 19, 2007, 02:42 AM
I knew I would get ripped on for wishing for a Glock with a manual safety...

I would buy a Glock if it had a manual safety as well. I really like the Glock 26, but I want an external safety on a carry gun (and no, I wouldn't carry a revolver for a similar reason). I just like the idea of the manual safety.

medmo
March 19, 2007, 06:34 AM
Oceansands stated:

"UHHHHHHH revolvers don't have a manual safety. Would you carry one of them?"

Guess you mean someone walks around with a revolver having the hammer cocked? I'm not trying to bash Glocks just trying to show you that this isn't a good analogy.

I'm comfortable operating my Glock with the originally designed safeties. I can also see someone else's view on feeling more comfortable having a manual safety. I wouldn't do an aftermarket modification like this on any of my guns without doing a lot of homework. I'm guessing that Glock might sell a few more guns if they incorporated a thumb safety and offered it as a model option. I don't think they need to worry about selling a few more guns as it looks like they have been doing pretty well without it.

Mainsail
March 19, 2007, 10:59 AM
I once took a friend out shooting with my AMT Harballer Longslide .45 cal. I showed him all the workings of the gun except the thumb safety. I had already chambered a round so I pointed the gun downrange and told him the gun would not fire with the safety on. I pulled the trigger and it fired, shearing off the safety, and ending the day’s shooting. The safety was fully engaged and the gun still fired.

Think about that the next time you carry cocked and locked. It might be a good idea to function check your UNLOADED gun once and a while.

Epilog: There just so happened a to be an AMT authorized repair gunsmith nearby, he checked the gun out and determined that although all the internals were in spec, they were all at the lower limits of the specs and the combination of the parts were the problem. AMT overnighted the parts and I had it back in only three days.

dcloudy777@aol.com
March 19, 2007, 11:53 AM
With a Glock, you can have a decent trigger, or a safe gun, but NOT both. A manual safety would allow the user to use the lighter connector, and still have a gun safe for the street. Of course, it would still be too wide, point the wrong direction, and have crappy sights... :D

DanO

Lonestar
March 19, 2007, 12:34 PM
I have seen and handled a Glock with an external safety and here is the only problem.

SAFETY INSTALLATION JIG - Holds your Glock frame securely and has two, machined slots that correspond with the cut youíll have to make to install Cominolliís Manual Thumb Safety, shown above. Slot marked ďSMĒ is for 9mm, .40 S&W, and .357 SIG; slot marked ďLGĒ is for .45 ACP and 10mm. Requires the use of a 3/32" End Mil, listed below, and a high-speed rotary tool (listed elsewhere) to properly make the cut. Delrinģ guide makes it easy to cut the correct angle

The cuts this guy made unfortunately look like dookie, but it worked as advertised. If your not a "tool guy" and you don't have a steady hand, don't do it yourself.

Others are mentioning getting an XD but honestly the grip angle and triggers are different than the Glock, and a grip safety is not the same as a manual safety switch.

ace99
March 19, 2007, 01:12 PM
i would say glocks are a little less safe than revolvers to carry without a holster. i carried one for over a year without a holster and nothing happened, and that included alot of activity. and im geussing most people use holsters here :rolleyes: so you really have absolutely nothing to worry about. it's just not child proof.

CajunBass
March 19, 2007, 01:31 PM
By your logic, every trigger is a "safety."

Thank you. My point exactly.

glocktoberfest
March 19, 2007, 02:48 PM
The manual safety argument is a circular one - if you're smart enough to practice trigger discipline, you're smart enough to use a manual safety. Likewise, if you're too stupid to practice trigger discipline, then a manual safety isn't going to save you.




Fog, the problem I see is in a stressful situation , hold up , car jacking and such , forgetting to release the safety just might get you killed . Can you tell me without a doubt , you would never ever forget to release the safety when you cleared leather after watching your companion just got shot twice by some thug ? How about the members your preaching to , will they never forget the safety is "on" . With the glock , you damn well know its coming out hot . That's what I like , my taurus 85ul is the same way , its ready to go .
Now I do agree with you , If , you want to play with your pistol , show it off , let others play with it too , have a safety on it for sure . If your not comfortable with out a safety , DO NOT BUY A GLOCK . Shoot and carry what your comfortable with . have an open mind and try different guns . you may find one you really like . I did . YMMV

Flopsy
March 20, 2007, 09:51 AM
I honestly think that after you carried it for any length of time,you'd realize that it isn't necessary.

