Cominolli safety for Glocks

[Preacherman]

I recently took the plunge and installed the Cominolli safety system for Glocks (see http://www.cominolli.com/glocksafety.htm for details) on my two Glock 27's. I'm highly impressed with this simple device. It adds a manual safety to the three "automatic" safeties in the Glock. This means that one can remove ammunition from the pistol with the safety-catch applied, and can carry it in a pocket with a great deal more confidence that it won't go BANG! when it's not required to do so. The safety is well-positioned for an easy on/off stroke with the thumb as the pistol is grasped, and it's just the right size for me - not so big as to interfere with pocket carry, but not so small as to be difficult to use.

Highly recommended as a neat, well-thought-out gizmo that removes the only major deficiency in the Glock design. I'll probably be adding it to other Glocks in due course - I gave priority to my pocket Glocks, as they seemed in greater need of an additional safety measure than those carried in holsters.

 

[Snowdog]

Preacherman,
That certainly does seem like a useful device. Looking at the device installed at the site you included, it appears the frame must be altered (cut) in order to install.
I noticed the site recommends professional installation. In your opinion, does it have to be installed by a competent gunsmith to prevent a botched job by a Glock-knowledgeable yet novice "do-it-yourselfer"? Again, in your opinion, does this frame alteration appear to have the potential to adversely affect the structural integrity of the frame?

Interesting device, nonetheless!

 

[middy]

Definitely a good idea if you are going to carry with one in the pipe and without a holster...

 

[MrMurphy]

Carrying the gun the way you SHOULD be (in a holster) the Glock has no need of a manual safety. It's perfectly good the way it is.



Remember manual safeties can come off. I know a retired police lieutenant with a .25 caliber groove in his thigh who pocket carried one, ready to go with the safety on and the safety worked it's way off. Wad of pants hit the trigger and he got a hospital visit.

If I thought the Glock needed a manual safety, I'd be carrying a USP.

 

[Preacherman]

Snowdog, I had mine installed by a local dealer who's just been licensed by Cominolli to do the work. He has jigs to fit all models of Glocks, so making the cut is very easy. However, he reports that any knowledgeable Glock user, who's handy with tools, could make the cut without a jig - unfortunately, if one's hand slips while making the cut, one's just ruined the frame, so I'd rather have the dealer do it for me! There's a list of licensed dealers on the Web page I posted, or you can send your Glock to Cominolli himself to do it.

It's a very fast process, though - I dropped off my G27's one evening and picked them up the next morning.

MrMurphy, I do carry my Glocks in a pocket holster: however, in a pocket, there's always the risk of something dragging at the pocket and dislodging the gun and/or holster, and a light pocket holster isn't always the safest place for a gun anyway. I agree that in a good, tough holster, an external safety is unnecessary for a Glock: but I've seen so many ND's with them that I tend to prefer the additional safety level that the Cominolli device gives me. YMMV...

 

[denfoote]

That's all very well and good.

But, don't let your new whiz bang gadget replace the most important safety: The one between yer ears!!!

I've relied on that one for years, when carrying Glocks!!!
It has not failed me yet!!!

 

[longeyes]

How is it better than a Saf-T-Blok?

 

[Preacherman]

The Saf-T-Block serves a similar purpose, but only blocks the trigger itself. The Cominolli safety blocks all the internal safety devices as well. Also, the Saf-T-Block can be dislodged from behind the trigger, or can be lost somehow: the Cominolli safety is a fixture, that can't be lost.

(Of course, you can take the Cominolli components out and restore the Glock to normal condition in less than 5 minutes: all that will be left is the small cut in the frame, which doesn't affect normal operation in the slightest.)

I know the Glock "purists" will say this is unnecessary: and from a purely technical, gun-oriented perspective, they're right. However, since we're dealing with human beings, who make mistakes and do dumb things from time to time, the Cominolli safety gives an additional level of security that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...

 

[det.pat]

safety

one thing to remember is that a manual safety isn't always for you, sometimes it's for the person who gets the gun from you. and if you say it can't happen to you, then you are a fool. there are numerous written accounts of weapons being snatched and then the goblin being perplexed by a manual safety. sometimes this has provided the time necessary for the goodguy to rectify the situation.
pat

 

[Chuck Perry]

You shoulda just bought a 1911 instead of tryng to turn your Glock into one

 

[MrMurphy]

Exactly...... I grew up on the 1911 and still love them. However, I carry a Glock.


