Striker Control Device For Glocks

Personally I would prefer the gadget actually stay on 'safe' till your thumb, on the draw, depresses it back flat.

That way, if anyone snatched the gun they would likely be very unfamiliar with the gadget, giving one time to fight back.

I dont know what trigger is in my plastic gun, and I try to pay attention (look) when holstering, but cant always see. I already hold my thumb on the back of the slide to keep the slide from moving as I reholster, so it wouldnt be much change for me.

I was pretty skeptical when I first saw this discussed, but as I continued to read about it, I couldnt see the downside. Its very simple, would fail, if it did, with the gun functional as usual. If anyone doesnt want one, great, I see no reason to make them, or denigrate their choice. I also see no need to denigrate people that choose to try it and utilize a simple device that can save some grief. I will get one a bit later, when I can afford to. So far, I havent seen a cogent discussion that leads me to believe it will actually be a problem, and has potential safety utility. It seems to have been fairly well tested over I think 4 years by a couple dozen people with a fairly impressive number of rounds run through the guns. Craig Douglas (Southnarc) has used two guns in his ECQC training and hasnt had any trouble with them that he can tell in about 500 training encounters rolling around in the dirt etc.

If for some reason they mysteriously crater somewhere down the line, oh well. At this point, they seem pretty straightforward, simple, and functional for that one small moment of time that can rarely, but does in fact occasionally happen. Even to people that arent dipsticks.

You push on it when reholstering, the gun cant fire if the trigger gets something snagged in it. End of story. Nothing else to remember, it doesnt require being taken off or deactivated for the gun to work, its passive in that sense. Gun still works as intended for all other use. Nothing to get worked up about, nobody has to change their religion, accept marrying aliens from Mars, eat bugs, or anything else.

Personally I would prefer the gadget actually stay on 'safe' till your thumb, on the draw, depresses it back flat.

That way, if anyone snatched the gun they would likely be very unfamiliar with the gadget, giving one time to fight back.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. I think it was considered, but in the end was figured to keep it as simple as possible, and not change the basic function of the gun.

There was a longish discussion of it on P-F.

I would argue that there are situations where one can't (or won't, because of factors such as stress) give 100% of their attention to making sure their holster is clear while they are reholstering, and placing your thumb on the hammer while reholstering is a well known (and harmless) technique among people who carry hammer fired handguns.

It's not a hard thing to learn, but you can't convince many Glock owners to change their ways. They'll either say something like "this will make my Glock less reliable", or they'll wiggle their trigger finger at you and say "this is my safety".

Like it, don't like it... I don't care! I carry a 1911

I'd have to test it to see what's up.

But when I'm concerned about Glock reholstering, I grab an extra mag holster and switch to my 1911.

So you tell us to put our thumb on the hammer while holstering and then that this device will help us? Those statements don't make logical sense.

First, Glock owners don't need a "safer" or more reliable weapon. Second, the gun has plenty of safety if people follow the rules of gun safety to begin with. Treat all guns as if loaded (round chambered indications, and safeties of all kinds, can fail). Don't point it at something you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

It's as if anti Glock people forget everything they've learned about gun safety when it comes to Glock. Why? Because like all people, they're easily blinded by their hatred of something.

Would you put your safety on and then point the gun at your face? If course not: it violates one of the principles of gun safety. Would you rest your finger on the trigger when you don't want to fire? Of course not. But then the anti Glock people forget all that because Glocks are evil.

If you are such a person, shame on you.

I guess I need a picture or a better understanding of how it works, and how it is de-activated to allow me to shoot immediately when I need to, without a mechanical external manual safety.

And assurances it doesn't somehow gum up and prevent me from my intentional trigger pulling, thinking that it's unintentional.

So, pressure on it somehow locks the firing pin, and otherwise it's passive, is that the idea? Almost like the opposite of a grip safety, but on the back of the slide for your thumb. Press it to temporarily lock the weapon, and relief of pressure unlocks it?

Posted by Malamute:

I'm glad to hear you watch your gun go in the holster every time you reholster so that nothing can possibly accidentally get in the trigger guard. Its a good example for the rest of us.

Its obvious you've studied the gadget thing and know its weakness. Tell us what the failure point is. I missed it.

Click to expand...

I've studied it as well I'm able to without actually having one installed in my Glocks. What I know about it I know from watching videos on it. I'll assume you have access to this product and know something I don't since you have utter confidence in the impossibility of it's failure. That being said, I'll speak from ignorance.