I ended up feeling the opposite. I sold it.

outofbattery
March 20, 2007, 11:39 AM
I got a BHP as my first handgun because I wanted visual and tactile confirmation that the gun was cocked and on safe.It took me about a year to figure out that the thing is simply not going to " go off" on its own and I started becoming comfortable with DA/SA decocker pistols, got a couple SIG's
and am still happy with them.I wasn't a big fan of either the Glock's strange trigger or seeming lack of safety until I actually bought one and put a couple thousand rounds through it at which point I finally realized that not only did it carry well and shoot as well as any other pistol I've carried but was also just as safe.It's all a personal choice and if someone doesn't like a Glock for any reason then that's fine but there really is far,far too much hype about them being any more "unsafe" than any other pistol.ND's have happened since firearms were invented and any firearm made to be as safe as possible isn't going to be practical for multiple reasons.I own 1911's and still have the BHP but they are no more or less safe than my Glocks.If you listened to some,there should be hundreds of us that carry Glocks hobbling around because we've all have shot ourselves in the leg so many damned times but fact of the matter is that it doesn't happen.As far as X number of cops discharging their Glocks that's skewed statistics,if 60-70% of cops carried 1911's then there would be people saying it's an unsafe design because invariably,there would be ND's and the gun,not operator,would be blamed.

If you can't trust yourself to keep your finger off the trigger,don't get a Glock.If you can't trust yourself to work a safety,don't get a single action- there are more than 2 kinds of guns in this world for a reason.

dairycreek
March 20, 2007, 03:00 PM
Just love to see the Glock "faithful" come out of the woodwork saying "can't do it", "don't do it", "shouldn't do it" and the litany goes on. If you want an external safety for the Glock (and why not?) try this out. They have made external safeties for Glocks fo years. http://www.cominolli.com/

FruitCake
October 14, 2010, 09:39 PM
I too wouldn't mind my glock having an external safety. I bought my Glock and did not like the grip so I did the grip reduction. Why? Because its what I wanted. I don't see why if you want a gun because of its good reputation and you modify it to personalize it being a big deal to others. It happens all the time with other guns and their owners modifying their guns to their own preferences. Why should this be any different? Because its a glock- Please! Are some of of you saying that you've never modified a weapon that you own? Why? Too make to where YOU like it! If any of you opposed to the owner modifying his Glock to have a external safety to make him happy then you're also not allowed to modify any of your weapons in any shape or form. Thank you.

HighDesertDrifter
September 4, 2011, 01:15 AM
A couple thoughts to add on the topic of this thread since it still comes up on Google searches...

Adding a manual safety to the Glock doesn't mean you always have to have it on. Carrying in a quality holster and trust your handling? Then you can confidently leave it off and be "Mr. Ready Ranger".
Your Glock is unholstered in the nightstand and you're concerned about fumbling in the dark or that curious little fingers might find it? Then you have an option to be just a little bit more responsible.

On the comparison of a Glock to revolvers without safeties - that's not quite apples to apples. The much different trigger pull was mentioned. But say you have your revolver tight up against your hip IWB, the cylinder can't easily rotate. That is a pretty significant impediment to an AD that the Glock doesn't share.

Personally I've grown up with 1911's so the use of a manual safety doesn't bother me at all.

GLOOB
September 4, 2011, 02:25 AM
Sure. Spend bucks. Hack frame. Add safety. Then leave it off. LOL! Sorry. That sounded funny.

mdauben
September 4, 2011, 10:26 AM
It's really personal preference and the extra safety on the XD makes me feel better carrying it that I do a glock.
This. We can all argue that the Glock is prefectly safe to carry with its own built in safety features, but if you worry about carrying a gun without a manual safety then there is no reason why you should not have one. Personally, I chose Glock as my primary SD pistol because it does not have a manual safety. Its one less thing I have to worry about in a highly stressful situation and I feel perfectly comfortable carrying one concealed in either an IWB or OWB holster.

That said, I'm a bit leery of making aftermarket, mechanical changes to the guts of my Glock. As they come from the factory they are supremely reliable, if you start tinkering with them I would worry more about reliability. If you really want a manual safety you might be better served just buying a polymer gun that is built with one from the factory. I believe some of the S&W M&P pistols, for example, come with thumb safeties and there are others.

The Lone Haranguer
September 4, 2011, 10:40 AM
This is not an endorsement, merely pointing out that it is out there.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cominolli+thumb+safety+for+glock

Carl N. Brown
September 4, 2011, 10:42 AM
Glocks need external safeties like revolvers need external safeties.