Been shooting them 10 years and carrying mine four, never seen an ND with one.

 

[GunnySkox]

Holy crap!

Why is it, that every time someone so much as mentions a manual safety on this board, someone has to jump up and start in with the "safety between your ears" stuff. I mean, seriously, unless someone pipes up that "my gun is absolutely impervious to my own stupidity, the point doesn't need to be brought up. I'd go so far as to say that the majority of us shooters have had the four rules hammered into our brains for some time now.

On the flip side, people constantly show up in discussions about Glocks or DAO handguns yapping on about how manual safeties are JMB's gift to handgun design, and anyone who doesn't use one is just waiting to blow his own leg off every time he holsters his gun or looks at it funny. Seriously, shut up, everyone knows you can carry your favorite piece cocked and locked with a 3 ounce racegun trigger perfectly safely as long as that little tab is flipped up, but (in this example) we're trying to talk about Glocks or DAOs, so keep your infernal safety to yourself.

Similarly, what the heck is the deal with everyone bringing up 1911s and Glocks in every handgun thread under the sun, whether it's got anything to do with the thread in question or not? Generally, it's joking, but the people who are serious send me up the wall at a startling rate.
"Hey, guys, my P3AT is broken and I need advice..."
Reply one: "Y'know, you can get a Rear-Admiral-sized 1911 in .45 an' it'll work better'n your little mousegun..."
Reply two: "K-T = you should get a G26 instead."

'Pologies if I went off the high road (I don't think I did..), and I don't mean direct offense to any previous poster, but seriously, this is stuff that pains my neck.

EDIT: Minor grammatical change

~Slam_Fire

 

[TonyB]

I've heard these are only available for the righties(ie on the left side of the gun)is this true??or do they have ambi ones??

 

[wardog]

I think it's a great idea. I've shot Glocks, and if/when I ever get one I will seriously consider it.

I think the stock (not the "New York") Glock trigger is too light to not have a manual safety. To me it's similar to carrying a 1911 cocked and unlocked. If you moved the 1911's grip safety onto the trigger, would you carry it around without the safety on?

I think the Glock is very safe to carry loaded as long as it is in a proper holster. It's the reholstering that spooks me a little. Thoughts of wads of clothing or holster straps getting into the trigger guard would worry me. I know, I know, I worry too much, but the thought of getting shot can do that. I also like the abilty to Mexican carry, but wouldn't do that with a stock Glock.

I saw an episode of COPS where an undercover officer was holding a suspect at gunpoint with a Glock. He goes to cuff the suspect and jams the gun into the back of his waistband, Mexican carry. I'm thinkin to myself, either he didn't have a round in the chamber (scary), or he did have a round in the chamber (more scary).

Preacherman, some questions:

1. How much pressure does it take to put the safety on and off? (I guess what I'm asking is; What are the chances that it could accidentally be moved off or on?)

2. Are there positive detents on the lever in the fully on and fully off modes?

 

[Preacherman]

OK, let's answer the questions:

1. TonyB, you're right, they can only be installed for right-handers. However, I've just experimented, and I can wipe it off with the forefinger of my left hand as I grasp the gun, or later (after the draw) - it's really very easy, more so (IMHO) than to take off a right-handed 1911 safety with the left hand.

2. Wardog, it takes a reasonable amount of pressure to move the safety, although lacking the necessary measuring equipment, I couldn't express it in pounds and ounces. Of course, my G27's have brand-new installations - it may become lighter with use. However, at the moment, it seems fine to me.

3. There are no "click" detents for safety on or off. However, the "stiffness" of the safety (due, no doubt, to the metal arm against the polymer frame, or the internal components) makes this unnecessary, IMHO.

BTW, you can't apply the safety with the gun uncocked. Only when the striker has been tensioned will it click on.

 

[Chuck Perry]

Slamfire, you're so not gelling

 

[Ryan in the House]

On the other hand, I am gellin' like a felon.

*police sirens*

"APPREHEND THE FELON!"

 

[Dak]

I think that I might consider getting my wife a baby Glock later on if I planned to put one of those on it.Mainly because of it being in the glove box or a purse and having no manual saftey makes me a little nervous. I carry a G23 and think it's not neccessary for myself.

