Chris95
Member
Thanks guys for all the info. Really enlightning stuff, I couldn't care less whether it has a safety or not just dont chamber a round until ready to fire.
GLOCK safety
- Thread starter Chris95
- Start date
- Status
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Then what good would it be if you feel you can't carry it loaded?
rc
Red Cent
Member
The first safety is the articulated trigger. The second safety is a grooved piston held down with a spring. After the first safety is passed the trigger and the trigger bar moves to the rear. On its way a small ramp raises the piston to a position that allows the firing pin/striker a clear shot at the primer. At the same time another small horizontal tab is riding in a very narrow slot. At the same time the sear/cruciform (the horizontal tab is out to the left as part of the cruciform) begins compressing the firing pin/striker spring. At the time of firing pin/stiker release, the horizontal tab slot opens under it and the sear drops and releases the firing pin/striker.
http://www.sniperworld.com/content.aspx?ckey=Sniper_World_Glock_Index
I would not carry a Glock without it being in a holster. The Glock has a lot of pretravel before it starts to compress the striker spring. After encountering the spring, another small movement will fire the Glock. I have set up my G34 with almost Zero resistance on the pertravel and just over two pounds final trigger. Strictly for competition. Normal on the G34 is about 4-5#s. NY triggeris 8#s.
One interesting thing about the Glock. It is the only pistol I know that has a spring assisting in the trigger pull.
http://www.sniperworld.com/content.aspx?ckey=Sniper_World_Glock_Index
I would not carry a Glock without it being in a holster. The Glock has a lot of pretravel before it starts to compress the striker spring. After encountering the spring, another small movement will fire the Glock. I have set up my G34 with almost Zero resistance on the pertravel and just over two pounds final trigger. Strictly for competition. Normal on the G34 is about 4-5#s. NY triggeris 8#s.
One interesting thing about the Glock. It is the only pistol I know that has a spring assisting in the trigger pull.
Last edited:
The Lone Haranguer
Member
It is as safe as you are. Care must be taken, however, to be sure objects other than your finger cannot get inside the trigger guard and press the trigger. While the safety mechanisms are probably as foolproof as it is possible to make a mechanical device, sooner or later along will come a bigger fool. 
Chris95
Member
rcmodel I mean for defense have the magizine loaded with an empty chamber.
THE MACHINIST
Member
its your brain.......think, decide ,point, click-------------
A gun without a round in the chamber is a paperweight. Chamber a round, top the mag off, put the mag back in, and put it in your safe or holster. Keep your finger away from the trigger and it will NOT to off
Can you react fast enough to put your seatbelt on seconds before a crash? Probably not. Can you react fast enough and remember to rack the slide when an angry thug is sprinting at you with a knife? Probably not
Can you react fast enough to put your seatbelt on seconds before a crash? Probably not. Can you react fast enough and remember to rack the slide when an angry thug is sprinting at you with a knife? Probably not
http://www.siderlock.com/
http://www.cominolli.com/ourproducts.html
http://www.clipdraw.com/store/index....on=show_detail
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/sid=4...00000841_d_318
These might help. I have a 23c great gun shoots well but I won't carry it with a round chambered...thusly I don't carry it.
http://www.cominolli.com/ourproducts.html
http://www.clipdraw.com/store/index....on=show_detail
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/sid=4...00000841_d_318
These might help. I have a 23c great gun shoots well but I won't carry it with a round chambered...thusly I don't carry it.
I can't remember how many times I've pulled a trigger expecting a bang, and instead realizing "oops, the safety is on."
I can remember how many times I wanted a gun to NOT fire, so without checking to make sure it's unloaded, I pointed it at my self or others and pulled the trigger, relying on the manual safety to deliver my expected result. Zero.
If it can fit in a holster, doesn't have a hair trigger, and is completely drop safe, it doesn't need a safety, IMO.
All the GLOCK safeties are there so that the gun will not go off unless the trigger is pulled. There are a surprising number of guns on the market that are not truly safe to carry chambered, even if the manual safety is on.
