[Logistar]

This has bothered me for a long time but I guess I figured that one day I'd stumble across it but I never did.

Why do Glocks have "2 triggers"? :confused:

I know they only have one TRIGGER but it lookes as if there are 2, one slightly offset from the other. - There may be other guns like this.... (maybe Springfield XD). What function does this serve???? (I am guessing that it is some sort of safety feature.)

THANKS!
Logistar

[Triad]

It's a safety feature. If the second one isn't depressed you can't pull the real trigger back.

[Graystar]

It's a safety.

http://www.glock.com/_safe_action_.htm

[Logistar]

I just can't see how it helps. It just seems to me that if the trigger was pulled backward then it would fire. If the trigger was not pulled backwards the gun would not fire. :scrutiny:

I looked at Glock's web site and read their explanation but I just can't see what difference it makes. Hmmm.

They seem to be saying that you must pull the "non-trigger" first to release the real trigger and allow the real trigger to travel rearward...but if both levers are moving backward anyway.... I getting another headache!!! :uhoh:

[JimC]

Is this thread for real? :confused:

[JohnBT]

"It just seems to me that if the trigger was pulled backward then it would fire. If the trigger was not pulled backwards the gun would not fire."

Looks that way to me, too.

John

[Reason]

Yes. Glock's safety isn't much different from the safety on, say, Sigs and Walther P99s.

[happyguy]

I like Jeff Cooper's comment about the trigger safety on Glocks. "It's like writing the combination on the vault door," or something to that effect.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

[Lone_Gunman]

The safety on the trigger might prevent a negligent discharge caused if something snags the edge of the trigger. But thats about it.

Don't pull the trigger until you want the dang thing to fire.

[Drakejake]

My opinion is that the so-called Glock trigger safety is a marketing ploy to make you think that there is something safe about this pistol. Law enforcement people are continually shooting themselves and others by accident with Glocks. The stories are in the papers all the time. The Glock is a pistol that is meant to be carried cocked and UNLOCKED. Case closed. When the pistol is fully loaded (round in chamber) the pistol is semi-cocked and has a short, light trigger pull unblocked by the manual safety to be found on the pistols of many other manufacturers.

The full-size Glocks have unsually large capacity mags (but they are very, very expensive for non-police), but pay the price with an almost ungrippable grip. The short, light trigger makes them generally very easy to shoot accurately. They are usually reliable and durable. They are simple to use. But they are more prone to accidental discharges than any other modern pistol, so far as I can tell. Defenders of Glocks will tell you that they won't fire unless you pull the trigger, but they are pistols which are prone to having their triggers pulled unintentionally, despite the novelty trigger within a trigger. As you know, some police departments have recognized the danger of the Glock design and have made the trigger pull much heavier to prevent the problems described.

I think Glocks are clearly less safe than DAO pistols, double action/single action pistols with manual safeties, double action/single action pistols without manual safeties, single action pistols with manual safeties, and double/single action revolvers. If they ever make Glocks with a manual safety, I would consider buying one. Until then, no thanks.

Drakejake

[Lone_Gunman]

Let the flames begin....

[Quintin Likely]

Law enforcement people are continually shooting themselves and others by accident with Glocks.

But they are more prone to accidental discharges than any other modern pistol, so far as I can tell.

Accident? Replace that with "negligence."

Looks like they need to re-evaluate the training or the weapon's system in question, no? The weapon doesn't just fire on it's own.

[sanchezero]

If they ever make Glocks with a manual safety, I would consider buying one.

FYI...

http://www.tarnhelm.com/GlockSafety.html

[9x19]

Ever heard of the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the "Points System" created by BATF to administer it?

IMO, THAT is why the Glock has a trigger safety.... :evil:

[para.2]

If a weapon discharges unintentionally with a finger on the trigger, that's not an accident, it's negligence. This is a software/training issue, not a hardware/equipment issue. Negligent discharges have happened, can happen and will continue to happen with every ignition system thus far developed. If the finger is on the trigger of any firearm when the user does not intend to pull the trigger, that user stands a better than even chance of shooting something he /she does not intend to. Guns don't fire themselves, more safe/ less safe, more/less prone to negligent discharge is in the mind /hands of the user.:scrutiny:

[Hkmp5sd]

I like Jeff Cooper's comment about the trigger safety on Glocks. "It's like writing the combination on the vault door," or something to that effect.

Cooper's right, but not for the reason he thinks. The safety (as the combination written on the door), lets you or anyone else easily and rapidly pull the trigger (or open the door) if that is your intention. It will prevent something snagging the trigger (or pulling the safe door open) by accident.

It was not, and is not, designed to prevent the gun from being fired by anyone that pulls the trigger, just as printing the combination on the door would not stop a thief from opening the safe.