Is it impossible that if the gun is covered in grit/debris, and the Gadget is pressed in, the debris could be caught in the edges of the Gadget and the slide cover plate cutout and jam the Gadget in the "in" position? The gun would thus be disabled. The next time you drew and attempted to shoot nothing would happen if the rearward pressure of your trigger finger was insufficient to move the jammed Gadget.

Please be aware that I'm not attempting to denigrate or speak negatively of anyone that buys one of these. If you trust it and it makes you feel better about carrying a Glock, great.

TwinReverb wrote,
It's as if anti Glock people forget everything they've learned about gun safety when it comes to Glock.

Click to expand...

Except this device is for pro-Glock people, that have an excellent understanding of gun safety.

They don't want a thumb safety on their Glock, they don't want a trigger cross bolt safety on their Glock, they just want a device that makes it safer to reholster their Glock, primarily in the appendix (AIWB) position.

So you tell us to put our thumb on the hammer while holstering and then that this device will help us? Those statements don't make logical sense.

Click to expand...

They make perfect sense. For instance, a smart, safety conscious, SIG P226 owner would put his thumb on the hammer of his P226 before he reholsters his gun to keep the hammer from coming back, and releasing, if something should happen to get inside the trigger guard and pull the trigger back. Blocking the hammer is a common safety technique. This Glock gadget give that option to Glock owners.

I'm not surprised that this Glock add-on is getting a poor reception here after reading the thread about carrying 1911-style pistols cocked and unlocked. I know many people here know a lot more about guns and shooting that I do, but I still found that startling.

It caused jams in class. A spring was changed and it's better now.

I have seen many people place a thumb on the hammer of a gun while holstering.

Interesting about the thumb on the hammer. I'll research it, I've learned something new.

leadcounsel said:

I guess I need a picture or a better understanding of how it works, and how it is de-activated to allow me to shoot immediately when I need to, without a mechanical external manual safety.

And assurances it doesn't somehow gum up and prevent me from my intentional trigger pulling, thinking that it's unintentional.

So, pressure on it somehow locks the firing pin, and otherwise it's passive, is that the idea? Almost like the opposite of a grip safety, but on the back of the slide for your thumb. Press it to temporarily lock the weapon, and relief of pressure unlocks it?

Click to expand...

Yep.

IMO, this is the perfect for the glock guy that realizes that holstering a loaded/chambered glock has additional risks.... and that they are an imperfect human.

It doesn't get poor reception from Glock fans because of something internal to us, or some illogical mindset. People should be paying attention when they re-holster their guns.

Tell me how obeying the ten rules of gun safety and paying attention aren't going to be enough, and i can tell you of the many 1911/hipower type pistol owners who put far too much trust in their lever safety.

Case in point, the military had to start telling people that, with few exceptions, they're not to walk around with an M16 with a round chambered, safety on or not, unless actively engaging the enemy. The rifle isn't drop safe, and wear and tear only compound the matter.

But it's USAF regulation that, when strapping the M9, a gun with a lever safety, to chamber a round, turn off the safety, and then holster it. The lever safety is only for (hopefully) extra peace of mind, and even in training they tell students that the safety does not, by itself, make the pistol safe, and that one should not depend on it alone. I have this on authority of the regulation itself and several friends who have carried the M9 in service or into battle.

The argument that a Glock in current configuration is not safe enough is entirely invalid.

TwinReverb said:

Case in point, the military had to start telling people that, with few exceptions, they're not to walk around with an M16 with a round chambered, safety on or not, unless actively engaging the enemy. The rifle isn't drop safe, and wear and tear only compound the matter.

Click to expand...

That was more to deal with the political ramifications of high level officers rather than the mechanical safety of a design. A General doesn't want to be the target of a political witch hunt on the floor of Congress because a private had a negligent discharge while carrying a hot weapon. But mostly true statement none the less.

The argument that a Glock in current configuration is not safe enough is entirely invalid.

Click to expand...

Yup. 100%. No design is inherently more safe than the other. I personally don't like Glocks but it is not because I consider them unsafe. A 1911 is not safer than a Glock because it has a grip safety and a lever safety. It all boils down to the training of the individual.

It doesn't get poor reception from Glock fans because of something internal to us, or some illogical mindset. People should be paying attention when they re-holster their guns.

Click to expand...

Paying attention when they re-holster with a glock means they have to take their focus off of their surroundings and focus on their own pelvic area where the holster is.