As an example, my HP22A has TWO manual safeties. See, they couldn't make the gun drop-safe, even with the trigger block safety, so they had to add on a separate manual lever to block the firing pin. Many older (yet currently produced and/or sold) designs are in the same boat as the HP22, but without a FP safety, at all. They just said "screw it, that's close enough."
If you want an additional manual safety on your GLOCK, go ahead. You can have one installed. But the other GLOCK safeties are still doing their intended job.
I can remember how many times I wanted a gun to NOT fire, so without checking to make sure it's unloaded, I pointed it at my self or others and pulled the trigger, relying on the manual safety to deliver my expected result. Zero.
If it can fit in a holster, doesn't have a hair trigger, and is completely drop safe, it doesn't need a safety, IMO.
All the GLOCK safeties are there so that the gun will not go off unless the trigger is pulled. There are a surprising number of guns on the market that are not truly safe to carry chambered, even if the manual safety is on.
As an example, my HP22A has TWO manual safeties. See, they couldn't make the gun drop-safe, even with the trigger block safety, so they had to add on a separate manual lever to block the firing pin. Many older (yet currently produced and/or sold) designs are in the same boat as the HP22, but without a FP safety, at all. They just said "screw it, that's close enough."
If you want an additional manual safety on your GLOCK, go ahead. You can have one installed. But the other GLOCK safeties are still doing their intended job.
Last edited:
Zerodefect
member
Glocks have no safety. All those things Glock calls a "safety" is just marketing, feature that enable the gun to operate safety are what they are, calling them "safeties" as we know them to be like on a 1911 or M9, is a bit silly.
The thing on the trigger is to prevent trigger movement if the Glock is dropped and lands tail first. If you throw a Glock at the gronud super hard and it lands tail first the triggers momentum can cause it to move. That safety lever thing prevents that.
The fireing pin block is exactly that, you can't call that a safety. It is safer, but thats not a safety.
Glocks lack of safeties, but completly safe operation is why it's one of my favorite pistols. No fuss on the draw. Just draw and shoot, no safety to forget about. Just make sure it's in a proper holster, and take your time reholstering.
The thing on the trigger is to prevent trigger movement if the Glock is dropped and lands tail first. If you throw a Glock at the gronud super hard and it lands tail first the triggers momentum can cause it to move. That safety lever thing prevents that.
The fireing pin block is exactly that, you can't call that a safety. It is safer, but thats not a safety.
Glocks lack of safeties, but completly safe operation is why it's one of my favorite pistols. No fuss on the draw. Just draw and shoot, no safety to forget about. Just make sure it's in a proper holster, and take your time reholstering.
Full Metal Jacket
member
Onward Allusion
Member
Same as a revolver, except a revolver doesn't have the trigger "safety". Think NOT touching the trigger as your safety.
I think the OP must have had his tongue in cheek. He knows full well the Glock has no safety -- like someone said, think of it as a 15-shot revolver.
BTW companies may use All Caps to make their products look more important. Some may use lower case and italics and a blue font to make themselves look trendy. It is well accepted in technical writing that one does not have to reproduce these affectations.
BTW companies may use All Caps to make their products look more important. Some may use lower case and italics and a blue font to make themselves look trendy. It is well accepted in technical writing that one does not have to reproduce these affectations.
The best that can be said about Glock pistols is that they are reliable and relatively inexpensive and that they have a good “drop safety.” Beyond that, they are not a safe pistols because they lack an effective means of preventing a discharge in the event that the user inadvertently squeezes the trigger. This is a risk that has been appreciated by virtually every reputable designer/manufacturer of semi-automatic pistols for the past 100 years ------- Mauser, Browning, Colt, Luger , Walther, Smith & Wesson, to name a few. It is for this reason that manual safeties have been the state of the art and gold standard for safe pistol design since the inception of semi-automatic pistols.