If you cannot trust yourself without a manual device that physically prevents firing a gun, buy a trigger lock (and memorize the combination of your safe). Now, neither will function without your direct intervention.

[Logistar]

It will prevent something snagging the trigger (or pulling the safe door open) by accident. That is what I don't understand. I know what you are saying. I just don't understand how the mechanism works. It seems to me that if you pull the "safe door open" you must be pulling the trigger too.

I am running through the brush with pistol drawn (don't ask;) ). A small stick ends up in the trigger guard. I don't notice. I ram the pistol into the holster. How does the glock know that there is a stick (not a human finger) appying pressure to "both triggers"?

I recommended a Glock 26 or 27 to my sister. I like the guns... I can not see any case where this "safety feature" would be of any benefit though. I'm just trying to see why some people (Glock engineers!) feel there is some type of safety involved here. I am NOT knocking the Glock, I am just curious as to what advantage there is with this type of trigger.

Hey, if I put one of those car "bras" on the front of my car, then a deer would have to impact that just before getting into the sheetmetal. Does that mean that a car bra will prevent hitting deer with your car? :scrutiny:

I don't mean to be a "wise guy" ... just curious.

Logistar

[Corelogik]

Glocks are the DAO revolver of the Auto Pistol realm.

Pull the trigger = weapon will fire, don't pull the trigger = weapon is will not fire.
The inset "trigger" is to prevent the trigger from cycling if you snag it on clothing, holster, etc;

When was the last time you saw a manual safety on a production revolver?
When was the last time you heard someone say that the double action revolver was unsafe?

People use safeties as a substitute for training and presence of mind.
If you HAVE to have a manual safety to safely handle the weapon, you shouldn't be handling the weapon at all.

I am in agreement with all of those that refer to them as Negligent Discharges. If your finger wasn't on the trigger it would not have fired therefore it wouldn't have been an accident.

[happyguy]

I my opinion, the safety on the trigger of a glock is a totally useless complication of the weapon and is only there to make some folks feel better.

Better to not have it at all than to give someone the impression that it is a true safety, warm fuzzy's notwithstanding.

I also find it difficult to liken the trigger pull of a glock to any revolver I have ever owned or used.

Rant Mode On

Lots of things can find their way into trigger guards. ACCIDENTS do happen. Not every unintentional discharge is a result of negligence.

Rant Mode Off

Regards,
Happyguy:D

[Nero Steptoe]

"I 'think' Glocks...."

Some people are not equipped to operate handguns. Others are not equipped to "think".

[9x19]

Nero,

Personal attacks which add nothing to the discussion are generally not welcomed here, and do little to lend you credibility. :scrutiny:

I welcome you joining the discussions, but leave the snide remarks out of them, please.

[E357]

Sort of like having the brake pedal in the middle of the gas pedal. Not really a design feature, but rather a marketing/import ploy.

IMHO the most fun thing about Glock safety features is the part where you have to press the trigger before removing the slide during normal cleaning.

Elliot

[Lone_Gunman]

Elliot,

Why is having to depress the trigger before taking the slide off so fun??

[Logistar]

I really, REALLY appreciate the responses.

I guess I tend to agree with Happyguy -

I my opinion, the safety on the trigger of a glock is a totally useless complication of the weapon and is only there to make some folks feel better. I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind it. The best I can come up with is that if the pistol is dropped (for example) and the trigger was hit from the side (with a little rearward pressure) then MAYBE the trigger "release" might not get hit and therefore not allow the trigger to move backward.

Theoretically better? Yes Practically better? Not to me. Gun in good holster - trigger (any trigger) cannot be moved. Trigger out of holster - operator in control - insure trigger is protected from premature finger or foreign objects. No need for it.

Drop you gun... triggerguard should protect trigger. If an object somehow got to the trigger on the way down I'd think the odds would be astronomical to hit the trigger at just the right angle to
A: not activate the trigger release and
B: have enough rearward force to have pulled a regular trigger in the first place.

If the "trigger release" was SHORTER than the trigger itself then I might see it preventing a snag but I'd say even preventing a snag is doubtful the way it is.

I still think glocks are good guns. I just won't consider their trigger a decisive advantage.

Thanks to everyone for your comments!

Logistar

[Lone_Gunman]

Hey Logistar,

Why dont you post this same question at Glock talk, and see what they say.

[happyguy]

I own a Glock G36 but I don't carry it very often. When the stuff hits the fan you have to expect that everything that can go wrong will go wrong. That includes falling down, being knocked down, being knocked senseless, grabbed, thrown, stabbed, etc. etc.. Where your index finger ends up in that type of situation can be completely out of your control.

