Can someone explain the Glock safety?

[Guns and more]

But.......if the gun when dropped with the muzzle up, with enough force to have the inertia of the trigger move the trigger rearward, wouldn't the trigger safety also have the same inertia and move also? Thereby defeating the purpose? That's exactly the image I can't get past.

After I wrote this last night I had an Epiphany. If the trigger safety pivot is near the bottom of the piece. A gun being dropped on it's rear would cause the trigger to move rearward, but the TOP of the trigger safety would also move rearward, not the part you pull with your finger. Thus the trigger would not fire the gun.
Suddenly, it made sense.
As far as a foreign object pulling the trigger, the trigger safety is worthless to protect against that.

 

[holsm50]

Glock safety?

Consider this. If were to offer $100 to anyone who was willing to carry for a day a Colt 1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, but with manual safety in the "off" position, my guess is there would be very few takers. The risk of something applying pressure on the trigger and accidently discharging the gun is just far too great. Nevertheless, many Glock owners will tell you that they see no problem with carrying their Glocks with a round in the chamber, despite the fact that there is no manual safety. I see very little difference between the two scenarios. The only real difference is that with the 1911, you can see that the hammer is cocked. The risk of accidental discharge is the same.

 

[ny32182]

Judging by the number of "man, I got home at the end of the day and found my 1911 with the safety OFF!!!" posts I see, I'd say it is a fairly common occurence. There are two differences:

1) The 1911 is single action, in the event of some sort of extreme mechanical failure, the hammer has enough energy to light the round. The Glock's doesn't.

2) The Glock trigger is far heavier than a 1911 trigger. With many 1911's out there an "inadvertent brush" may well be enough to trip the trigger. Not so with a Glock... you have to make a very concious decision to pull a factory Glock trigger to make it fire.

With a proper holster, and assuming that that the 1911 trigger is not worked to the point of danger of being tripped from impact, it should not fire itself either.

 

[bigfatdave]

Consider this. If were to offer $100 to anyone who was willing to carry for a day a Colt 1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, but with manual safety in the "off" position, my guess is there would be very few takers. The risk of something applying pressure on the trigger and accidently discharging the gun is just far too great. Nevertheless, many Glock owners will tell you that they see no problem with carrying their Glocks with a round in the chamber, despite the fact that there is no manual safety. I see very little difference between the two scenarios. The only real difference is that with the 1911, you can see that the hammer is cocked. The risk of accidental discharge is the same.

I'm game if I get to pick the holster and test the passive safety devices prior to starting.
Please supply a 1911 (I've been eyeballing Springfields) and $100 ASAP. (I get to keep the new toy, right?)

 

[holsm50]

Glock safety?

I knew someone was going to say this. But who said anything about a holster? Next thing you know, you'll be asking for blanks! (LOL)

 

[DeepSouth]

Consider this. If were to offer $100 to anyone who was willing to carry for a day a Colt 1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, but with manual safety in the "off" position, my guess is there would be very few takers. The risk of something applying pressure on the trigger and accidently discharging the gun is just far too great. Nevertheless, many Glock owners will tell you that they see no problem with carrying their Glocks with a round in the chamber, despite the fact that there is no manual safety. I see very little difference between the two scenarios. The only real difference is that with the 1911, you can see that the hammer is cocked. The risk of accidental discharge is the same.

I'm game if I get to pick the holster and test the passive safety devices prior to starting.
Please supply a 1911 (I've been eyeballing Springfields) and $100 ASAP. (I get to keep the new toy, right?)

I'm in too! Wouldn't bother me a bit, Heck I'll even put a rubber band around the grip safety. So long as the trigger is covered by the holster, I'm good.

Back on topic:
Even without the "trigger safety" doesn't the Glock still have an internal "drop" type safety?

 

[bigfatdave]

No need for blanks, you can even pick the ammo (you pay for that, too)
RE: no-holster carry, I wouldn't pack much of anything without a holster for any extended period. A good holster costs a LOT less than a pistol, and now that I think of it, it costs less than an ER trip, as well.

I'll spring for the holster if you bring the Springer 1911 and a box of ammo to the party. Got any activities in mind, or just a generic day of running errands?

 

[atomd]

Consider this. If were to offer $100 to anyone who was willing to carry for a day a Colt 1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, but with manual safety in the "off" position, my guess is there would be very few takers. The risk of something applying pressure on the trigger and accidently discharging the gun is just far too great. Nevertheless, many Glock owners will tell you that they see no problem with carrying their Glocks with a round in the chamber, despite the fact that there is no manual safety. I see very little difference between the two scenarios. The only real difference is that with the 1911, you can see that the hammer is cocked. The risk of accidental discharge is the same.

That's not a very good comparison though. 1911s generally have much lighter and shorter trigger pulls than standard Glocks. A Glock with a NY1 or NY2 trigger spring has an even heavier weight trigger.

Also, the 1911 has a grip safety as well...which would prevent the trigger from being pulled unless it was deactivated.

The Glock, M&P, XD, and SR9 (along with some that I've probably missed) all have fairly similar trigger weights and pulls without manual safeties in them. I don't find any one of those unsafe to carry. The XD might not count because it does have a grip safety too.

 

[wally]

"Keep your booger hook off the bang switch until ready to shoot!" about sums it up as the only real safety is the one between your ears!

Nobody in their right mind carries any pistol without something covering both sides of the trigger guard!

--wally.

 

[Guns and more]

If were to offer $100 to anyone who was willing to carry for a day a Colt 1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, but with manual safety in the "off" position

Yeah, except the 1911 is single action with a trigger that breaks like a icicle.
The Glock, (although I don't own one) is double action, so the trigger pull is longer and firmer.

 

[JohnKSa]

As far as a foreign object pulling the trigger, the trigger safety is worthless to protect against that.

It does not make the trigger snag PROOF, but it does make it more snag resistant than it would be without it.

That's not hard to see, all you have to do is look at the trigger to see that are clearly parts of the trigger that could be snagged by a foreign object without that object deactivating the trigger safety. To start with, pretty much the entire upper half of the trigger can be engaged without deactivating the trigger safety. On the lower portion of the trigger, a snagging object has to reach to the center of the trigger to fire the gun--if it only catches on the edges it won't operate the trigger.

 

[bigfatdave]

JohnKSa is right.
The two-part trigger setup is there to prevent a bit of your shirt from hitting the trigger while re-holstering ... it is NOT there to prevent you from firing with a tree branch, shotgun shell, "personal massager", or other solid object. Most of the claims of "it snagged on my shirt" are people refusing to admit trying to jam their pistol into the holster with their finger on the trigger anyway (my opinion, I could be wrong).