Can someone explain the Glock safety?

[fineredmist]

Go to;

http://www.genitron.com/Basics/Glock23/P2Glock.html

it will show you how the Glock pistol works and then you make up your mind as to wether it is a "SAFETY" or not.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The trigger safety's primary function is as a drop safety, in case the gun is dropped, struck, thrown, etc. With nothing pressing on the trigger to deactivate it, the bar stops on the frame and keeps the trigger from moving under inertia. Secondarily, it helps to ensure that only your finger fully wrapped around the trigger can pull it. In practice, other objects, if they get deep enough inside, can press the trigger.

I note that more and more guns are coming out with Glock-like trigger safety levers, e.g., the Ruger SR9 and Taurus "Slim." Even the "Accu-Trigger" found on newer Savage rifles has one. Apparently Glock's patent expired.

 

[gyvel]

How has anyone arrived at the idea that the Glock has a trigger pull resembling a revolver or any DAO firearm? DAO firearms typically have long, heavy triggers. Glock triggers are SAO with an internal firing pin; their trigger pull closely resembles that of a 1911, but with more slack.

Again: The trigger system is a direct steal from the 1907 Roth-Steyr pistol. I'm sure Herr Glock fondled many a one of those in his youth. The striker is not engaged to anything until the bolt knob is pulled back and a round loaded into the chamber. At that point the striker becomes engaged with a trigger bar, but still requires a long double-action like pull to draw the striker even further back and then release it. Just like the Glock.

This whole system was designed by Georg Roth (and I believe Karel Krnka may have had a hand in it) to enable the pistol to be safely carried by horse mounted cavalrymen.

So if you want to understand how a Glock works, just look at the now century-old system on the Roth-Steyr that Glock copied.

 

[danez71]

mixed feelings

It is a safety feature but not a safety in a traditional sense. Just as a hammer block is a safety feature but not really considered a "safety".

I feel that anything that may accedently pull the trigger will most likely also pull the trigger safety do-higgy-thingy.

Some passive safties work and some not so much.

Example:

There was a trend of putting passive safety seat belts in cars. They automatically wizzed around and made you "as safe as a manual seat belt". However, those are pretty much gone because they didnt work as well as a manual seat belt.

However, a passive safety feature of an air bag does work in the sense that it adds safety.

IMO, the glock trigger is not comparable to a DA revolver. The length of pull and the weight of the pull are significantly different. I just dont see the argument that a glock is as safe as a revolver.

Having said all that. EVERY gun is "safe". Ive never heard of a gun sitting by its self all alone and magically going off.

 

[HippieMagic]

It's only real safety is you can't drop it and make it fire. The gun really doesn't have a safety at all. I feel perfectly safe carrying mine but I don't consider a little piece of plastic that disengages if I touch the trigger a safety lol.

 

[Guns and more]

Take a close look at the Glock trigger. There is a large portion of the trigger face area that can be contacted without disengaging the trigger safety.

Think about what you are saying. A tree branch may snag the trigger, but chances are good it will only snag the 87% of the trigger that does not allow an A/D.

You asked for an explanation, you got an explanation that is clear and accurate. Of course, both of us know that an explanation isn't really what you wanted out of this thread.

Don't presume what I'm thinking. I'm trying to understand. Some of it makes sense, and some doesn't.

 

[Nicodemus38]

the "safety' on a glock isnt a safety.

to disengage the glock safety you have to pull the trigger.

the best way i can describe the glock trigger safety is to say "hey buddy, that saa with spur hammer and 6 rounds in the chamber has a really really crappy sear that likes to fire on its own, so why is it stuck in your pants plaxico with the hammer all the way back/"

enough people have suffered bad luck with the design. remember the stories of the unlucky people who shot themselves when they pulled the glock towards them muzzle first on a closet shelf, truck floor, car floor, etc.

 

[JohnKSa]

A tree branch may snag the trigger, but chances are good it will only snag the 87% of the trigger that does not allow an A/D.

I did think about what I was posting and I explained it carefully enough and clearly enough that there's really no need for you to attempt to restate (incorrectly, by the way) what I said.

If you don't understand what I posted or need clarification I will be glad to respond.

Some of it makes sense, and some doesn't.

It all makes sense but you clearly don't want to accept some of it because it contradicts your initial premise.

Just as a hammer block is a safety feature but not really considered a "safety".

Ridiculous. A hammer block safety (as it is usually referred to) is clearly considered a safety, that's why it's called a hammer block SAFETY.

the "safety' on a glock isnt a safety.