I appreciate that Glock owners are very protective of the design of their beloved pistol, which is why whenever there is an accidental discharge of a Glock they are often heard to say things like “the best safety is between your ears” or “keep your finger off the trigger stupid and everything would have been fine.” In my judgment, this is nothing more than a macho rhetoric and a lame excuse for a fundamental design flaw in the Glock pistol, namely the absence of a conventional manual safety.
I have been shooting for over 40 years and I agree that there is no substitute for safe gun handling practices when it comes to preventing firearm injuries. Safety must be the primary responsibility of every gun owner. Having said that, safety should also the primary responsibility of the designer/manufacturer of the firearm. There is a dual or shared responsibility when it comes to safety and the manufacturer has an obligation to design a firearm in such a manner as to reduce the risk of injury in the event that the user has a brain fade. That is the reason why best and brightest semi-automatic pistol designers since the late 1800’s have incorporated manual safeties in their pistols. That is also the reason why the U.S. military demands manual safeties on virtually all of its firearms, both long arms and pistols. The simple truth is that save lives. I am not suggesting that manual safeties will prevent all accidental discharges, but they will certainly prevent some of them. That is why they are a necessary component on a semi-automatic pistol.
Fast forward to 1980. Along comes Gaston Glock with no experience in the design of any firearm and no combat experience (except for a brief stint as a youth in the German army) and in his infinite wisdom decides to eliminate the manual safety from the design of his pistol. The result of this so-called “genius” is that there have been hundreds of accidental, negligent, inadvertent or unintentional (call it whatever you like) discharges of Glock pistols, resulting in many unnecessary injuries and deaths ------ so many that they even coined the phrase “Glock leg.” And keep in mind that often these accidental discharges were caused by highly-trained LEO’s who handle firearms for a living. There have been reports of cops unintentionally shooting themselves with their Glock, accidentally shooting their partners with their Glock, and accidentally shooting suspects when they inadvertently touched the trigger on their Glock. I would venture to guess that just as many good guys (from friendly fire) as bad guys have been injured by Glocks.
If Gaston Glock is a genius at anything, it is surely marketing. He came to the United States at a time when police departments were transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatics. His plastic gun was cheaper to manufacture than the competition, thus giving him a significant price advantage. He further offered buy back programs wherein he would purchase and resell the old revolvers. He further hired ex-cops to as sales reps who then went back their former departments and used their connections for a competitive edge. Then he turned a negative into a positive by convincing police departments that the absence of a manual safety was actually a good thing because the departments could save money by not having to provide additional training to officers transitioning from revolvers because, like a revolver, you simply had to draw the gun and fire. Sounds great, except for the fact that there is a world of difference between the long , hard 10-12 trigger pull of a revolver and the 5-6 pound pull of a Glock. As a consequence of the absence of a conventional manual safety, the number of accidental discharges soared. The Washington D.C. police department had somewhere in excess of 60 accidental discharges as soon as they switched to Glocks. The NYPD had problems as well and insisted on a modification commonly referred to as the New York trigger which had a much heavier trigger pull, perhaps somewhere around 10-12 lbs.
By the way, I am not criticizing Glock’s marketing strategy. He certainly is a genius in this regard and you have to admire him for that. My criticism is that he has no qualms about misleading the public. In this regard, he seems to have adopted the philosophy that if you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it. The constant reference to the Glocks having a “safe action” with 3 so-called independent safeties is misleading in that they are interdependent and are all deactivated by simply pulling the trigger. The truth is that the “safe action” amounts to nothing more than a good drop safety, and is useless in preventing discharges caused by inadvertent contact with the trigger. The little thing on the trigger that Glock calls a trigger safety is a gimmick . Accidentally touch the trigger on a pistol with a manual safety, nothing happens because it is safe. Accidentally touch the trigger on a Glock and it is likely to go boom.
One last point and I will get off my soapbox. Guns are not meant to be dropped. However, we all know that people make mistakes and it happens. And when it does happen , there is a risk that the gun will discharge and someone may be seriously injured. Gaston Glock recognized this risk and sought to prevent injuries by designing a pretty good drop safety. Great idea.