Some users of autoloading pistols used to using manual safeties instinctively might want an external safety, but that's personal preference, not necessity.

scythefwd
September 4, 2011, 12:46 PM
UHHHHHHH revolvers don't have a manual safety. Would you carry one of them?
Yes, many of them DO have a manual safety. Some of them are hammer blocks, other are trigger blocks. Also, most revolvers that are designed to be carried with one under the hammer are using trasfer bars. You have to cock it before it'll shoot (a manual action on the gun to make it fireable). If it's double action, the trigger pull is HEAVY and very difficult to actually pull on accident. You don't run into that issue with striker fired pistols.

Glocktoberfest - Make the removal of the safety part of your draw. Practice the draw about 1k times, and it will be automatic. I cock my single action revolvers as they level off from coming out of the holster and they are ready to go by the time I have my sights on target. It took a lot of fussing to get the draw right, but I can now pull and fire as smoothly as someone who has a double action or a semi auto with safety off because cocking isn't a separate motion but is integrated into my draw stroke. Messes with me a little on my semi-autos

Zerodefect
September 4, 2011, 12:56 PM
With a Glock, you can have a decent trigger, or a safe gun, but NOT both. A manual safety would allow the user to use the lighter connector, and still have a gun safe for the street. Of course, it would still be too wide, point the wrong direction, and have crappy sights... :D

DanO

Superlight Glock triggers actually shoot worse, far worse for those I've had try it, especially myself.

I use a 3.5 LoneWolf connector and all the trick parts for a light trigger. Then I stiffen it back up with the striker springs. I have 4 weights of striker springs, stock being the stiffest. The 3rd stiffest, just a hair softer than stock works the best.

Having a Glock trigger too light will cause the gun to go off without a good solid break and be really inconsistant. Haveing a connector too aggressive will cause the Glock to double or even bumpfire.:eek: Superlight trigger and Glock don't go together. It's not a SA revolver afterall.

With the Glock 3.5 or Lone wolf 3.5 connector and the stock striker spring, you really can't get so light that it's problematic. And should still be safe for CCW.

I also feel that a trigger unsafe for CCW is unsafe for competition. Which gun gets handled and shot more often? Which is used under stress more often?



As far as wanting a manual safety? No shame in that. Get an M&P with a manual safety or a 1911. Both fine guns with the safety you want.

GLOOB
September 4, 2011, 05:34 PM
Yes, many [revolvers] DO have a manual safety. Some of them are hammer blocks, other are trigger blocks. Also, most revolvers that are designed to be carried with one under the hammer are using trasfer bars. You have to cock it before it'll shoot (a manual action on the gun to make it fireable).

Umm, sorry to point this out to you, but those aren't manual safeties. A modern semiauto is just as drop safe as a modern revolver. The revolver's transfer bar or hammer block is the equivalent of a semi auto's firing pin safety. The revolver has no equivalent for a manual safety.

JROC
September 4, 2011, 06:14 PM
Not needed, and I recommend against one.

Ol'e Gaston new what he was doing when he designed his gun. Glocks are designed not to need external safeties. An external safety just add complexity to what is suppose to be a very simple gun, and give it something that could potentially go wrong when it matters most.

scythefwd
September 4, 2011, 08:18 PM
Gloob, the transfer bar isn't a manual safety, but the hammer block and trigger block both are. I have to manually flip the safety off to fire one of my revolvers... any claim that it isn't a manual safety just shows either an intentional misrepresentation of the facts or a level of inadequate experience with revolvers to speak with authority. If you don't count hammer down as a safety on a single action revolver... please explain how pulling a lever back (the hammer in this case) to make the gun fireable is any different than moving a lever down (a safety) to make the gun fireable on a doa.

GLOOB
September 5, 2011, 02:12 AM
First off, I thought you were talking about DA revolvers.

Now that we're on the same page, the hammer block on even a SA revolver is NOT a manual safety. I don't even know what a trigger block is, so you'll have to enlighten me.

Manual safeties are by definition safeties that are put on/off manually. The hammer block comes off automatically when the trigger is pulled. If that's a manual safety, then a Glock has 3 manual safeties.

