Glock's trigger safety not enough?

[DentThat]

I'm trying to make sense of Glock's trigger safety.

Can someone explain to me WHY it works? I mean, if something with enough force were to accidentally pull the trigger, then it'll just push the safety in, basically nullifying the whole point of the safety.

Plus, for prolonged range shooting, the "sharp" trigger safety puts a strain on your trigger finger.

Now, I love XD's trigger safety AND rear grip safety. Now THAT, I 100% advocate and love.

Thanks!

[mgregg85]

I believe the idea is that the trigger safety will prevent anything from brushing up against the side of the trigger and discharging the weapon. If something gets inside the trigger guard then it probably won't stop it from pulling the trigger.

I felt better about the XD with the grip safety so I bought an XD45 instead of a glock 21.

[23Glock]

Glock's trigger safety is designed to prevent lateral force from pulling the trigger. Something needs to be on the trigger and pushing it straight back...say, like your trigger finger.
And sharp? What's sharp about the trigger safety? And why would the XD trigger safety be any different/better in your opinion...?

IBTL, my troll radar just went off.

[The Lone Haranguer]

It helps to ensure that only your finger, fully wrapped around the front of the trigger, should be able to pull it. In actual service, as noted, other objects that get fully inside the trigger guard can also do this. It would be a bad idea, for example, to wear a sweatshirt with a drawstring as a cover garment. It is also part of the "drop" safety system, to prevent a hard blow from jarring the trigger. Still, IMO virtually all these AD/NDs could be prevented by not putting your finger on the trigger unless and until you plan to shoot. :rolleyes: If you don't think you can do this, there are plenty of makers of double-action and/or thumb-safety equipped pistols that will be happy to part you from your money. :)

[TAB]

Judging by the number of LEOs that shoot themselfs in the leg with thier glock, I'd say it does not work.

[61chalk]

I first saw a Glock that my son bought....I looked.."Wheres the safety!"..I'm use to my 1911...At first I didn't like the Glock because of the trigger type safety...He has good holster that prevents anything from getting in...an then I realized that revolvers really don't have a safety at all, you just squeeze the trigger an the hammer comes back...so I think that most people who own the Glock realize how it operates an how it should be handled, my first concern about it is no longer a concern.

[autospike]

A whole lot of LEOs have shot themselves with other things besides Glocks. Even revolvers.

[The Lone Haranguer]

Judging by the number of LEOs that shoot themselfs in the leg with thier glock, I'd say it does not work.
On the contrary, it is performing as it was designed to. It is the operator who is at fault, by not observing Rule Three.

DA/SA and thumb-safety-equipped pistols are not immune from this, either, if the operator forgets to decock or apply the safety and then breaks Rule Three.

[DeepSouth]

Can someone explain to me WHY it works? I mean, if something with enough force were to accidentally pull the trigger, then it'll just push the safety in, basically nullifying the whole point of the safety.

Annoy a liberal, or Glock designer, use logic and reason!

Couldn't help it.

[TAB]

On the contrary, it is performing as it was designed to. It is the operator who is at fault, by not observing Rule Three.

DA/SA and thumb-safety-equipped pistols are not immune from this, either, if the operator forgets to decock or apply the safety and then breaks Rule Three.


Its true it is operator error.


The best safety is the one between your ears, its also the most likly to fail.

[cactusgeorge]

Gentleman,
The ultimate safety does not reside in some switch, lever or truly unique trigger safety, it resides between your ears and a hard and constant focus URFS #3...!!!

[earlthegoat2]

The glock relies on the most fundamental safety there ever was and ever has been.

In short, dont pull the trigger until you have a target to shoot meathead.

[sgt127]

As I understand the Glock trigger safety, it is not a safety at all. It helps prevent the gun from firing if dropped. If you drop the gun on the butt, the trigger is moving at the same speed as the gun (object in motion law of gravity and all) the trigger is moving the same speed as the gun. Gun stops on the floor, trigger keeps moving backwards, gun fires. Trigger safety is supposed to prevent that. Trigger cannot move backwards unless the little tab is depressed.