Again, reality doesn't work like that. Passive safeties are still safeties that is why they're called passive SAFETIES. You can't simply redefine a term because you don't like the implications of it. Words mean things and unless you coined the particular term yourself you really have no say in what a particular word means.

Look folks. Passive safeties have been around a LONG time. The term "passive safety" has been in use for a LONG time and its meaning is not in flux. It's not reasonable to try to redefine the term to try to validate personal opinions--or for any reason, for that matter.

 

[Jim Watson]

As John said, the primary purpose of the trigger tab is to keep the gun from going off if dropped. Lacking the tab, if you dropped the gun muzzle up, the gun would stop when it hit; the trigger would tend to keep moving under inertia and might travel far enough to fire the gun... straight up. The tab blocks that.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

remember the stories of the unlucky people who shot themselves when they pulled the glock towards them muzzle first on a closet shelf, truck floor, car floor, etc.

They grasped the gun by its trigger. Strike one. They pointed it at themselves while doing so. Strike two. In this game, it only takes two strikes to be out.

 

[JAW]

I usually stay out of these aruguments, but I cant resist

When first shopping for a new auto loader, I was very hesitant to buy a glock because of the lack of a manual safety. I was used to my 92FS, and was comfortable with that "safety". I was made aware of a very simple aftermarket manual safety that could easily be added (what isn't easy on a Glock) and convinced myself that that was the easy cure if I should so choose. Every other feature of the gun appealed to me so problem solved.

Since owning the gun, I have become comfortable with it, and educated on how the passive system works, I feel the gun is every bit as safe as the guy holding it.

I don't understand those who say it isn't as safe as a revolver...just doesn't make sense. I think it is safer than a revolver. If the argument is that the trigger is too light, therefore more dangerous, then add a "new york" trigger spring. If i had to bet my life, and have a loaded gun dropped in front of me, I would trust the glock not to go off over any wheel gun.

If in a low level threat enviroment, or in home use, the gun can always be unchambered, making it the most safe thing in the world. the 1 second that it takes to chamber a round is not signifigantly more than it takes to flick off a manual safety or cock a hammer on a revolver.

As far as theoretically 'snagging' on something, cant you snag a 1911 safety tab just as easy thereby rendering safety off?

If one absolutely insist on a manual safety, just add a siderlock. Takes 15 minutes, and doesn't alter any working part of the gun, and is totally snag proof, since it is inside the trigger guard. Similar to a standard safety on a Remington 870 but in the trigger instead of behind it, making very easy to release and quite natural.

http://www.cabelas.com/p-0054357229099a.shtml

Problem solved. Now you one of the most reliable auto shooters in modern history, WITH a manual safety, and the passive safety system to boot.

 

[holsm50]

Let me start out by saying that I have been a hunter, shooter and gun collector for over40 years. I am always amused when fellow gun enthusiasts make comments that there is no such thing as an "accidental" or "unintentional" discharge, but only "negligent" discharges. They will tell you that if the guy had only been smart enough to keep his finger off the trigger, nobody would have been killed or injured. To me, this attitude ignores the realities of life.

If human beings did not make mistakes, there would never be a reason to have "safety" features on any product. There would be no reason to have seat belts or air bags in cars, guards on power tools, or safeties on guns. However, the reality of life is that human beings make mistakes, even highly trained individuals that are expert in what they do. It happens all the time and we read about it all the time. It's called human error, and its a fact of life.

Gun manufacturers are not strangers to the concept of human error. They have known about this from the beginning. Guns were never intended to be dropped, but they know that it frequently happens. We are taught never to put our finger on the trigger until we are ready to fire the weapon, but manufacturers know that people (and sometimes even experts) violate this rule, often with devastating consequences. With respect to semi-automatic pistols, that is why most respected manufacturers (from the 1890's up until Gaston Glock designed the Glock Model 17 in approximately in 1980) included manual safeties on their pistols (ie. Mauser, Luger, Colt, Browning, Walther, S&W) While the existence of a manual safety will not prevent all unintentional discharges, but it will significantly reduce the liklihood of a discharge in the event that someone or something inadvertently touches the trigger.

Despite those who will argue that valuable time may be lost trying to figure out how to disengage a manual safety in a combat situation, this is nonsense. If you can't operate a manual safety, then you should probably rethink whether you should be handling a firearm in the first place. Certainly, the people who are in combat most often, namely the U.S. military, demand manual safeties on all of their weapons, and with good reason.