Likewise, the user is not supposed to place his finger on the trigger unless he is ready to fire the pistol. However, we all know that people make mistakes and this also happens, and when it does there is a risk that the pistol will discharge and someone will be seriously inured. If Gaston is so concerned about safety, then why has he done nothing to reduce the risk of accidental discharge resulting from inadvertent contact with the trigger? Why has he refused to incorporate manual safeties in the pistols he sells in the United States? It is not because he doesn’t know how to do it or that he is philosophically opposed to the idea. Indeed, he has designed several variations of conventional manual safeties for Glock pistols and sold them in at least 17 countries around the world, but not in the United States. Why won’t he even offer it as an option here? Go figure.
Sorry for writing a book here, but I just had to say what I think.
I appreciate that Glock owners are very protective of the design of their beloved pistol, which is why whenever there is an accidental discharge of a Glock they are often heard to say things like “the best safety is between your ears” or “keep your finger off the trigger stupid and everything would have been fine.” In my judgment, this is nothing more than a macho rhetoric and a lame excuse for a fundamental design flaw in the Glock pistol, namely the absence of a conventional manual safety.
I have been shooting for over 40 years and I agree that there is no substitute for safe gun handling practices when it comes to preventing firearm injuries. Safety must be the primary responsibility of every gun owner. Having said that, safety should also the primary responsibility of the designer/manufacturer of the firearm. There is a dual or shared responsibility when it comes to safety and the manufacturer has an obligation to design a firearm in such a manner as to reduce the risk of injury in the event that the user has a brain fade. That is the reason why best and brightest semi-automatic pistol designers since the late 1800’s have incorporated manual safeties in their pistols. That is also the reason why the U.S. military demands manual safeties on virtually all of its firearms, both long arms and pistols. The simple truth is that save lives. I am not suggesting that manual safeties will prevent all accidental discharges, but they will certainly prevent some of them. That is why they are a necessary component on a semi-automatic pistol.
Fast forward to 1980. Along comes Gaston Glock with no experience in the design of any firearm and no combat experience (except for a brief stint as a youth in the German army) and in his infinite wisdom decides to eliminate the manual safety from the design of his pistol. The result of this so-called “genius” is that there have been hundreds of accidental, negligent, inadvertent or unintentional (call it whatever you like) discharges of Glock pistols, resulting in many unnecessary injuries and deaths ------ so many that they even coined the phrase “Glock leg.” And keep in mind that often these accidental discharges were caused by highly-trained LEO’s who handle firearms for a living. There have been reports of cops unintentionally shooting themselves with their Glock, accidentally shooting their partners with their Glock, and accidentally shooting suspects when they inadvertently touched the trigger on their Glock. I would venture to guess that just as many good guys (from friendly fire) as bad guys have been injured by Glocks.
If Gaston Glock is a genius at anything, it is surely marketing. He came to the United States at a time when police departments were transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatics. His plastic gun was cheaper to manufacture than the competition, thus giving him a significant price advantage. He further offered buy back programs wherein he would purchase and resell the old revolvers. He further hired ex-cops to as sales reps who then went back their former departments and used their connections for a competitive edge. Then he turned a negative into a positive by convincing police departments that the absence of a manual safety was actually a good thing because the departments could save money by not having to provide additional training to officers transitioning from revolvers because, like a revolver, you simply had to draw the gun and fire. Sounds great, except for the fact that there is a world of difference between the long , hard 10-12 trigger pull of a revolver and the 5-6 pound pull of a Glock. As a consequence of the absence of a conventional manual safety, the number of accidental discharges soared. The Washington D.C. police department had somewhere in excess of 60 accidental discharges as soon as they switched to Glocks. The NYPD had problems as well and insisted on a modification commonly referred to as the New York trigger which had a much heavier trigger pull, perhaps somewhere around 10-12 lbs.