Try this, sprint five yards a hard as you can and dive headfirst behind cover. Make sure you do this on uneven ground, preferably hardpacked dirt and gravel or pavement. As you make your landing and the skin peels back off of your knees and elbows, make sure you keep your finger out of the triggerguard. Now, imagine doing that while someone is trying to kill you. :evil:


Ahhh.....choices. Life is full of 'em. :confused:

Regards,
Happyguy:D

[Drakejake]

Of course, most accidents are caused by negligence. But until human beings are no longer negligent, Glocks will be more prone to accidental discharges than most other handguns. Just my opinion. I don't think the argument that Glocks fire only when the trigger is pulled addresses the problem, which is that the trigger is easily pulled and that there is no manual safety to prevent that. I wouldn't buy an aftermarket safety. If the manufacturer doesn't produce a safe gun, I don't want one. My point of view is that of a gun carrier rather than someone who merely loads and fires at the range.

Drakejake

[txgolfer45]

Regardless of the type of handgun, you need to understand how it works. I don't care if it is a Glock, Sig, Beretta, read the darn manual and understand what it will and won't do.

A Glock is no more dangerous than any other handgun. Get a good holster, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot and you will be just fine. Get training and practice alot!

Glocks are not more prone to accidental/negligent discharges. Having said that, if you don't feel comfortable with a particular handgun, then don't get it.

I'm perfectly happy carrying a Glock with a round in the pipe!!! I've had handgun training with a Glock and go to the range on a weekly basis. I feel comfortable handling and shooting a Glock. If you are looking for a good holster, definitely consider Comp-Tac. www.comp-tac.com

Scott

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Personally, I've never actually paid a whole lot of attention to the safety trigger on my G-32. But then, I don't actually CARRY the durn thing, either. I would, though. I'd have a holster that covered the triggerguard, and keep my finger off the trigger till shootin' time.

Glocks are not "cocked and unlocked". If the safety fails, they can't go off, because it requires a pull of the trigger to complete the cocking sequence of the striker. "Cocked and locked", 1911-style, refers to a gun that is ready-to-fire, with a fully compressed mainspring that only requires dis-engagement of the sear to release the hammer/striker. Glocks do not fulfill these conditions.

FWIW, I put a target-grade 3-1/2# disconnector in mine, and I treat it like an SA auto. It shoots like a target gun, and unlike some, I really like it's trigger. In fact, just lateley I took it completely apart and mirror-polished and lubed all of the contact surfaces. Now it's even BETTER.

[WonderNine]

Having fired a G19 before, I sure wouldn't want to carry that thing chambered :uhoh:

Yes, the trigger safety IMO is completely useless. It would be much nicer to have a manual safety and do away with the "double trigger".

[denfoote]

FYI...

http://www.tarnhelm.com/GlockSafety.html

Unnecessary to say the least!! :D

Since my re-admittance to the Dark Side is now complete, I have to jump into this fray!! ;)

I have carried Glock pistols of every caliber that they make, except the non imported and the .357SIG, off and on for years!! Most of my Glocks are equipped with the "minus" connector and the reduced power trigger spring. In fact, my current carry pistol, G26, which was recently repossessed from my lovely wife, is so equipped. I pocket or IWB carry it WITH a round in the chamber!!! :eek: When pocket carrying, I keep only the pistol, in a Galco pocket holster, in the pocket. Nothing, I mean, nothing else accompanies it!! :evil: I follow rule ONE: Always keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire!! This rule was ingrained in me, as a small sprite, by my late father from the very beginning!!! In 35 years of handling all sorts of firearms, from the lowly .22LR to the Uzi, I have never had an ND!! Follow rule one and you will be AOK!!!!! :D

[Logistar]

Hey Logistar, Why dont you post this same question at Glock talk, and see what they say. Good idea, Lone_Gunman!

I have registered at Glock Talk but am awaiting posting priviledges....

I'll let you know what they say.

Logistar

[Lone_Gunman]

Logistar,

To be honest, I meant that kind of jokingly... the true believers over on Glock Talk will eat you alive for suggesting that a Glock is anything less than a divine intervention.

Questioning anything about the Glock, or suggesting any alteration from the original design, will quickly result in getting flamed.

To be honest, I am surprised you havent seen more of that here... yet.

[tac17]

I can save you the trouble and tell you what at least I would say when you posted that there. They actually serve a rather important purpose. Not in the normal safety role where if you are silly enough to press the trigger then the gun doesn't go bang. The trigger safety helps to prevent snags from firing the gun. Doesn't totally help but it does help somewhat. It also functions a lot like a drop safety, in others words if the gun falls gravity can not actuate the trigger firing the gun. I can't find the real technical details anywhere but that is the best that I can do from memory.