Decocking the hammer on a SA pistol, revolver or semiauto, is neither here nor there. If you want to call that a safety, that's ok with me.

scythefwd
September 5, 2011, 10:18 AM
gloob, no, hammer blocks aren't all removed automatically. Mine, is literally a block of steel that is half round. In the safe position (an actual manual switch), the half round is out and the hammer cannot reach the firing pin, I move the gun to fire, and now the flat side is out and the path the the FP is no longer obstructed. A hammer block is NOT the same thing as the passive firing pin blocks in many modern design guns, which require the trigger to be pulled to be removed. Heritage arms uses one on their small bore rough riders, both in 22lr/mag and the .32 H&R versions. The large bore are made by pietta and do not include the safety

A trigger block is a type of safety that physically stops the trigger from being pulled. One of the most common examples of this is on some older rifles. The trigger cannot be depressed, push the button in the trigger guard to the fire position and the trigger moves free. It is a mechanical stop with a groove in it that keeps you from moving the trigger until it is in the right position and the trigger can move through the groove. It appears that I've been using the wrong term.. Crossbolt safety apparently is the correct term. The charter arms dixie derringer uses one and apparently some webly's came with them as well.

There is also the half-cock notch. Wont stop you from firing the DA revolver, but a SA it will. That's more for drop safety than to keep it from firing from an accidental trigger pull. PICS to follow of a hammer block type safety.

If you go halfway down the page on this link, you'll see some beautifully clear pics of the manual safety on his Heritage Arms Rough Rider. He has it both safety on and off as well as highlighted the block. My pics were too blurry to see well.
http://www.hipointfirearmsforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=258870&page=2

basicblur
September 5, 2011, 10:45 AM
What thread is going to slide into the trigger guard and pull the trigger.
Doesn't have to be a thread-could be a (insert something you never though about here)-the OP can Google Glock Leg (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS426US426&q=Glock+leg) and read away...then decide.

As far as the XD is concerned...... you still have a grip on the grip safety when holstering, thus when your magical thread grasps the trigger you're still going to have an ND!
'Proper' techinque for holstering an XD (or many sidearms with a grip safety) would be to place your thumb on the back of the slide as you reholster-doing so prevents the slide from moving when reholstering (and possibly coming out of battery, causing problems when you have to use the gun), and by doing so, you remove the web of your hand from the grip safety.
Check out the last picture on this page (http://corneredcat.com/Safety_Matters_How_to_Use_a_Belt_Holster/)-I do it slightly differently-I place the pad of my thumb on the back of the slide, which is much more tactile and also raises the web of my hand farther away from the grip safety.

Iff'n it were me and I really wanted a manual safety, I think I'd check out the M&P and XDs that can be had with safeties before I'd start modifying a Glock.

Any particular reason you want a Glock over another quality gun that can be had with a safety?

Pizzagunner
September 5, 2011, 11:22 AM
I can't believe it is 2011 and people are still trying to convince shooters that the Glock and DA revolvers have common operational principles regarding their triggers. It's insane.

Stock Glock trigger pull=~5.0 lbs short stroke pull.

Average DA revolver trigger pull=~10.0 lbs on a long trigger pull.

This is without even going into that most DA revolvers can be reholstered with your thumb covering the hammer to prevent getting a Glock style racing stripe down your leg if your windbreaker's pull toggle gets into your holster and trigger guard while you're pushing the weapon back into the holster.

People need to quit spreading misinformation about Glocks being like DA revolvers, because they just aren't alike.

Single Action Six
September 5, 2011, 01:32 PM
I always thought Glocks had a manually activated external safety. It's right there on the trigger. :confused:

They do. :rolleyes: It's like auto manufacturers placing the brake right in the middle of the gas pedal! :uhoh: Makes about as much sense.

Single Action Six

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2011, 01:41 PM
It's like auto manufacturers placing the brake right in the middle of the gas pedal! Makes about as much sense
You have a point. The Glock is designed on the principle that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire. But not everyone performs perfectly under stress.

Single Action Six
September 5, 2011, 02:38 PM
MainSail said in part..

Iíve read a few too many incident reports where police officers had been shot trying to fire their weapon with the safety on.

I also have read a few too many incident reports where police officers who (as well as others), have had negligent discharges while using Glocks. Where as if the firearm had had its external safety applied, the NG most likely never would have happened.

Firearms that have a external safety serve a purpose.. that being a additional layer of SAFETY for the firearm that's being used. One recognizes this for what it is.

As far as forgetting to release (or deactivate), the external safety upon drawing, that is NOT a design error on the gun manufacturers part, but rather the lack of training on the users part.