By the way, I am not criticizing Glock’s marketing strategy. He certainly is a genius in this regard and you have to admire him for that. My criticism is that he has no qualms about misleading the public. In this regard, he seems to have adopted the philosophy that if you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it. The constant reference to the Glocks having a “safe action” with 3 so-called independent safeties is misleading in that they are interdependent and are all deactivated by simply pulling the trigger. The truth is that the “safe action” amounts to nothing more than a good drop safety, and is useless in preventing discharges caused by inadvertent contact with the trigger. The little thing on the trigger that Glock calls a trigger safety is a gimmick . Accidentally touch the trigger on a pistol with a manual safety, nothing happens because it is safe. Accidentally touch the trigger on a Glock and it is likely to go boom.
One last point and I will get off my soapbox. Guns are not meant to be dropped. However, we all know that people make mistakes and it happens. And when it does happen , there is a risk that the gun will discharge and someone may be seriously injured. Gaston Glock recognized this risk and sought to prevent injuries by designing a pretty good drop safety. Great idea.
Likewise, the user is not supposed to place his finger on the trigger unless he is ready to fire the pistol. However, we all know that people make mistakes and this also happens, and when it does there is a risk that the pistol will discharge and someone will be seriously inured. If Gaston is so concerned about safety, then why has he done nothing to reduce the risk of accidental discharge resulting from inadvertent contact with the trigger? Why has he refused to incorporate manual safeties in the pistols he sells in the United States? It is not because he doesn’t know how to do it or that he is philosophically opposed to the idea. Indeed, he has designed several variations of conventional manual safeties for Glock pistols and sold them in at least 17 countries around the world, but not in the United States. Why won’t he even offer it as an option here? Go figure.
Sorry for writing a book here, but I just had to say what I think.
Full Metal Jacket
member
that's ok, i didn't read your book.
NMPOPS
Member
As a former police firearms instructor, I saw zero ADs with the Glock. However, with our former DA/SA pistol we had several as officers would forget to decock before they holstered. We also had several ADs with personal 1911s. The most important safety is still between the ears.
No, that's wrong. First, there's this thing called safe gun handling. Second, there's this other thing called a holster. See, unlike with a rifle, you don't attach a strap onto a pistol then sling it over your shoulder all willy-nilly. OTOH, if you want to carry a handgun in your waistband or drop one into your purse, then by all means buy something more suited to your preferences.
Well, first of all, I don't know of a single incident where a GLOCK has AD'd. If you know of one, please enlighten us. Second, please show us where anyone else has used one of those horrible cliches in this thread, then tell us why you'd want to drag a discussion down to that level of idiocy to begin with. Finally, hey you said it. And it's true. If you can't remember that pulling the trigger makes the gun fire, then what makes you think you can remember what the safety does? Also, please tell us in what circumstance one would put a gun on safe before placing their finger on the trigger? In order for a manual safety to make a save, the user has to forget it's on, then accidentally pull the trigger. What kind of success rate do you think that really has? Face it, your stats are all made up. There are plenty of AD's happening, and most of them occur with guns that HAVE a manual safety.
This isn't the GLOCK fanboy thing you want to make it into. It's a just a philosophy. One that's shared by SIG and revolver users, too, btw. It's the philosophy that to make a gun safe, it should be unloaded. And that manual safeties are there to prevent foreign objects from triggering a gun, not to protect from someone "inadvertently squeezing the trigger."
Think of the safety on a switchblade. Is it there in case you accidentally put your thumb on the button and press? No. It's there so it doesn't get pushed by the loose change in your pocket. For a pistol, a holster takes care of foreign objects pretty darn well. For the other problem of people who can't remember what pulling the trigger does, a manual safety is highly unlikely to help in that regard, anyway. In other words, if they were gonna have an ND with a GLOCK, they would probably have had an ND with a Beretta, too.
Last edited:
TimboKhan
Member
With respect, by that logic, virtually every revolver ever made is also unsafe.