[Kruzr]

Why do Glocks have 2 triggers? To make up for the lack of a hammer. :D

[Powderman]

Law enforcement people are continually shooting themselves and others by accident with Glocks. The stories are in the papers all the time.

OK. Where?

The Glock is a pistol that is meant to be carried cocked and UNLOCKED. Case closed.

May I respectfully inquire where this came from?

But they are more prone to accidental discharges than any other modern pistol, so far as I can tell. Defenders of Glocks will tell you that they won't fire unless you pull the trigger, but they are pistols which are prone to having their triggers pulled unintentionally, despite the novelty trigger within a trigger.

And how does this happen?

As you know, some police departments have recognized the danger of the Glock design and have made the trigger pull much heavier to prevent the problems described.

And if it is so dangerous, why are Departments switching to the Glock pistol?

Bottom line--

1. All guns are always loaded.

2. Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

3. (uh oh, here it comes......get ready for it.....) KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO SHOOT. :what: :what: :uhoh:

4. Be sure of your backstop and what is beyond.

Special attention is invited to Rule #3.

If you can't shoot a Glock pistol, or carry one safely, then don't EVER pick up a revolver, fella!

[Logistar]

It's amazing how a simple question gets so .... "emotional"??? :D

Anyway, Lone_Gunman, I think posting the question on Glock Talk IS a good idea. I am NOT knocking Glocks (I have to laugh at how defensive gun owners seem to be though :D ). As soon as I can post there, I will try it. I will be "nice".

I am sure the good people over on GT will treat me courteously and with respect as I inquire about the features of their fine handguns. Like I said... I'll let you know what they say.

Logistar

(You REALLY think I'll need a fire-proof suit?? ):uhoh:

[tac17]

Logistar I answered your question above.

[WonderNine]

Logistar, you'll need a oven mit to work the mouse if you post that question over on Glocktalk.

Regardless of what anyone says, I will never understand why some people claim that carrying a chambered gun that has no safety and a light single action trigger is just as safe as a double action revolver.

Yes, the 4 rules. But isn't that manual safety there for when you have that brain spasm and you don't follow one of the four rules?

Yes, people make mistakes and triggers snag and people bump triggers when holstering and unholstering especially in stressful situations. That's why Glocks seem to have more ND's than any other gun out there.

[Zach S]

When was the last time you saw a manual safety on a production revolver?
When was the last time you heard someone say that the double action revolver was unsafe?
My experiance with glocks and wheelguns is limited, since I dont care much for either, but the wheelguns (with the exception thumb-busters, of course) I've shot had a longer, heavier trigger than glocks.

[New_comer]

I think that Glock's trigger safety is one more component that could go awry at the worse possible moment, rendering the pistol inutile, and the owner in a world of hurt.


Yeah, yeah.... it might have never happened before. But for probabilities, I'd rather that Mr. Murphy convince you on that... ;)


Personally, I appreciate the Kahr trigger design more. Simpler, and longish, much like a DA revolver. No trigger of the trigger to worry about. :D

[txgolfer45]

Glocks are as safe as any other handgun out there. Get a good holster and practice the 4 rules of gun safety.

One reason you might hear of Glocks in the media more than other handguns is because, from what I read, over half of the law enforcement departments in the US permit or issue Glocks to their force.

If you want a harder trigger pull, you can have a NY-1 or NY-2 trigger installed. The NY-1 provides around 8 lbs trigger pull and the NY-2 provides around 12 lbs trigger pull.

If you want an external safety, you can have a Cominelli safety installed.

Scott

[45auto]

The safety on the trigger is about as useful as a grip safety on a 1911- no use at all.

But, I read that for the importation of handguns there are a certain amount of 'points' you need. Size, safeties, etc add points. Perhaps, adding this "harmless" but "useless" safety gave them extra points.

It's difficult to envision a real life circumstance where the trigger safety would actually work as a safety, as opposed to a marketing plan where you can list multiple "safeties".

[tac17]

It's difficult to envision a real life circumstance where the trigger safety would actually work as a safety, as opposed to a marketing plan where you can list multiple "safeties".

Not so difficult at all, ever heard of someone dropping a pistol?

[9x19]

Wondernine,

...a chambered gun that has no safety and a light single action trigger...

No offense, but do you have an accurate understanding of the Glock Safe-Action?

It is NOT a single action handgun as the trigger moving rearward is the ONLY way to both draw the striker fully to the rear (disengaging the firing pin safety in the process) and release it, allowing the weapon to fire. Where in that do you see single action?

The Glock is cocked and fired only with a trigger pull, just like the Sig, just like the (DA function of a) revolver, albeit it has a shorter trigger pull, but still it fuctions similarly.

