Glock w/ cominolli manual safet = JUST as safe as any other SA??


PDA






GlockFan1954
March 10, 2009, 01:10 AM
Does this render the Glock just as safe as any other semi auto? Is there some danger to a safety that comes in only via mod (assuming you have a competent gunsmith)?

Please, no comments about not needing it, or safety being between brain. Yes, that's true but manual safeties offer the user a CHOICE to make the gun safer. PLEASE no comments not directly answering the question. If you don't think they need safeties or just should've gotten an XD, keep it to yourself please. Just don't want this thread derailing and not addressing my question.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock w/ cominolli manual safet = JUST as safe as any other SA??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
denfoote
March 10, 2009, 01:39 AM
If you want to install the Cominolli manual safety go right ahead!!
The device has been in use for several years now and does it's job.
If you feel that such a device makes your gun safer, then who am I to stand in your way!!
But, know this: gun safety is 99.999999...% BETWEEN YOUR EARS!!!! ;)
Keep yer booger hook off of the bang button and your gun is 100% safe!!! :eek:
People have been safely carrying revolvers around, without a manual safety, for a century and a half!!!! :what:
It's not the gun that is safe, but the operator!!! :cool:

As for addressing the general question of gun safety every time this or that device is mentioned, it's beneficial for those who may be new to guns. I personally want to dispel the myth that this or that safety gadget will make your gun 100% idiot proof!!

gvf
March 10, 2009, 03:35 AM
Putting a safety on a DA gun, or Action-and-a-half gun I guess would describe the Glock, may make it safer as far as a second fail-safe to an operator error (not keeping finger away from the trigger except when targeted). But consider this, #1: as was mentioned: keeping your finger off the trigger takes care of the primary safety #2 There already is a back-up safety in a DA gun if you screw up:
the weight of the trigger-pull + the distance the trigger needs to travel before the gun fires, acts as a back-up safety. It gives you a possible opportunity to back off the trigger and get your finger the hell out of there. An SA gun will kaboom with a light touch.

So, what you really want is fail-safe to a second safety that backs-up the primary safety.

But consider #4: the redundant safeties, especially the last one, the manual safety, INCREASES DANGER in an actual Self-Defense situation, because you have an initial movement of a switch required to fire the gun, and in the heat of the moment that can be screwed up easily.

So, a manual safety - if that's what it is that you mention - does not prevent danger; in the Big Enchilada (which is the purpose of carrying) it increases the risk of fatal mistakes.

Imagine a BG at SD distances, a yard or two, barreling towards you with a knife set to go and now three feet away - closing fast - before you can even find your gun, your mind's contents completely erased by the adrenaline of approaching death. At that point, I want as simple as it can get, draw, point shoot.

My thoughts anyway.......

Snarlingiron
March 10, 2009, 07:38 AM
The absence of external controls on a Glock is not an oversight or a cost saving measure. The weapon is designed as a combat pistol and is intended to be ready to fire without having to operate levers or buttons or anything but the trigger.

Under stressful conditions, such as defending your life, simpler is better.

If that makes you uncomfortable, then the Glock is probably not for you.

Putting a safety on a Glock is like putting a trailer hitch on a Ferrari.

23Glock
March 10, 2009, 07:51 AM
Here we go again...
I love the way the OP phrases the question this time:
"Does this make my Glock safer? Please, don't tell me anything to the contrary..." :banghead:

We ARE addressing your question by telling you it does NOT make the gun any safer, but it sounds like you just want to be told what you want to hear. This question is getting tired, but don't expect not to start a heated debate on this... I for one don't think it's worth the breath.

Putting a safety on a Glock is like putting a trailer hitch on a Ferrari.

:D I'm going to use that one!

GlockFan1954
March 10, 2009, 12:40 PM
I didn't say don't tell me what I don't want to hear I said don't tell me all the usual glock retorts of oh it's designed that way for reason just use 4 rules that's enough safety.

I religiously use the four rules but guess what humans make mistakes if you think you're incapable of fudging it up that itself is dangerous. A manual safety is as somebody said a I've an added layer so just in case god forbid I fudge the rules something bad is much less lkely to happen. From what people said this is a quality device and itdoes render the gun more safe.

The arguments based on safety if you need it in a gun fight Are VALID. I acknowledge that it adds complexity therefore increases the probablity of error in that high stress scenario. However just as people carry revolvers for centuries people have carried 1911s for almost 100 years you just make deactivating the safety a natural part of unholstering. Furthermore you have the OPTION not to activate the safety if youre more comfy of doesn't alter the operation of the gun. So the ferrari analogy is inappropos.

sqlbullet
March 10, 2009, 12:56 PM
I don't personally own a Glock at present. I have in the past, and plan to again in the future when the right G20 and G29 cross my path. I will not add a safety to them.

However, I can see a legitimate benefit to one, especially if the gun is a primary care weapon. Here is the scenario.

You have the weapon out of the holster, loaded. For whatever reason, you lose your proper grip on the weapon and it begins to fall....

Human reaction is to try to catch it before it hits the ground. We all naturally react this way. In the course of trying to regain control of the weapon, you inadvertantly put your "booger hook" on the "bang switch" and squeeze.