Still, I see where you are coming from, and I even thought similarly for many years. That was then and this is now, so I bet you can guess what is sitting literally a foot from my hand as I type this, though? I should add that I have owned this Glock for like 3 weeks now and got it from my close buddy who has carried it every day since 2001 with no issues. It also happens to be my very first Glock, so it's not a Glock thing with me, though I am a pretty hardcore Ruger fan.
Fact is, none of what you said is technically incorrect, but I disagree with you because you are just focusing on the lack of a safety without considering the other factors involved in an inadvertent trigger pull. Namely, minus some sort of aftermarket tomfoolery, the trigger pull is heavy enough in and of itself to keep inadvertent discharges from happening. Certainly it could happen, but at a certain point, it really does become a matter of safe gun handling. I can't think of a single reason why you would ever need to jam a pistol roughly and without care back into it's holster (which I mention because that would seem to be the most logical place for this to happen), nor is there ever any excuse for somehow not knowing your finger is on the trigger (true of any gun, ever).
I don't bring this up very often because I don't want to make it sound like I am trying to sound tough or like an expert, but it has some bearing on this topic so I will bring it up now: I have been shot. It really sucks pretty badly and as a result I am pretty darn keen on gun safety, and I after much experimentation and learning on my part, I feel that Glocks are just as safe, if not safer, than any other gun out there. At the very least, I consider them as safe as any revolver. While the possibility exists that they could have an inadvertent discharge, I don't believe (and I bet the numbers would bear this out) that they are any more susceptible to this than any other handgun.
BamAlmighty
Member
In the last 3 years, the sheriff's office here has had 2 ADs with glocks. 1 deputy who has been in the business for over 20 years shot himself in the hand while working in the jail and securing his weapon and another had his go off in the locker room while holstering. It happens to the best of them.
rromeo
Member
From my experience, I do not find that LEOs on whole are better at safe handling of firearms than the general shooting enthusiast public. A lot of my friends say that LEOs at the range are the worst at firearms safety, but I just hold the view that we're holding them to a higher standard, therefore it's more noticeable when they commit numerous safety violations.
Holsm 50 well said and written with a big "AMEN" !
You tube has an instructor with a class of kids shooting himself. Not worth my time to look it up.
Glock probably won't market one of their safeties in the U.S. due to admission of guilt for all the lawsuits that might be filed; just speculation?
My 23C is in a holster that has no straps that can get hung in the trigger guard; never is there a round in the chamber until I am ready to fire so it is relegated to car or bedroom duty. I do not like getting shot nor do I want to pop someone or thing unless intended.
It is a personal thing. I am not really worried about me inadvertently pulling the trigger as I am about familiarity with the gun and being so fast/excited/dumb something like a strap or snap does the trigger pull thing. Those who love GLocks have their reasons and those who don't have theirs. Does not make either camp wrong just different philosophies.
After market plugs and triggers with additional manual safeties are available as previously posted so maybe it is not all that personal.
You tube has an instructor with a class of kids shooting himself. Not worth my time to look it up.
Glock probably won't market one of their safeties in the U.S. due to admission of guilt for all the lawsuits that might be filed; just speculation?
My 23C is in a holster that has no straps that can get hung in the trigger guard; never is there a round in the chamber until I am ready to fire so it is relegated to car or bedroom duty. I do not like getting shot nor do I want to pop someone or thing unless intended.
It is a personal thing. I am not really worried about me inadvertently pulling the trigger as I am about familiarity with the gun and being so fast/excited/dumb something like a strap or snap does the trigger pull thing. Those who love GLocks have their reasons and those who don't have theirs. Does not make either camp wrong just different philosophies.
After market plugs and triggers with additional manual safeties are available as previously posted so maybe it is not all that personal.
Last edited:
Holsm50 stated it very well... I have been shooting firearms since 1945 and just about every firearm I own has some kind of a safety version that you can depend on except the Glock. I carried a G26 for about a year before trading it off for a CZ PO1, I was careful with it with no problem but could see where there would be a problem with someone new with firearms. I just bought a G17 for a range handgun along with others, but I would not want anyone carrying a Glock to walk behind me in the woods.
- Status
Similar threads