FWIW

[45auto]

The Glock has an internal firing pin block which would prevent an AD whether or not there is a safety on the trigger- I believe!
At least that's my understanding.

[boing]

Marketing ploys, GCA '68, import points...but this gun was designed for an Austrian military contract...?

Then again, I suppose it wouldn't suprise me too much if ol' Gaston had the US market in the back of his mind when his engineers designed the thing.

[Drakejake]

I do not believe the Glock trigger pull is like that of a double action pistol. Loading a round into the chamber half-cocks the striker. The result is that the triggers pull is very light and very short. Some have classified gthe Glock action as something between double and single action. I have never fired a Glock but dry-fired one in a gun shop. Even without a round loaded, the trigger was more like single action IMO. It is the nature of the trigger and the lack of a manual safety that has contributed to the many ADs by LEOs. If you want to take that risk--as many do--OK by me.

Drakejake

[tac17]

Here have a link that explains the trigger safeties in detail.

http://glockmeister.com/safeties.shtml

[jwmoore]

I am sure the good people over on GT will treat me courteously and with respect as I inquire about the features of their fine handguns. Like I said... I'll let you know what they say.

Logistar

(You REALLY think I'll need a fire-proof suit?? )

Of course not... The people on GT are very friendly and knowledgeable on all things glock... They are gun lovers just like everyone here. They will be happy to answer all questions to your satisfaction.

FWIW, I carry a Glock 19 every day. I also read GT (almost) every day. :D See you there!

~W

[happyguy]

If I were to try to characterize the trigger pull of a Glock, I would liken it to a good old two stage military rifle trigger.

Take up the slack and then a slow squeeze without any creep until it breaks.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

[txgolfer45]

If you don't feel comfortable carrying a Glock then don't do it. They are as safe as any handgun out there if carried in a quality holster that adequately covers the trigger, secures the weapon and allows safe reholstering. Personally, I like the Comp-Tac holsters.

I carry any one of my three Glocks with one in the chamber using a Comp-Tac Ghurka holster and quality gun belt. For me, I'm very comfortable with that. Obviously from this thread, others are not.

If you need a stronger trigger pull than the standard trigger, then get a NY-1 or NY-2 trigger put in. With those triggers, you will get a trigger pull like a DAO handgun. I also have a Kahr PM9. There is no safety at all on it. It is purely DAO with a stronger trigger pull than my Glocks. Again, I carry it in a decent holster that covers the trigger.

There are plenty of quality handguns out there. Find one you like and feel comfortable with carrying.

Scott

[WonderNine]

I didn't mean to say light single action trigger I meant to say "like a light single action trigger", I forgot to edit my comments, I've been nitpicked about that before.

[tac17]

I meant to say "like a light single action trigger"

Has to be the first time I have ever heard that in connection with a Glock. :D

[happyguy]

This has been a good thread. I got my G36 out of mothballs this afternoon and got reacquainted with it.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

[Flashpoint]

The whole idea of the only safety on a handgun being the second trigger within a trigger is an idea I've have never really liked. I would rather carry a 1911 cocked and locked. I don't see the gun, as good as they are, a good choice for a CCW. I know the gun is made to be a simple draw and fire gun, but honestly how many people who carry will ever have to draw the weapon quickly in defense? I know there is always the possibility of having to draw your weapon that is why we choose to carry. I’m just saying I think the likely hood of the trigger snagging on something out weighs the possibility of having to draw and fire quickly. That is why a bought the Steyr. I know that there has practically been a book written on the safety of the Steyr between here and TFL, but I feel the gun is safe in that matter. For those of you who don't know the Steyr has a manual safety in the trigger well which I think is a novel idea. I have a friend that carries a Sigma but won't carry one in the chamber because he is afraid of AD. I just can't see the point in doing that; it's like putting you pants half on.

[Logistar]

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I FINALLY have this thing figured out! (Took me long enough!) After reading all your posts and checking out that last URL from Tac17 I am finally HAPPY! I understand the Glock safety trigger!

And you were correct, Jwmoore. The people at Glock Talk were helpful and just as nice as the people here at THR. (Some of you guys had me worried though!)

Thanks for your patience and all your help!!!

Logistar

[WonderNine]

@Logistar
Sometimes GTer's can be nice. It all depends :D


@Flashpoint
Carrying a single action pistol cocked and locked is IMO much faster on the draw and more accurate with the first shot than any other gun.

Drawing the gun quickly you also don't have to worry about bumping the trigger and blowing your kneecap off.

[tac17]

Carrying a single action pistol cocked and locked is IMO much faster on the draw and more accurate with the first shot than any other gun.