 

[WhoKnowsWho]

'Pologies if I went off the high road (I don't think I did..), and I don't mean direct offense to any previous poster, but seriously, this is stuff that pains my neck.

Everybody has their opinion that they stick to, until shown evidence against it, then they just stick to it even more!

I think every gun is fine as long as the person know how to use it and trains with it. I traditionally prefer my guns with no safety, point and click.

 

[surfinUSA]

If you wanted a safety you should have gotten a USP. Adding any after market additions to the firing mechanism that weren't designed to be there is just something to ???? up when you need it most.

That stupid safe-t-block trigger block is just a waste of money waiting to get someone killed when they need their gun most. Watch enough competions and eventually you will see a highly trained and practiced shooter miss the thumbs safety on is 1911. Want to try remembering to and then pushing out that trigger block under the stress of a real draw and fire emergency?

If you aren't comfortable with the Glock safety system don't carry one. there are alot of good guns out there. But don't waste money adding parts that effect the firing system that the gun wasn't designed to use.

People say that Glock rules the police world becuse of the price, although thats part of it, its not the major part. Most police officers aren't pistoleros by any means, but usually they have historically come out on top because of the revolvers simplicity, just draw aim and fire. With the switch to semi autos, the Glock is as close to that and being maintenance free as you are probably ever going to get. Your Glock is safe just as it came from the factory.

 

[mamba]

Manual safety is exactly why I carry a USP and not a glock. When you think of the what if scenarios of you won't remember to swipe of the thumb safety and therefore lose a mili-second that it took to realize it and swipe it, vs. you lose retention of your weapon in a myriad of ways and bg/child/etc. not able to work safety. I do believe that the later is much more likely than the former. But, luckily you have options, and that's what makes things interesting.

 

[the duck of death]

QUESTION

Why is it we're smart enough to use a safety but the bad guys are too stupid to figure it out?

 

[jc2]

Watch enough competions and eventually you will see a highly trained and practiced shooter miss the thumbs safety on is 1911.

Watch enough shooting, and you will see people forget to chamber a round, attempt to put magazines in backwards, etc., etc., etc. I think that was part of what Preacherman was saying--humans make mistakes, period.

If you aren't comfortable with the Glock safety system don't carry one. there are alot of good guns out there. But don't waste money adding parts that effect the firing system that the gun wasn't designed to use.

FWIW, addition of the Cominolli safety does not effect the Glock warranty. Evidently, Glock, Inc. is comfortable with the modification. BTW, Glock has sold weapons with similar (thumb) safeties already installed.

Why is it we're smart enough to use a safety but the bad guys are too stupid to figure it out?

It's a matter of familiarity and speed of reaction. It's not that they won't figure it out, it's that it will buy you some time to react, grab your back-up, etc. Also, it's also not just bad guys--it's any unauthorized person who somehow manages get the weapon.

 

[blacksuit]

wardog

I don't know but if they had a 1911 this would happen...They need a Glock

 

[VaughnT]

As an armed professional, let me add my two cents and see where it goes.

A safety lever on your weapon makes it just that much harder for someone to operate the weapon if that person is not trained in how the pistol operates. I have taken countless coworkers to the range and let them try my 1911. Without fail, every single one of them has had to ask me how to make the gun shoot....and they are all 'reasonably' familiar with their no-safety pistols. If these familiar shooters can't figure it out in the first 10 seconds, what chance is there of a badguy/child figuring it out before I can respond with a countermeasure?

The Glock line of pistols are shipped from the factory with a 5lb trigger pull weight and a .5" trigger travel. This is the equivalent of a tricked revolver (our stock 686's have 8+ pounds of trigger pull). Neither has any functional safety feature that prevents the badguy/child from operating the weapon.

Training is the key, here. Every mother's son has seen Clint Eastwood or John Wayne fire a revolver on tv and knows that pulling that little curvy thing will make the boom happen. Throw them a curveball and you get a few precious seconds to change the outcome.

As for the cominolli safety, I'm all for it. In fact, the main reason that I don't own a glock is that it is just too likely to go off when I don't want it to. The overall ergonomics are decent (not as good as the CZ/BHP/1911, but workable) and the platform is reliable.

Thanks for taking the leap, Preach. I'll look forward to reading your long-term review.