[stana]

I've witnessed too many AD / ND's. Two did damage. One with a revolver that discharged into the holster (duty holster) during the draw. Leather, pants material and a 38 wc ended up in his cheek. The second a 1911 45acp discharged into a IWB holster (in the appendix position) during holstering. The victim in obvious pain and fear ran for the porta potty. After what seem an incrediblely long time he appeared and incrediblely announced to the crowd surrounding the potty that all was intact. Both became famous.

[possum]

i am not a fasn of manual safeties on fighting guns, the glock/xd etc trigger safety is enough for me, and really if it wasn't on there that wouldn't bother me a bit either.

[possum]

Plus, for prolonged range shooting, the "sharp" trigger safety puts a strain on your trigger finger.
you must have weak girly hands,:) i have never had this issue at all, after many high round count training courses and many high round count range/training sessions.

[PT1911]

in my eyes, the glock "safety" is not much in the way of a functional safety only a drop safety, meaning, it ensures the trigger must be pulled in order for the gun to fire... that is why so many other guns (xd, m&p, steyr....etc) incorporate them into their guns... that said, I do prefer the m&p and Xd and Steyr triggers to the Glock's, but that is a new thread altogether..

[oneounceload]

If Glock could make it even simpler, I'm all for it - I have no need for manual safeties that can break or malfunction at the wrong time. Point the gun, pull the trigger, hit your target - it doesn't need anything more than that

[punkndisorderly]

As long as it's carried in a proper holster rather than say jammed into the waistband of a pair of sweatpants or in a purse full of junk, I think it's totally sufficient.

Since I usually don't carry during the work week and instead just keep mine on the passenger seat of my car and lock it in the glovebox while at work, I went to a double action revolver. Didn't like the idea of either carrying my Glock with an empty chamber and having to rack the slide if it was ever needed.

For holster carry, the Glock's safety hasn't been an issue for me. Manual safetys are somewhat of an issue as you have to remember to disengage and re-engage under stress.

[Drail]

I don't see how the Glock system can even be referred to as a "safety". To my thinking a safety will disable a weapon so that it will NOT fire when the trigger is pulled. The Glock trigger will always fire when the trigger is pulled. The accidents that people have with Glocks are a personnel training problem. I used to be an instructor and I can assure you there are many times more poorly trained people out there than there are unsafe weapons. As others have said, if you can't discipline yourself to keep your finger off of it while handling it then a Glock is NOT for you. It will not tolerate any sloppy handling whatsoever. A double action revolver will tolerate a lot more carelessness than a pre cocked SA Glock.

[ExtremeSquared]

/\ What about a 'drop safety'? It has no 'manual safety'.
This is all glock has, drop safety, by design. Love it or hate it.
And then get on the internet and tell everybody how much you love it or hate it and how everybody else is wrong.

[ScareyH22A]

There's plenty of times that firearms, not just Glocks, have been accidently discharged from all things besides a finger inside the trigger guard.

Ill. deputy accidentally shoots self

Editor's note: Law Enforcement Firearms columnist Richard Fairburn says, "If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a bang when you didn’t expect one. Good, stressful training can eliminate most of your officer’s negligent discharge problems, but not all of them." Read his article Causes and cures for the negligent discharge for more information on gun safety.

WAUKEGAN, Ill. — A Lake County sheriff's deputy was airlifted to a hospital Friday morning after accidentally shooting herself at the County Building parking garage.

Karen Harris, a 22-year veteran of the sheriff's office, was recovering from surgery Friday afternoon at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge. She is expected to make a full recovery, authorities said.

At 8 a.m. Friday, Harris was removing her service weapon from the trunk of her car on the third floor of the parking garage when the gun fired, sending a .40-caliber bullet through her right hand and into her abdomen.

Waukegan police determined the trigger was pulled by a hanger stuck in the trigger guard, said Waukegan police Cmdr. Wayne Walles.

"It's an accident. It could absolutely happen to anyone," Sheriff Mark Curran said. "We pray for her, and we feel terrible for her."

Harris, 46, of Gurnee, was taken first to Vista Medical Center East and later flown to Lutheran General. She was conscious and alert after surgery, police said.

The Waukegan Fire Department and other court security deputies responded to the scene almost immediately, said sheriff's Sgt. Christopher Thompson.

There is no protocol on where deputies keep their weapon, but some put them in their car trunk, Curran said.