Speed and accuracy of your first shot is in the end going to come down to training. Neither system is going to be an faster than the person running the trigger.

Drawing the gun quickly you also don't have to worry about bumping the trigger and blowing your kneecap off.

Blowing your kneecap off is sadly going to come down to training as well. Mr. finger shouldn't get too close to Mr. trigger until Mr. front sight is on target. The safety of a design can never make up for the slopiness of the operator. Most ND's aren't the result of a design flaw, they are a result of a design flaw in the operator. If you squeeze the trigger of a loaded weapon and it goes boom the design has worked as was intended. It is up to the operator to insure that boom happens at the right time. But that is just my .02.

[WonderNine]

tac17, you're displaying the old glocktalk syndrome of making excuses for a poor design by claiming that training is the most important factor. Yes, this is true, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

All things being equal the single action auto is the much superior design in more ways than one.

[tac17]

tac17, you're displaying the old glocktalk syndrome of making excuses for a poor design by claiming that training is the most important factor.

Actually I was displaying something that has plauged me for numerous years, I like to answer conjecture and opinion with fact. I make no excuses for design because none need be made.

Yes, this is true, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Absolutely nothing, but then again what do your posts on the virtues of the single action pistol have to do with answering the mans questions about the design of a Glock trigger? Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.

Now I will warn you that I am stepping into the realm of opinion with my next few comments. Personally I could care less that their is no external safety. With a 1911 style gun the safety comes off at the beginning of my drawstroke, I am sure that I am not the only one that does this either. So what is worse, a trigger that requires 3-4 pounds of pressure and 1/16- 1/8 of an inch of travel to go boom, or a trigger that requires 5.5 pounds of pressure and approaching a half inch of travel? (measurements off the top of my head I couldn't remember so I guessed) The answer, remember I have been speaking of opinion so far, neither one, if your finger isn't on the trigger it really doesn't matter what it will take to make it go off.

[Island Beretta]

I think what sparks the controversy is that that annoying piece in the middle is called a 'safety'. As an engineer once said that is like putting an arm button right in the middle of the fire button for a missile. One push does it all. I guess it is great for tactical purposes on a pistol but it is a misnomer to call it a safety, if not it is one hell of a dumb design..

Anyway I have never had a ND with my Glock (keep it in a holster, when off body it is in the safe and finger out of trigger unless ready to fire); I really really worry when my wife carries it in her purse however even when it is in a holster because it is so unforgiving of an 'accidental' trigger grab.

Oh, almost forgot, Glock recommends that we do not carry with a round in the chamber, great suggestion..what world are they from:cuss:

[txgolfer45]

"Oh, almost forgot, Glock recommends that we do not carry with a round in the chamber, great suggestion..what world are they from"

Where did you read this? I couldn't find any such recommendation from the Glock website under safety rules. :confused:

Scott

[WonderNine]

Where did you read this? I couldn't find any such recommendation from the Glock website under safety rules.

Golfer, every single gun manual for any gun that I've ever read recommends that you carry the gun without a round in the chamber. Looks better in court too for the gun manufacter with all the gun lawsuits of recent years. "See, look at the manual, we told em not to carry with a round in the chamber."

[txgolfer45]

I'll check my glock manual tonight. Thought Glock would have mentioned that on their website too.

Scott

[Island Beretta]

txgolfer45,

Shame on you, you did not read your user manual!! :mad:

Don't you know that this is one of the rules of firearm safety 'Read manual before use' ;)

[txgolfer45]

Island Beretta,

I read the manual when I got it. Just don't remember their comments about not having one in the chamber. Thought looking at their website would get me the info I needed. Guess not.

Scott

[frettedfive]

The whole idea of the only safety on a handgun being the second trigger within a trigger is an idea I've have never really liked. I would rather carry a 1911 cocked and locked. I don't see the gun, as good as they are, a good choice for a CCW.

Flashpoint, first of all, the trigger within a trigger is not the only safety on the gun. There are three seperate safeties on a Glock. Look HERE (http://www.glock.com/_safe_action_.htm) for more info.

Second, with regard to feeling safer carrying cocked and locked, think about this for a moment.

I don't know a lot about 1911's, but...

When a 1911 is carried cocked and locked, the hammer is cocked and the gun is ready to fire as soon as the safety is taken off, correct?
Consider this, then. On a Glock, the striker (there is no hammer, of course) isn't under tension until the trigger is pulled rearward.

On a 1911, it seems to me that should a mechanical failure occur (granted, this is unlikely), the hammer would fall and the gun would be more likely to fire than a Glock,
seeing as how I don't think there's a way for a Glock's firing pin to strike the primer with enough force to ignite it without pulling the trigger.