I've carried (both professionally until I retired and otherwise), for close to 45 years. In that time (except when I had to carry a mandated revolver way back when), I used a semi-auto with a external safety.. which is what I CCW with today.

Releasing the external safety on draw just comes as second nature.. as anyone here (who carries one), will tell you.

How many times have we heard of a firearm, ie: (pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun), with a properly applied external safety having a catastrophic mechanical external safety malfunction where a ND occurred?

On the other hand.. how many times have we heard (and seen on You Tube, the nightly news or on gun web sites like this), about people (police included), using Glocks (or other non-external safety firearms) and having NG's?

Since itís never out of the holster in a loaded condition, itís as safe - or SAFER - than a handgun with an external mechanical safety.

To make the statement that your holstered Sig is SAFER than a handgun with a properly applied external safety is ridiculous at the least.. and foolishly said at the other extreme.

Single Action Six

Mike1234567
September 5, 2011, 03:36 PM
Not Glock related but external safety related...

I bought my M&P45 with external safety but without mag safety. If I hear a bump in the night the first thing I do when I pick it up is wipe the safety with my thumb. Of course, I never place my finger on the trigger. If I'm carrying it around my property I keep the safety on.

GLOOB
September 5, 2011, 05:46 PM
I can't believe it is 2011 and people are still trying to convince shooters that the Glock and DA revolvers have common operational principles regarding their triggers. It's insane.

Stock Glock trigger pull=~5.0 lbs short stroke pull.

Average DA revolver trigger pull=~10.0 lbs on a long trigger pull.

Ok, how bout we agree that a SW Sigma operates like a DA revolver?

Now you have the choice between a Sigma and a Glock, so which one would you take?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there are 3 kinds of ND's. The overwhelming majority are of the "I thought it was unloaded" variety where the shooter intentionally pulled the trigger to make the gun go "click." A heavier trigger would stop approx 0% of these. Then there are the hair triggers that go off before intended because of poor trigger discipline. I think a 5 lb 2-stage trigger is enough to stop 99% of these if it's on a 2 1/2 lb gun (trigger pull ~2x greater than the weight of the gun means you can pick up and handle the gun like a moron, bobble the gun with your stupid finger on the trigger, and it still probably won't go off, unintentionally). Then there are the freak incidents. These are the true 1 in a million events that combine dumb luck with dumb. E.g. the Plaxico ND, or the infamous "shirttail" NDs, or the "hitch your pants with an unholstered Glock in your waistband" NDs. A 10 lb trigger might stop these, it might not. Granted, a 10 lb trigger undeniably provides a better safety margin for these NDs. But it's far better to avoid these situations altogether.

R.W.Dale
September 5, 2011, 06:02 PM
I've pondered this at length and have come to the conclusion that FOR ME the external safety on my glock, pf9 or similar pistol sans external safety is a quality holster that covers the trigger guard.

This really isn't much different Compared to the mindset that a manual safety comes off when a draw is made.


Tapatalk post via IPhone.

GLOOB
September 5, 2011, 06:34 PM
On the other hand.. how many times have we heard (and seen on You Tube, the nightly news or on gun web sites like this), about people (police included), using Glocks (or other non-external safety firearms) and having NG's?

I don't hear about ND's very often, at all. But if you read our own ND threads, here on the forum, striker fired handguns sans manual safety were involved in a very small percentage of the NDs. The vast majority of ND's happened with handguns and rifles with manual safeties. And if you read the stories of how and why they happened, external safeties (or lack of) had nothing to do with the vast majority.

How many times have we heard of a firearm, ie: (pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun), with a properly applied external safety having a catastrophic mechanical external safety malfunction where a ND occurred? Much more often than I've heard about a pistol going off due to a holster malfunction. Particularly when you add shotguns and rifles to the mix. There are a lot of long arms that can fire when dropped, irregardless of the position of the safety.

basicblur
September 5, 2011, 06:46 PM
Now you have the choice between a Sigma and a Glock, so which one would you take?
Actually, many moons ago when I bought my first polymer gun, I checked both of 'em out, did some research, and walked outta the shop with the Sigma. :what:
Matter of fact, I still have it as my bed gun-bought a lot of name-dropper brands/models since then, but it still goes bang every time, and I can hit where I aim (remember, a light trigger pull is, more than anything else, a crutch for bad trigger technique-MFA), so I saw no real need to replace it.