Harris is the daughter of former Waukegan Ald. Frank Harris. Attempts to reach the family Friday were unsuccessful.

Copyright Chicago Sun Times
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1791915-Ill-deputy-accidentally-shoots-self/

[Mainsail]

sgt127 has it correct. It is to prevent the trigger from moving rearward due to inertial forces. The Glock pistols are as safe as or safer than revolvers. The Glock was originally marketed in the US as a replacement to police department issued wheel guns. It allowed an easier transition for officers. There are no added moves for an officer to learn, you point the gun, look down the sights, and pull the trigger. You are rewarded with a loud bang and some recoil.

If one is too inept to safely handle a Glock pistol, then one is far too stupid to safely handle any handgun, buy some pepper spray instead. The Glock is completely safe when you read and follow the warnings in the owner’s manual as well as follow all the standard gun safety rules.

Things that require knowledge to operate safely that stupid or careless people shouldn’t own:
Guns (Glocks included)
Automobiles
Chainsaws
Power tools
Sharp metal things like knives and razors
Lawnmowers

[VINTAGE-SLOTCARS]

Ive seen too may civilians that shot themselves w/a glock,no thanks.

[Guillermo]

The safety mechanism on the Glock is more than sufficient.

[Andrew Wyatt]

My 1911 is easy to shoot and has a more positive safty. too bad it's not as reliable as the glock.

[Dan Crocker]

Holy #^$% I can't believe this keeps coming up.
If you are soooo worried about it, THEN DON'T GET ONE! Am I the only one in the room!?!?!?!?

Things that require knowledge to operate safely that stupid or careless people shouldn’t own:
Dead on! Too bad there is no such thing as personal responsibility for being an idiot anymore!

[jdc1244]

My 1911 is easy to shoot and has a more positive safty. too bad it's not as reliable as the glock.

You have the wrong 1911.

Holy #^$% I can't believe this keeps coming up.
If you are soooo worried about it, THEN DON'T GET ONE! Am I the only one in the room!?!?!?!?

The OP was a reasonable question – I’ve wondered the same myself; now I know: Glocks don’t have a safety per the design – the trigger safety was never designed to stop the trigger from being pulled inadvertently. If you don’t like it, don’t buy a Glock.

Got it, thanks.

[Hawk]

I've always been of the assumption that the Glock does a good job of acting like a DAO revolver.

However, I've also found that people are sometimes excellent judges of their own limitations even if sometimes on a subconscious level.

If, holding a Glock, someone's stomach starts doing flip-flops, I would assume he or she is an excellent candidate for a trigger block, add-on lever or similar. It's not like the "Glock issue" was so far under the radar it hasn't inspired an entire cottage industry of add-on safety suppliers, most of which seem to be deriving a handsome living therefrom.

So, if a private citizen contemplating a Glock feels their sphincter clench up such that they can't stand without bringing the chair with them, they should either not buy a Glock or invest in some aftermarket muscle relaxant such as a push-out trigger block.

If issued a Glock and denied the "buy something else" option, I'd support the option to add an aftermarket gizmo of some type.

What's puzzling is that, on rare occasion, someone who feels the Glock manual of arms is an accident waiting to happen will post proposing that the Glock safety is insufficient and they feel better buying something with an additional level. The puzzling part, of course, is that they've already solved their personal issues by buying something else and are apparently here solely to tweak those that don't share their personal issues.

But I guess that's what "versus" threads are all about.

[mljdeckard]

I very much agree with Mainsail. If you can't keep a Glock safe, you can't keep anything else safe either.

[S&Wfan]

They are only really safe . . . if you are "professional" enough to carry one!;)

Here's a professional ATF agent teaching the importance of gun safety to little elementary school kids. Luckily, he only shot himself . . . and survived to remain stoooo-pid.

Funny video . . . and true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_91jcFTbLE8

This one . . . not so funny, as the idiot shot another LEO also, then dropped his tupperware on the floor where prisoners were lined up mere feet away . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHS_9iQ0P2Q

[444marlin]

+1 for mainsails post, I can't believe the people who worry about those of us who buy, carry, shoot our glocks I NEVER put anything including my finger into the trigger guard unless I want to pull the trigger and destroy something. why is this so hard for some to understand and do if someone can't trust themselves enough to keep from having a ND with a glock then you shouldn't own any firearm you would just be an accident waiting to happen.