Glocks may be a lot of things, but unsafe they aren't. And calling them such shows a lack of understanding of the weapon.

Then again, there's a possibility that I don't fully understand the functioning of a 1911... is the above scenario even possible?
(i.e. hammer is cocked, something breaks, hammer falls and gun fires)

Just my $0.02, though. No offense to anyone is intended. ;)

Out of curiosity, in order to deactivate the safety on a Steyr pistol do you have to put your finger inside the trigger guard?

Mickey

[happyguy]

<<<Glocks may be a lot of things, but unsafe they aren't. And calling them such shows a lack of understanding of the weapon.>>>

Or perhaps this statement shows a lack of appreciation for human frailty.

BTW I don't think Glocks are unsafe, but I do think they are LESS safe than many other weapons when in the hands of human beings.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

[tac17]

BTW I don't think Glocks are unsafe, but I do think they are LESS safe than many other weapons when in the hands of human beings.

I just can't understand the logic in this. If you were silly enough to have your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been with a Glock, then you will be silly enough to have your finger on the trigger of any other pistol in the world.

:banghead:

[frettedfive]

Or perhaps this statement shows a lack of appreciation for human frailty.

happyguy, I'm not sure I follow you? Are you saying that I fail to take into account the fact that someone might put their finger on the trigger and fire the gun when they don't mean to? If this is the case, I assure you that I do have an appreciation for the fact that this can happen. What you must realize, though, is that NO mechanical safety device can ever make a gun truly safe. You can put safeties on a gun till you're blue in the face, but nothing will ever change the fact that, for the most part, they're "feel good" measures and never a substitute for safe handling practices. Ever heard the saying "Make something idiot-proof, and they'll build a better idiot?"

BTW, you say that you think Glocks are "less safe" than other guns in the hands of humans. What features, then, would your ideal "safe" gun have? Bear in mind that it must be able to be brought to bear quickly and effectively if it is to be of any use in its intended role of "shoot the other guy before I wind up dead."

In all honesty, I don't see how a safer gun could be produced. I feel perfectly safe with my Glock, whether it's in my hand, in its holster, or on my nightstand. Why? Because I know that, no matter what happens to it, it's not going to fire unless I pull that trigger.

I just can't understand the logic in this. If you were silly enough to have your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been with a Glock, then you will be silly enough to have your finger on the trigger of any other pistol in the world.

Well said, tac17! :D See my sig. line ;)

Mickey

[45auto]

Looking at frettedfive's link to the three safeties( thanks), I still wonder what the real purpose of the first (trigger) safety is?

Can anyone think of a situation where the trigger safety would actually perform a safety function, or better yet, stop an AD that wouldn't be prevented by the firing pin block?

Their second safety, firing pin block, obviously works and is a proven design in many types of guns. Even I can understand this one.

The third safety, if I understand it, prevents the half sprung firing pin from going forward. Glock calls it a drop safety. Yet the firing pin block will prevent a drop AD so this one is a redundant safety? In case the firing pin block breaks, malfunctions, or is left out of the gun perhaps!!
Is this a real safety or is it a normal "function(part)" of a striker fired gun, similiar to a disconnector in a 1911- a safety device(so to speak) but you really need it for that system to function?

These are not anti-Glock questions. I think the Glock is a safe gun and I believe Gaston is a very smart man. So, there must be a reason for a "safety" on a trigger that I don't understand. I will admit it's a 'harmless' feature.

It would be more fun to "get on" the XD, which has a trigger and grip safety- wow!!

[tac17]

Can anyone think of a situation where the trigger safety would actually perform a safety function, or better yet, stop an AD that wouldn't be prevented by the firing pin block?

If you were to drop a glock muzzle up the internal safeties would keep the gun from firing from the drop itself, however without the trigger safety gravity and the sudden stop of the ground could cause the trigger to become depressed thereby firing the gun. The internals couldn't stop this from occuring due to the fact that the trigger had been depressed disengaging them. (At least that has always been my understanding)


The third safety, if I understand it, prevents the half sprung firing pin from going forward. Glock calls it a drop safety. Yet the firing pin block will prevent a drop AD so this one is a redundant safety?

The thrid safety along with the second safety are redundant to each other in my opinion, just in case I suppose. The second safety will not allow the firing pin to move forward without the trigger being depressed, and the third safety will not allow the trigger bar to releases without being depressed which should in a perfect world make it impossible to fire the weapon without the trigger being depressed. Then you have the trigger safety that should in a perfect world make it impossible for the trigger to become depressed without you depressing it. That is my best description off the top of my head. I apologize for any errors that maybe in there. :D

[frettedfive]

Looking at frettedfive's link to the three safeties( thanks), I still wonder what the real purpose of the first (trigger) safety is?