If people can't invision a scenario where that is a lot less than ideal, or doesn't care about their surroundings, then this product isn't for them.

similar to holstering with the thumb on the hammer, the habit carries over to the XD series as well. If you get in the habit of pushing the pistol in the holster with your thumb on the rear of the slide instead of with your hand on the rear of the grip, it helps in the safety department.

No grip safety engagement, no bang. It doesn't replace being cautious, but another layer of safety doesn't hurt.

Dont understand the hate!! It may not be for everyone but that doesn't mean that its not good for some. Dont like it dont buy it!!

danez71 said:

Paying attention when they re-holster with a glock means they have to take their focus off of their surroundings and focus on their own pelvic area where the holster is.

If people can't invision a scenario where that is a lot less than ideal, or doesn't care about their surroundings, then this product isn't for them.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a limitation of our eyes and brains, not a reason a Glock is bad.

And even then, why would you holster if the threat isn't over? I'm not sure how this statement proves Glocks are bad.

Here is a review and a couple pics of the gadget: http://www.gunnuts.net/2015/07/03/the-gadget-an-additional-safety-device-for-glock-pistols/

Video showing it in use: https://www.facebook.com/ballisticradio/videos/vb.277229719074532/670466729750827/

I'm not sure how this statement proves Glocks are bad.

Click to expand...

No one said anything about Glocks being bad. The inventors are Glock guys.

TwinReverb said:

Sounds like a limitation of our eyes and brains, not a reason a Glock is bad.

And even then, why would you holster if the threat isn't over? I'm not sure how this statement proves Glocks are bad.

Click to expand...

I think you have the glock fever - You seem a bit defensive in a few of your posts.

I, nor anyone else in this thread, has said glocks are bad. No one. In fact, many have said they're good. I think their good. I almost bought one... if my finger wasn't too short I would have one today.

The fact my finger is too short doesn't make me think glocks are bad and the fact that glocks are not ideal in certain situations doesn't mean they are bad.

Sounds like a limitation of our eyes and brains, not a reason a Glock is bad.

Click to expand...

Uh... OK But they are designed for humans. Basically youre saying that glock failed to take human limitation, limitations that ALL humans have, into consideration when they design it.

And even then, why would you holster if the threat isn't over?

Click to expand...

Again, if you cant envision a scenario.... its not right for you. I cant open your mind.

I do hope you realize there are different levels of threat and the level of threat can change rapidly and... gasp.... there can be other scenarios that don't involve a 'threat' of an attacker person.

I'm not sure how this statement proves Glocks are bad.

Click to expand...

Again,
I, nor anyone else in this thread, has said glocks are bad. No one. In fact, many have said they're good. I think their good. I almost bought one... if my finger wasn't too short I would have one today.



I have striker fired gun with-out a manual safety. I like it. I like it a lot. Its one of my favorite handguns of all time (that Ive owned)

But I'm also competent and open minded enough to know that it isn't ideal in certain scenarios.

YMMV

I have some pics of it, but its been a really long day and I'm in a lot of pain. I'll post tomorrow.

Havent read all the recent posts yet. Apologies if this has been covered.

It appears to be a very clever and functional device. I will not be buying any, but it's yet another option for those who may desire it. How are options a bad thing?

danez71 said:

But they are designed for humans. Basically youre saying that glock failed to take human limitation, limitations that ALL humans have, into consideration when they design it.

Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. I'm saying nothing can overcome that human limitation of only being able to look in one direction at a time. Saying the Glock is bad because you have to look down to re-holster is silly at best, intentionally biased at worst, because you can't look in more than one direction at once. Someone who is holstering their gun should be paying attention to what they're doing if the gun is IWB, due to the potential of any gun to snag. And at least for me, because I'd prefer that I not shoot off a certain part of my anatomy.

So somehow thinking that a gun with a lever safety is 100% fool-proof, and that you can totally ignore your gun and clothing as you re-holster (assuming IWB or similar in-clothing holsters), is not logical, and not wise, as any lever safety can also fail.

There is no way around needing to pay attention to what one is doing with firearms.

Is the striker control device bad? Not that I know of. Is the company bad? Not that I know of. It's not my goal to say that this product or company is bad, or to degrade them. However, because it's based on faulty logic, it's a solution looking for a problem, at least in my opinion. And I'm not here to argue one opinion versus another, because it would waste everyone's time, including mine. But I will defend Glock against the haters, if and when I feel like it.

Not saying you, danez71, are a Glock hater. I'm just making a general statement.

Did you go to the links that show how the device actually works?