[jaholder1971]

I think this is the point where someone's supposed to give the whole "keep the booger hook off the bang switch" speech.

Like abstinence, it works 100 percent where practiced.

[GRIZ22]

The agency I worked for changed over to Glocks in 1998. I was a firearms instructor so I was privy to all the details of any unintentional discharges so I could incorporate the mistakes in teaching safety I retired in 2005 and in those 7-8 years there were three UIDs I remember:

2 were while clearing the gun prior to cleaning. One happened in a kevlar clearing station which worked as advertised. No injuries in either.

An agent that liked to carry Mexican in an appendix position had the trigger snag on the buttons for his braces (he did buy good suits apparently) and caught the round in his thigh.

There was another but that was with a H&K.

That's 3 with Glocks over 7-8 years with asampling over maybe 15,000 in use by the agency.

Prior to getting Glocks we had 1-3 UIDs a year with DA revolvers and DA autos just in my office. We never had a UID with a SA auto.

Glocks are no more unsafe than any other handgun as long as you use a good holster and follow the rules.

[GregGry]

Simple designs are bad when it comes to people who get complacent a lot. Glocks are very simple, thus complacency can cause issues.

[jester_s1]

Good one, Mainsail.

I'd add voter registration cards, P.A. Systems, and children to that list also.

[mgkdrgn]

Judging by the number of LEOs that shoot themselfs in the leg with thier glock, I'd say it does not work.

Just because you are an LEO doesn't mean you're smart enough to keep your booger hook off the bang switch when you re-holster.

[Mainsail]

Judging by the number of LEOs that shoot themselfs in the leg with thier glock, I'd say it does not work.

They wreck a lot of Crown Victoria Police Interceptors too, and many more die doing so. Should we take their cars and give them scooters?

Ive seen too may civilians that shot themselves w/a glock,no thanks.

Maybe we should ban all guns then? Or just guns that don’t have an external safety? Or people who don’t use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation? The police (who, by the way, are civilians too) are no more or less apt to have a negligent discharge. We might expect more from them because they are supposed to be better trained, but many times they are not. It takes a lot of training (and $) to train the stupid out of some people.

[Guillermo]

They wreck a lot of Crown Victoria Police Interceptors too, and many more die doing so. Should we take their cars and give them scooters?


That would be funny. When Bush was still governor of Texas he would run around Town Lake and he would be followed by a Texas Ranger on a mountain bike. Even with the radio, the guns and the mirrored shades, it is impossible to look tough on a bicycle. I would bet the same is true of a scooter.

[dudester]

Ive seen too may civilians that shot themselves w/a glock,no thanks.

Vintage-slot-car, Care to share some of those stories with us?

[Dan Crocker]

Maybe we should ban all guns then? Or just guns that don’t have an external safety? Or people who don’t use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation? Ha ha, especially when this little button on the corner of the 'reply' screen will check and correct your spelling and grammar for you. My goodness!

[MAKster]

Whenever people bring up the fact that double action revolvers don't have a manual safety either, they neglect to mention that revolvers have around a 12 pound trigger pull while the Glock pull is 5.5 pounds. The weight of the revolver trigger makes it very difficult to unintentially pull the trigger.

[oneounceload]

Glocks are easy to operate and no more safe or unsafe than any other pistol - if you don't know how to operate the gun safely, then perhaps you should be limited to a baseball bat.

The ONLY safety you need is the one between your ears........

If the grip safety is so much better, than why do 1911's have to have a namual safety in addition?

[Hawk]

Ha ha, especially when this little button on the corner of the 'reply' screen will check and correct your spelling and grammar for you. My goodness!

Say what? Do I need to edit user cp or something?
Izzit browser specific?

/hijack

[Hawk]

If the grip safety is so much better, than why do 1911's have to have a manual safety in addition?

Those few of us that are accused of reading too much Jeff Cooper will note that the Great One pinned his grip safety. I'm curmudgeon enough that I believe any manufacturer offering a "Jeff Cooper Commemorative" should pre-emptively pin the grip safety. That's an opinion not shared by anyone else so far as I know.