I agree with the poster who complained 'bout folks comparing the Glock to a revolver-maybe if you put a NY trigger etc on it, it would be much closer to a revolver, but with the stock trigger, not so much.

mdauben
September 6, 2011, 12:39 AM
As far as forgetting to release (or deactivate), the external safety upon drawing, that is NOT a design error on the gun manufacturers part, but rather the lack of training on the users part.
The exact same can be said of Glocks and NDs. I would hazard that 99% of the time a ND happens with a Glock its because the user has his finger on the trigger when they shouldn't. That's lack of training or negligence, not a design error.

thefamcnaj
September 6, 2011, 01:19 AM
Ok I'm a "glock fanboy" I own 7 of them...just getting that out of the way. I carry a g27 iwb in a wild bills consealment holster. I keep one in the pipe and don't think about it. However I've always pondered the prospesct of a manual saftey on my carry glocks.
About a month ago I went to my local gunshop and saw a used 26 with a manual saftey, but it wasn't like the one shown in the link. I can't find it on the internet.
It was a new trigger for the gun. Looks like the regular trigger that comes stock on a glock, even has the double trigger like you'd see on a glock. What was different about this was there was a cylinder throught the trigger itself. If it was pushed to the right it locked the trigger up. It made it to where the the piece in the center of the trigger could not be pressed back, which won't allow the gun to fire. If its pushed to the left, it basically left you with a regular glock set up.
The guy at the gun store said it was a 5 minute install and that if I got the part he'd install it free(he's a glock armouer). You may want to check this saftey option out as there is not need to cut or drill into the polymer. I wish I could point you in the direction to get it, but I can't find it myself. If anyone knows what I'm talking about please let me know, this was the one and only time I've seen this type of saftey on a glock.

Balrog
September 6, 2011, 01:22 AM
I would hazard that 99% of the time a ND happens with a Glock its because the user has his finger on the trigger when they shouldn't. That's lack of training or negligence, not a design error.

A 1% failure rate is not acceptable. What if your brakes on your car failed 1% of the time? You would be dead within a week.

thefamcnaj
September 6, 2011, 01:28 AM
Ok I found the trigger saftey I was talking about in my earlier post.
www.siderlock.com
This will not permanately alter the gun and if you don't like you can just put your stock trigger back in.

R.W.Dale
September 6, 2011, 02:13 AM
A 1% failure rate is not acceptable. What if your brakes on your car failed 1% of the time? You would be dead within a week.

Are you insulating that glocks go off without the trigger being pulled on a somewhat regular basis?


Tapatalk post via IPhone.

IBEWBULL
September 6, 2011, 02:51 AM
When I bought my first Glock 17 I only holstered it with an empty pipe.
After getting a good rigid IWB holster I went condition one. It was a Milt Sparks Summer Special.
I carried 1911's before this and herd many remarks on condition one. This was a long time ago when departments were just beginning to carry the M39 SW. I think it was the Indiana state patrol.
Just some history on pistol carry.
I still do not suggest the Gock for novice carry.
If you don't trust the holster and pistol combination don't use it.
There are many other possibilities besides a Glock find one which meets your needs and wont need major mods.
Also there is nothing a good revolver can not do. Smith J,K,L frame Ruger GP or SP 101.

mdauben
September 6, 2011, 05:58 AM
A 1% failure rate is not acceptable. What if your brakes on your car failed 1% of the time? You would be dead within a week.
Its not a 1% failure rate. Glocks do not go off 1 time out of every 100 times that they are handled. :rolleyes:

I have no access to hard numbers, but Glocks are probably handled 1000's if not 10's of 1000's of times with no problems for every time a AD occurs. If we take those numbers as being somewhat representative of reality, that would be 0.1% or 0.01% AD rate. If 99% of the time that AD was due to lack of training or negligence, that would mean that the "failure rate" of ND not due to operator error is around 0.001% chance of mechanical failure leading to AD.

Again, this is just pulling numbers out of the air, but I honestly doubt that the rate of mechanical failure for Glocks causing AD is much higher than that, and may be even less. :cool:

scythefwd
September 6, 2011, 06:10 AM
I would hazard that 99% of the time a ND happens with a Glock its because the user has his finger on the trigger when they shouldn't. That's lack of training or negligence, not a design error.

A 1% failure rate is not acceptable. What if your brakes on your car failed 1% of the time? You would be dead within a week.

He isn't saying the glock failed 1% of the time. He said of the times that glocks fail (which is less than 1% of the time) and result in a ND or AD, 1% of those ND or AD are due to something other than a finger on the trigger. He actually said something completely different than glocks have a 1% failure rate.