45auto, you're welcome :D

The trigger safety is meant to prevent the trigger from being depressed by anything other than a direct, constant rearward pull of first the trigger safety, then the trigger itself.

I can, for instance, using my thumb and index finger, grasp the trigger on my Glock in such as way that I'm NOT pulling the trigger safety, pull with all my might, and not be able to pull the trigger.
The point is, unless about 5.5lbs. of pressure (using the stock trigger group) are applied to the trigger in a VERY SPECIFIC way, the trigger will not fire. To me at least, this covers a lot of possible
scenarios where things might get caught on the trigger. Chances are, something would get caught on the edge of the trigger and not in the center of it, I would think. No, it's true that it WON'T
prevent the trigger from being accidently pulled in EVERY case, but it still seems pretty safe to me. I like the concept.

Yet the firing pin block will prevent a drop AD so this one is a redundant safety?

...and a redundant safety is a bad thing how?? ;)


Mickey

[frettedfive]

I think that Glock provides a pretty good description of the safeties on their page...

"The 'Safe Action' system consists of three (3) automatic independently
operating mechanical safeties which are sequentially disengaged when
pulling the trigger and which are automatically re-engaged when releasing the trigger.

Without actuating the trigger it is not possible that a shot is fired."

Mickey

[45auto]

Thanks,

I have no problem with redundancies in safeties, at least harmless ones.
The trigger safety is one I would leave off, but it's not an issue for me.

[happyguy]

<<<I just can't understand the logic in this. If you were silly enough to have your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been with a Glock, then you will be silly enough to have your finger on the trigger of any other pistol in the world>>>

Silly? I don't know about you, but I am not silly. What is so hard to understand about the significant advantage of a manual safety? I have personally been saved from being shot by a manual safety. I did not put my finger on the trigger. It got there as a result of a collision with two other people during a building entry. You know, stuff happens that you don't plan for or anticipate and that's why a safety is a good idea.

Glocks make great range guns but I would suggest that you don't get in a physical altercation while you have one in your hand.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

[txgolfer45]

Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one!!! lol :D

Let's get one thing clear, Glocks are one of the finest combat handguns out there today! There are other fine combat handguns too. The Navy Seals wouldn't have picked the Sig 226, if it wasn't good.

If you don't feel comfortable carrying a Glock, then don't. It is as simple as that. Find a handgun you are comfortable with and can shoot well and carry that one.

Glocks are popular for a reason. They are light for easy carry, reliable, accurate and not picky with ammo. Unholster, point at target, pull the trigger and it goes bang! Just like it is supposed to do.

If you must have an external safety, then get the Cominelli safety added to your Glock or get a different handgun.

I use a Comp-Tac holster with my Glocks that covers the trigger(s) :rolleyes: and has good retention. And, one is in the pipe too!!

Let's all find a handgun we have confidence in and leave it at that!!!

Scott

[PrudentGT]

Wow, this is one of the more interesting threads I've seen on here for a while; a lot of good points made, and a lot of people airing their preferences.

First off, txgolfer made the most important point about why you're always hearing of LE ND's with Glocks; It's the same reason whenever an LE smashes up a patrol car, it's always a Crown Vic or an Impala -- 99% of the time, that's what they're driving/carrying. I think this, more than anything else, is a testament to the safety of Glock pistols.

As tac17 pointed out, the trigger safety compliments the others. I myself have dropped a chambered G17, and after letting out a sigh of relief, I had to appreciate that had the other two safeties failed, it's still physically impossible for the trigger to go back unless there's something other than momentum pushing it down. Now I doubt that the momentum of the trigger would actually carry it far enough back to fire, but it's still comforting. I actually know someone on this board who demonstrated his deep and abiding faith in his G23 by grabbing it by the muzzle and pounding it on a table like a gavel. :eek: Now I don't approve of that -- relying on any safety is asking for trouble -- but it does tell you the confidence that three independent automatic safeties can inspire.

Island Beretta -- show me the manual for *any* modern handgun that doesn't include the liability-dispersing blurb about not carrying with one in the pipe. They all say that. They have to.

Having said all this in defense of "safe action" Glocks, my new favorite is the Walther P-99. You can have a full, true DA trigger draw on the first round, you can have a looooong takeup on the first single action shot (the "anti-stress trigger"), or the first shot can be cocked single action, all in a striker fired pistol. Yeah, they're not immune from marketing gimmicks -- the "double-strike" capability is just encouraging bad pistolcraft -- but it is an awesome pistol, 500 rnds without a single hiccup, accuracy borders on supernatural, and it fits like a glove.

Oh, and Hand_Rifle_Guy, congrats on finding your car!