I don't recall if the thumb safety or grip safety wasn't part of JMB's original design. JMB was a accommodating sort so both are there now but t'wasn't meant to be so.

[KBintheSLC]

I am impressed... 2 pages and still no rabid Glock haters telling us how stupid and reckless we are for owning them. Congrats.

BTW... To the OP if you do a search for <glock trigger safety> or <glock accidental/negligent discharge> you will find that this has been hashed out hundreds of times here... the result is always the same. It just becomes a good Glock - bad Glock argument.

In the end... Glocks are not for people with bad safety etiquette... come to think of it, guns are not for people with bad safety etiquette.


...

[ArmedBear]

The Glock's trigger safety is not enough for me. I prefer the XD's design, for a number of reasons.

You go ahead and shoot whatever you want. Just don't point it at me.

The only gun I have owned that had no means by which to prevent the gun from going off with a simple trigger pull (hammer to lower or safety to engage) was a single-shot Trap shotgun. It is designed to be transported disassembled, carried open and unloaded, and only loaded at the range firing line.

I came too close to shooting it way too close to my face by accident once, and had a couple AD's (not really negligent, because it was pointed safely downrange, but I didn't intend to shoot the gun at that exact moment). And I'm pretty careful, a LOT more so than many that I see. Probability catches up to all men.

But again, do what you want.

I still don't think that there is any number of posts from the Glock Cult, repeating how a Glock is perfectly safe, will change reality. Furthermore, I think that believing that being in the habit of keeping your finger off the trigger is sufficiently safe -- until it's not.

Glocks are for people who don't believe in Murphy's Law.

I do believe in Murphy's Law. I have known too many people with missing fingers, eyes, etc., to dismiss the possibility of accidents, and to neglect opportunities to minimize that possibility.

That's my opinion, and there's not a damn thing a Glock Cultie can post that will change it.

[KBintheSLC]

Glocks are for people who don't believe in Murphy's Law.

I spoke too soon.

... and so it begins.



...

[ArmedBear]

I hope you never have to find out for yourself, KB.

Murphy is real.

I do, however, find it amusing that you appear to have some objection to anything other than another "Glocks are GRRREAT!!!" post.

That's not the way that someone who has a rational basis for his opinions reacts to differing views.

[KBintheSLC]

I do, however, find it amusing that you appear to have some objection to anything other than another "Glocks are GRRREAT!!!" post.

You are right... I am wrong. Please forgive me for finding your false personal accusations objectionable.

It would be fine by me if people bashed the Glock... your opinion is your right. Unfortunately, guys like you bash Glock owners... here it is again... "Glocks are for people who don't believe in Murphy's Law."

Sorry holy one... us lowly Glock owners are humbled by your sage wisdom in defining our incompetence.


...

[ArmedBear]

What personal accusations were those, KB?

My opinions, my experiences, and the friends and relatives missing parts of their bodies have NOTHING to do with you.

My own judgment about firearms safety and the fact that relying on any one thing to keep me safe is not what I choose has nothing to do with you.

My initial post had nothing to do with you.

My opinion that the Glock was truly revolutionary, but not the last word in firearms design, has nothing to do with you.

That's what I was talking about in my response.

If someone has a rational reason why he/she believes that any additional safety features in a gun design are a BAD idea, I'm interested.

An obvious example of such a device would be the grip safety that makes it safe to twirl an XD and very easy to do a foolproof press check, but doesn't hinder someone from shooting the gun immediately whenever the need arises.

I'm sure there are others.

Like I said, if someone wants to explain why they're a BAD idea, or something to be AVOIDED, I'd be interested.

If someone just wants to repeat, "Glocks are good enough!" I'm not really interested, since I have tried them, I have thought this through, and I have a fair amount of life experience upon which I base my judgments.

They're my judgments about a mechanical device, and they're not about you.

I do believe, however, that if more people took Murphy's Law seriously, we wouldn't keep hearing "Just keep your finger off the trigger!" in response to a question about the design of a mechanical device.

[KBintheSLC]

Armedbear,

Look chief... I really don't mean to be harsh with you. We are all on the same team here as far as I am concerned. I understand your point, but at the same time I am sick of reading thread after thread of folks telling me what a moron I am for carrying a particular weapon.