Balrog
September 6, 2011, 07:35 AM
A safety other than on the trigger would prevent the vast majority of the 99% of the time when a finger pulls the trigger inadvertantly. It would not eliminate the problem, but would reduce it. That said, I carry Glocks more than any other weapon and have never had an issue with a negligent discharge, because I don't pull the trigger unless I want to shoot. But I feel I could carry a cocked and unlocked 1911 just as safely. I would prefer to use the safety just in case. Glock does make some guns with external safeties, so there is no reason to act as if it is heresy to suggest an external safety be added.

GLOOB
September 6, 2011, 07:38 AM
But 99% of NDs occur because someone pulls the trigger intentionally.

Glock does make some guns with external safeties
That's news to me.

Again, this is just pulling numbers out of the air, but I honestly doubt that the rate of mechanical failure for Glocks causing AD is much higher than that, and may be even less.
I'd put my money on less. 0.0000%, to be exact. If a Glock had ever AD'd due to mechanical failure, we'd have all read a thousand posts about it.

msparks
September 6, 2011, 07:46 AM
Threre are plenty of guns with safeties. I wanted a Ruger SR9, but the manual safety got in the way. That's what led me to Glocks. To me it just doesn't make sense to alter a gun intended for self defense that is to make it safer or less safe in anyone's eyes.

PRM
September 6, 2011, 07:47 AM
I never recommend that people DISABLE existing safeties, especially on carry guns, (pinning thumb safeties, removing Glock trigger safeties) because if you ever used one, you would have a hard time convincing a jury and the DA that you weren't looking for an opportunity to kill someone.


I see statements like this posted all the time ~ can anyone actually cite cases where this was an issue?

Loosedhorse
September 6, 2011, 07:50 AM
Does anyone have any experience with these?Sure. I've had two of my Glocks outfitted with Cominolli safeties. They work fine. Easily removed if I didn't like them, and they're still there 'cause I do.

I did that in the days before there were other "Glockoid" pistols with safeties. If you're thinking about a usual caliber (9, .40 or .45), why not just get a S&W M&P?

However, if it's 10mm or .45 GAP and you want a safety? Go ahead.

barnetmill
September 6, 2011, 08:03 AM
I believe that if you have the money you should be able to own what ever you want. For common sense if I was going to fit a safety to a glock it should be ambidextrous. For me the greatest danger from a ND for my glocks ( it is what I carry) is when reholstering the gun. A decent safety would help with that problem.
W/O a safety you want to do this holstering slowly with both hands. While watching use one hand to clear the concealment garment and anything else away from the holster and with the other hand making sure your finger is nowhere about the trigger insert the glock back into the holster. Some people are now using what is called Zack trigger guard holster for carry. It only slips over the triggerguard like a clamshell and the zack is attached by cord looped to the belt. It is from a safety point fool proof. I use a glock clip to hold my G33 to my belt and the Zack to secure the trigger. You need both hands to slip/snap the zack over the trigger. It is made by Dale Fricke holsters and maybe someone also uses this. I use to use the trigger block that was previously mentioned, but if you do not use a holster it could fall out.

Loosedhorse
September 6, 2011, 09:28 AM
The manual safety argument is a circular one - if you're smart enough to practice trigger discipline, you're smart enough to use a manual safety.
Preventing yourself from having a boo-boo is just one possible reason for having an external safety. It may also be to prevent another person from being able to fire the pistol, at least for a few seconds. As such, an external safety can form part of a multilayered approach to defeating a gun-grab.

I come from a hunting perspective. I'm used to approaching game (once it has been sighted) with loaded gun, safety on. It may be that I don't need that safety, and that all arguments justifying it are circular...but I like it anyway.

easyg
September 6, 2011, 12:29 PM
I never recommend that people DISABLE existing safeties, especially on carry guns, (pinning thumb safeties, removing Glock trigger safeties) because if you ever used one, you would have a hard time convincing a jury and the DA that you weren't looking for an opportunity to kill someone.

I see statements like this posted all the time ~ can anyone actually cite cases where this was an issue?

No one has ever been sent to prison just because they disabled a gun safety in an otherwise justified shooting.
It's just internet nonsense that gets repeated from time to time.
And if anyone truly believes this nonsense then they shouldn't be allowed to be part of a jury.

Fiv3r
September 6, 2011, 12:38 PM
I have carried Glocks for a couple of years. I carry chambered in a duty style black hawk holster or a customer OWB. IWB, a Glock scared the crap out of me. It's not that I'm not careful. It's just that stuff happens, clothes get caught, etc etc etc. I would prefer not to have a 230gr bullet pass from my buttock to ankle.