This is a real world scenario. You can find ND's (negligent because the operator both lost control of the weapon, and negligently tried to regain that control) that occur with this exact sequence of events.

All that said, I think it would be more prudent to train with drop drills to learn not to grab at a weapon. I won't be adding any safeties to a Glock.

KBintheSLC
March 10, 2009, 02:38 PM
The answer is no... it does not make the gun safer. No manual safety has ever made a gun safe... Im talking DAO's like a Glock... not an SAO 1911. I know that the manual safety add on will do what it is designed to do... but I do not believe it will make your Glock more safe.

The Glock has 3 safeties already built in to it from the factory... if that isn't enough to make it safe in your hands, I doubt one more will.

You have the weapon out of the holster, loaded. For whatever reason, you lose your proper grip on the weapon and it begins to fall....

Human reaction is to try to catch it before it hits the ground. We all naturally react this way.

Lets try to speak for ourselves... I absolutely will not attempt to catch a fumbling pistol before it comes to rest. Anyway, whats to say this won't happen after you have disengaged the manual safety?
The key is that you do not draw your weapon without having a firm grip on it from the holster. This can be accomplished with lots of dry practice.

metallic
March 10, 2009, 02:46 PM
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/Jayhawker27/avatar28788_5.jpg
"This is my safety, sir"

But to be serious, if the weapon has a manual safety, I'll use it. If not, well, the design is safe enough not to need it.

sqlbullet
March 10, 2009, 03:40 PM
KBintheSLC, remember about 2 months ago here in Oootah, a guy who had an AD in a bathroom in Layton. Claimed his Kahr fired when it hit the bathroom floor.

I would bet dollars to donuts there was some grabbing involved there.

I am not speaking to your actions specifically, but to human nature. I too make it a point to never reach for a weapon unless I have the ability to properly grasp and control the weapon. But you and I (and the average THR member) are not, I fear, the norm.

As I say, I won't be adding it to mine. But, I can imagine a scenario where it would act as an additional safeguard against a series of operator errors.

The Glock is presently 'just as safe' as any other semi-auto out there. This would add a layer to those safeties. Better off drilling and practicing proper gun handling technique.

sgt127
March 10, 2009, 03:57 PM
I had a Glock 23 fitted with the safety as an off duty gun. They would not let me convert my duty gun, so, I had one gun with the safety and one without. I got rid of the converted 23 as I can't do anything about my G35 issued gun, I really don't want to remeber what had gun has a safety and wich doesn't.

As far as speed of the first shot and a safety slowing you down, thats a non issue, IF you practice, the first shot from a 1911 is as fast as anything on the market. I carried a 1911 for many years.

The comparison between a Glock and a revolver isn't fair. The revolver has a considerably longer and heavier trigger trigger pull than the Glock. The "safety" on the face of the Glock trigger is not a safety at all, its to help drop proof the gun.

As long as a Glock is carried in a well designed holster, with a proerly covered trigger guard, it is generally safe to carry and, theres nothing wrong with it. If you think you may occassionally leave it in the glovebox, shove it in your waistband or pocket carry without a holster, get the safety installed if you want one. I had it, it worked fine and caused no problems.

jocko
March 10, 2009, 04:40 PM
siderlock.com


no modifications at all. IMO a safetyw here it bleongs also.

Gun Slinger
March 10, 2009, 09:36 PM
The Glock design is just fine and is quite safe in its present form.

For your consideration and a little "perspective", the Glock design has made considerable inroads into the US LE market because it is, quite frankly, nothing more than the high capacity double action semiautomatic execution of the old, trusted and true LE favorite, the double action revolver.

Double action revolvers have never needed a safety (the S&W idiot keylock notwith standing) and the Glock being nothing more than the semiautomatic execution of a such a DA revolver, (think of it as a more evolved "cousin" to the DA revolver) needs nothing else in the way of an additional safety added to it to ensure that it is adequately "safe". The three integral safeties (trigger safety, striker safety and trigger housing drop safety) already make the design quite safe.

Of course, if one still has the tendency to shoot themselves with the Glock pistol, then I would contend that it is most likely an issue with the user as opposed to one with the pistol. :rolleyes:

Either way, it is your gun and it seems that you've already made up your mind. Do as you please.

augustino
March 10, 2009, 10:06 PM
Okay so maybe I'm crazy but I was sold on Glock for the innovative design and reliability. And true it's a COMBAT ready pistol ready to be used at a seconds notice.
But I decided to have the Cimonilli manual safety installed and I'm glad I did. After all it is possible for something other than a finger to catch the trigger and have an accidental discharge. Heck far better men than I have had guns fire when they didn't want them to go bang.
Besides, if the gun should get taken away in a struggle the few seconds it takes for the perp to figure out what he must do to make it go bang, may just be the few seconds I need to turn things around.
So I think that for me, the Cominolli safety was money very well spent.

The Lone Haranguer
March 10, 2009, 11:36 PM
What if you put your booger hook on the bang switch after disengaging the safety? It will not be of much use then.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock w/ cominolli manual safet = JUST as safe as any other SA??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!