We all pick our guns for different, personal reasons. Just because you don't feel comfortable with a particular gun does not mean that I am a walking hazard if I choose it.

Therefore, if you have issues with Glocks, keep it directed at Glocks. I know they are not liked by everyone, and that is just fine. But, please do not pretend like you know anything about me or my level of competence based on my choice of weapon... especially when that weapon is a widely-used, duty-proven platform.


Thanks, KB

[Guillermo]

I am impressed... 2 pages and still no rabid Glock haters telling us how stupid and reckless we are for owning them. Congrats.

Glocks are horrendous and dangerous and you are all fools for owning a gun without an external safety.

[polekitty]

I've never done any tests, but it seems to me the little thingie would have to be only a tiny fraction of the weight of the trigger for it not to travel along with the trigger when the inirtial force pulls the trigger, resulting in the gun still firing. I keep wondering why they even bother with it in the first place. As for revolvers having no safety, actually they do. They have a really heavy trigger pull weight compared with almost any pistol (except an HK which has a really miserable trigger pull.

But, just a thought: How often, when you hear someone say a guy put a round into the floor (or his foot) everyone in the room says "It was a Glock?"

[ScareyH22A]

If trigger discipline is all that matters, why stop with Glocks. Why wouldn't someone carry a 1lb trigger competition 1911 around in Condition 0? Because that's just plain ridiculous. Even a Glock owner would probably agree. So why is a 4lb trigger on a Glock safe for everyone with good trigger finger discipline? Because 4lbs is absolutely safe and 2lbs is insane? Where do you draw the line? I've handled a 2.5lb Wilson Combat and would NEVER carry that Condition 0. Would you? It's a matter of opinion and people have every right to think you're crazy to carry a Glock.

[oneounceload]

Glocks are horrendous and dangerous and you are all fools for owning a gun without an external safety.

and if you are not being facetious, then YOU are a fool and a moron.....if YOU can't keep your finger off the trigger, then buy yourself some bear spray and spare us another news item due to stupidity......:barf:

[Hostile Amish]

The light trigger pull of the Glock is due to the fact that it is ALWAYS carried in Condition 0 Mode, akin to a cocked 1911 with safety off.

The Glock's trigger is not truly double-action at all. IT IS SINGLE ACTION ONLY. I cannot express this enough. When you dry fire the gun, the trigger cannot be actuated again to cock the striker. The striker is precocked, and the trigger pull cocks it the rest of the way and releases the striker.

However, I think that if care is taken and a good, safe holster is obtained, you needn't worry about the safety of your Glock.

[Prince Yamato]

Even with the 3.5lb trigger, the Glock is not that easy to set off. You basically have to be an incompetent to have an AD with one. Stick it in a holster and you're fine.

On a cocked and locked 1911, how hard is it to knock the safety off? Pretty easy. Then you have a very light trigger pull and a skinny trigger guard.

Fiddle with an unloaded Glock, see how "easy" it is to make it go off... it's not easy at all.

[ScareyH22A]

Yeah but whats the chances that you unlock the thumb safety, THEN accidently pull the trigger on a 1911 in that order?

[TAB]

You must also depress the grib safety.

[GregGry]

The light trigger pull of the Glock is due to the fact that it is ALWAYS carried in Condition 0 Mode, akin to a cocked 1911 with safety off.



This is part of the reason why people incorrectly fear glocks.

A 1911 typically has no firing pin block, and could fail (hammer hits the firing pin when dropped) if the safety isn't engaged. It also has a much shorter trigger pull then the glock. The glock has a firing pin block, the striker is held at half-cock, and the trigger pull is longer then a 1911.

If you look at most of the NDs that happened with a glock, a XD would not have prevented them. A grip safety does nothing when the person holding the gun never clears it properly before pulling the trigger. Not to mention holstering a firearm (and having a ND due to something being caught in the trigger guard) would not be prevented with a grip safety, since you could be securely holding your pistol when you holster it anyways.

The XD is only safer in the mind. Yes it has a loaded chamber indicator, but just because that says its not loaded, does that mean you can skip checking the chamber for a round? The answer is no. Yes it has a grip safety, but give me a situation that it will prevent a ND or a actual accidental discharge, that a glock wont protect from?