I recently handled a full size Glock with an 8# NY Trigger, and i think that's the way to go for me. I shoot and carry a lot of DA revolvers. The trigger pull felt more natural to me. I also like the extra effort it takes from a safety stand point. I shoot DA revolvers just fine. I shoot my LCP just fine and it has a LONNNNG pull.

I like Glocks because I shoot them well and they don't have a lot of pieces that can fail on them or get hung up. I'm not worried about making mine run as fast a sewing machine, but I also don't want to make it a 13 shot revolver. I think 8# would be a fine compromise and would add just a little extra safety to the gun.

Loosedhorse
September 6, 2011, 03:35 PM
It's just internet nonsense that gets repeated from time to time.The fact that "no one has ever been sent to prison..." is not the same as saying that the issue has never been argued in criminal court, or that "it's just internet nonsense."

Please see http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466935, especially posts 9, 21 and 29. Probably worth reading the whole thing, to get all sides.

FruitCake
September 7, 2011, 05:44 PM
I don't see how Glocks design with a safetyon the trigger is even a safety. Its like putting one of those silly trigger safety on an Kahr or LCP. Its all just trigger dicipline. I think that most have just been brainwashed to think that these trigger safety designs work. Just keep your finger off the trigger.

CMC
September 7, 2011, 05:59 PM
I have installed 2 Cominolli safeties on Glocks at the request of two retired Sheriff Deputies.
They are both in their seventies, their concern was If somebody would get the weapon away from them It would prevent ther use against them , gun grab.
They both use to carrry 1911 on duty and in their old age the 1911 were too heavy for concealed carry so they choose the Glock 27 and wanted a safety alas 1911.

Wanderling
November 28, 2011, 09:39 PM
Sorry to resurrect an old thread. But I added a Siderlock trigger safety to my G17 and I do feel it was well worth it. The argument "safety on the trigger is unsafe" is BS, IMHO. If you don't intend to shoot at the given moment, there's no reason to ever touch the trigger, safety or no safety. If you do intend to shoot, switching the safety off is going to be a conscious act just prior to shooting - so you WILL have the finger on the trigger in that situation one way or another, with or without safety. This safety, however, will prevent some NDs, especially if people other than owner accodentally get hold of this gun. Won't prevent every ND, but it will help some, and may save a life. Moreover, this particular safety type is not common and if some BG snatches the gun from you, there's a good chance they won't figure it out right away. I also find the motion of switching it off much more intuitive than Cominolli, although I've only tried the Cominolli once on someone's G19.

GregGry
November 28, 2011, 11:43 PM
To comment on this old thread:

Rather then spending money on a manual safety, it's smarter to go to a different gun you feel comfortable with or spend that money on some proper training. A glock ready to fire is a whole different ball game then a 1911. A lot of people think a glock is like a 1911 with no manual safety or grip safety. It's not, if you drop it it's not going to go off. The only thing that makes it go bang is pulling the trigger. If I was so careless with handling and holstering a glock that I needed to keep the trigger from being pulled with a device I don't think I would own a gun. A manual safety shouldn't be relied on to protect from NDs, that's what propper pistol handling should be for

Balrog
November 29, 2011, 08:13 AM
Rather then spending money on a manual safety, it's smarter to go to a different gun you feel comfortable with or spend that money on some proper training. A glock ready to fire is a whole different ball game then a 1911. A lot of people think a glock is like a 1911 with no manual safety or grip safety. It's not, if you drop it it's not going to go off. The only thing that makes it go bang is pulling the trigger. If I was so careless with handling and holstering a glock that I needed to keep the trigger from being pulled with a device I don't think I would own a gun. A manual safety shouldn't be relied on to protect from NDs, that's what propper pistol handling should be for

I think people who want external safeties on Glocks are well aware of that, and are just asking for another layer of protection against an accidental discharge. They know that good handling is important, and it is somewhat insulting to them for people against safeties to keep telling them that. They know it, and are just asking for a little extra protection in case something accidentally comes into contact with the trigger.

Its a bit like telling someone they don't need a seatbelt, that good driving is what prevents accidents. We know that good driving is important, and wear seat belts just in case.

In some markets, Glocks are sold with factory external safeties. Its not like Gaston thinks its heresy to put an external thumb safety on the Glock.

If you enjoyed reading about "External safety for Glock?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!