The only advantage a manual safety has is that the firearm should not fire if something tries to pull the trigger. Nothing should be pulling the trigger unless you want it to shoot however. Complacency when it comes to the care needed when holstering a weapon is to blame when you have a ND when holstering a weapon. The firearm is not to blame.

[4Freedom]

I dunno about you, but I have been feeling happy with the DA safety on my Sig and S&W M&P. I think glocks are similar. Personally , I think Cocked and locked is more dangerous, as you may forget ur safety is on in a life/death scenario. Also, you think your safety is on and go to acidentally pull the light SA trigger and blow urself up. Yes, I know people will say that is only what negligent people do, well crap happens to even the best. At least with a DA gun I know its always going to go boom and don't have to rely on additional movements in time of crisis. How many people witha gun pointed at them will remember to remove the safety. A quick reflex will be grab gun pull trigger, but to go and find the safety and undo it is just one more thing you have to do with a body full of adrenaline.

Well, this is my conclusion , I am a noob and not an expert, but I feel comfortable. As far as DA's going off, well I holster my gun and trigger is covered. Why on earth are people shooting themselves? Do their triggers pull themselves?

[GregGry]

I dunno about you, but I have been feeling happy with the DA safety on my Sig and S&W M&P. I think glocks are similar. Personally , I think Cocked and locked is more dangerous, as you may forget ur safety is on in a life/death scenario.


In theory cocked and locked is more dangerous Something that is set to fire, and only needs something to fail inorder for the hammer to fall, is more capable of firing then something that has its hammer down. There is no stored energy capable of setting off the round with the hammer down, vs hammer back. However with modern firearms a mechanical failure which causes a actual accidental discharge (aka going off when its holstered) is non existent.

Training is key to stopping the threat and using firearms under stress. If you train to use a manual safety, forgetting to take the safety off is not going to happen under stress. Yes it is one more thing that has to be done, however it becomes natural after minimal training.


Also, you think your safety is on and go to acidentally pull the light SA trigger and blow urself up. Yes, I know people will say that is only what negligent people do, well crap happens to even the best. At least with a DA gun I know its always going to go boom and don't have to rely on additional movements in time of crisis. How many people witha gun pointed at them will remember to remove the safety. A quick reflex will be grab gun pull trigger, but to go and find the safety and undo it is just one more thing you have to do with a body full of adrenaline.


You shouldn't be pulling the trigger or putting your finger in the trigger guard unless you cleared the weapon first. Complacency is what causes NDs, not lack of safeties.

I can see that you don't have much experience with manual safety firearms and combat training/shooting. If you train with a manual safety you train to operate it by disengaging the safety as part of the draw. When SHTF you aren't going to think about operating the safety, you are going to do it automatically. You wont be fumbling in an attempt to fix the safety, provided you actually practice. Just like if you don't practice shooting when the time comes to use your weapon your not going to become a bullseye shooter. In my experience the best shooters on a static range shoot the best overall when it comes to live fire training. Sure some can crack under the pressure, however that isn't the case in most instances.

[Guillermo]

and if you are not being facetious, then YOU are a fool and a moron

It was a joke...I own a G19 and an XD45. As someone put so elegantly in a former post, just don't put your booger hook on the bang switch until you are ready to shoot and everything w b fine.

[nofishbob]

After reading all these replies, I did a quick test on my stock G21 to see how easy it would be to "accidentally " pull the trigger.

After confirming that it was unloaded, I could pick the gun up by the trigger pointing the muzzle down, while depressing the trigger safety, and the trigger would not "fire".

I could bounce the gun with my finger in the above position with no effect.

Even adding the weight of a full mag would not change the above.

Fumbling for a Glock is probably not what gets people into trouble, the trigger when stock is just not that sensitive.

My concern would be catching the trigger on something while re holstering.

Bob

[4Freedom]

I am definately not overly experienced and I know people can certainly master, even under worst stress a cocked and locked gun with safety. My own personal theory, and yes, I can be very wrong, is that a lot of these police or others who are shooting themselves with glocks, probably were previously using guns with safeties. Perhaps, since they were so well trained with the other type of gun, when they switched to DA safety, their minds didn't correlate the fact that the safety is no longer there. Perhaps some of these same people felt so secure with their safety that they would draw with finger on trigger, which is a no-no with DA, at least from my experience with them.

My S&W M&P45 has a very light DA and I am more careful with it. I always keep my finger on the frame of the gun until I am ready to go bang. I am training my mind to do that, to avoid disasters.

[DentThat]

Holy #^$% I can't believe this keeps coming up.
If you are soooo worried about it, THEN DON'T GET ONE! Am I the only one in the room!?!?!?!?


Well, I own a Glock 19 and am simply interested in understanding my gun even more.

IBTL, my troll radar just went off.
...so you are incorrect ;)

As I understand the Glock trigger safety, it is not a safety at all. It helps prevent the gun from firing if dropped. If you drop the gun on the butt, the trigger is moving at the same speed as the gun (object in motion law of gravity and all) the trigger is moving the same speed as the gun. Gun stops on the floor, trigger keeps moving backwards, gun fires. Trigger safety is supposed to prevent that. Trigger cannot move backwards unless the little tab is depressed.

Now THAT is an answer. Thanks. Makes a lot of sense

BTW... To the OP if you do a search for <glock trigger safety> or <glock accidental/negligent discharge> you will find that this has been hashed out hundreds of times here... the result is always the same. It just becomes a good Glock - bad Glock argument.

That wasn't my intention. I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind the Glock "safety"

(concerning the XD safeties) Like I said, if someone wants to explain why they're a BAD idea, or something to be AVOIDED, I'd be interested.

If someone just wants to repeat, "Glocks are good enough!" I'm not really interested, since I have tried them, I have thought this through, and I have a fair amount of life experience upon which I base my judgments.

Yeah, the XD is just like the Glock's safety, but with an added rear grip safety, which does no ill harm. What do people have against it?

Please drop all this Glock nuthugging. I own a Glock. It's great. I just want to compare it with others (especially the XD's) and understandmy G19 more.
Thank you
:)

EDIT:
Another reason I created this thread is because I've always imagined myself in a scenario where another man is attempting to wrestle away my gun and he turns it towards me (while it's still somewhat in my handgrip) and shoots me. With the XD rear grip safety, that wouldn't happen because the gun wouldn't be gripped properly and thus, the safety not fully depressed.

Now, I know, I know, you're never suppose to have a person get that close to you and yes, it's a very Hollywood scenario, but there are such things as a surprise ambush. And then you attempt to take your gun out and he see's it and tries to grab for it...

[JohnKSa]

Can someone explain to me WHY it works? I mean, if something with enough force were to accidentally pull the trigger, then it'll just push the safety in, basically nullifying the whole point of the safety.As you properly determined, it's not there to prevent you (or someone you're wrestling with) from intentionally pulling the trigger of the gun. So why IS it there?

The simplest answer is that it helps prevent trigger snags. The trigger safety occupies less than 15% of the trigger surface, so if something snags on the other 85+% it won't set the gun off.

A slightly more complicated answer will point out that the trigger curves and that a snagging object will likely ride up the curve of the trigger. If it does, it will end up at the top of the trigger where the trigger safety can not be activated.

If your eyes haven't already glazed over, you might find it instructive to compare the width of the Glock triggerguard, relative to the trigger, to the triggerguards/triggers of other guns. You'll find that the Glock triggerguard actually provides a good bit more protection to the trigger than what is found on the average autopistol. Combine that with the trigger safety and you've got a pretty snag-resistant operating system.

"Wow, lots of work to reduce the chances of a trigger snag! Snags must be a real problem.", you might say. Actually, they're not. It turns out that trigger snags get a lot of press but when it comes right down to it, they're a pretty uncommon source of unintentional discharges. Probably fewer than 1% of unintentional discharges happen as the result of a trigger snag.

And that leads us to the primary reason that the trigger safety exists. It's there to lock the trigger bar in place in the event that the gun is dropped or subjected to a shock that might provide sufficient impetus/momentum to the trigger bar to move it enough to fire the pistol. As long as the trigger bar doesn't move, the other passive safeties will prevent the gun from firing.

If you feel it's likely you might end up wrestling with someone for your firearm, there are other gun choices out there that might give you more options for disabling the gun/preventing it from firing.