The manufacturing cost of a manual safety on a Glock pistol is less than $1.00 per gun. Why doesn't Glock include the manual safety on the pistol and let the user decide whether or not he wishes to use it? At least it would be there for those who wish to minimize the risk of accidental discharge. If one chooses to leave the safety in the "off" postion, then you simply have the Glock as it exists today (in the United States). It should be noted that Glock has sold pistols with 1911-style manual safeties, as well as the new ambidextrous manual safeties in over a dozen countries around the world, but not here in the United States. The question that Glock entusiasts should be asking themselves is "why not"? You can call it stupidity or human error, but the fact remains that too many people have been injured or killed from the inadvertent discharge of Glock pistols that could have been prevented with simple inclusion of a manual safety.

 

[ny32182]

Despite those who will argue that valuable time may be lost trying to figure out how to disengage a manual safety in a combat situation, this is nonsense. If you can't operate a manual safety, then you should probably rethink whether you should be handling a firearm in the first place.

If you can inadvertently pull a 6lb trigger, you should rethink whether you should be handling a firearm in the first place.

I would not buy a Glock with a manual safety, period. Point and click is a big part of what makes a Glock a Glock. Simplicity.

If the user is so bad at gun handling that they can inadvertently pull a 6lb double action trigger, neither a manual safety nor any other mechanical device is going to help them. They need remedial gun handling 101. That is it. If they aren't smart enough to not pull a 6lb trigger, they aren't smart enough to use a manual safety to keep from doing so.

 

[danez71]

Quote:
"Just as a hammer block is a safety feature but not really considered a "safety". "

"Ridiculous. A hammer block safety (as it is usually referred to) is clearly considered a safety, that's why it's called a hammer block SAFETY."
Quote:
the "safety' on a glock isnt a safety.

"Again, reality doesn't work like that. Passive safeties are still safeties that is why they're called passive SAFETIES"

------

Ok now... wait a second.
I should have worded it more like a passive hammer block safety isnt a manual saftey. I thought by putting the last "safety" in quotes would get the message across. My short coming. I was referring to a manual safety.

Traditionally, or "usually", the word "safety" in the gun world referred to a manual safety.

As partial evidence of that would be that guns with a hammer block safety (for ex) but no manual safety are NOT advertised as "with safety".

An example of that example (LOL) would be something like the M&P line that is offered with and with out a manual safety. S&W doesnt advertise them as "with safety" and "with safety AND and manual safety".

Another example is no one says "I got the model with 3 safeties and not the model with 4 safeties". Why? Because its traditionally been accepted that the term "safety" referred to a manual safety.

Now... just for giggles.... I cut and pasted below directly from the GLOCK web site. Remember, I used the term "safety feature" and you said that was "rediculous".

THE top product among the small arms of the world is without doubt the GLOCK "Safe Action" pistol. It employs innovative safety features which makes the pistol easy to operate. No other pistol offers a better price-performance ratio. Its minimum weight and legendary GLOCK reliability are unsurpassed.

GLOCK also considers it a "safety feature". I would venture to say that even GLOCK realized that traditionally the word "safety" in the gun world referred to a manual safety.

Since GLOCK uses the term "safety features" I dont believe my statement was "rediculous".

And I'm quite surprised that you, of all people, actually wrote that.

Since even GLOCK uses the term "safety features" .... why in the world would anyone argue that the little trigger thingy is anything more than just a "safety feature"

On a side note, just because the word "SAFETY" is used by "them" or "they" doesnt automaticaly make it valid and its rediculous to allude to such.

People need to see things for what they are and quite trying to interpret things to how they what it to be.

Its a "safety feature" just as a "manual safety" is really just a "safety feature". However, a "manual safety" has been traditionally been referred to as a "safety"

 

[bigfatdave]

"safety feature" just as a "manual safety" is really just a "safety feature". However, a "manual safety" has been traditionally been referred to as a "safety"

Obviously we need to differentiate more clearly. Can we all agree to specify (for the purposes of this discussion and others like it) either "passive safety" or "manual safety"?

And can we also stop perpetuating the ridiculous mis-spelling of ridiculous? The root word is "ridicule", start there and make it into an adjective.

 

[JohnKSa]

Remember, I used the term "safety feature" and you said that was "rediculous".

The focus of my response was clearly your repeated assertion that passive safeties aren't safeties. That should have been obvious based on what I quoted and on how I responded.

I have no problem with someone asserting that a passive safety is ALSO a safety feature, but I do have a problem with someone asserting that a passive safety is ONLY a "safety feature" and is not a safety.

Since even GLOCK uses the term "safety features" .... why in the world would anyone argue that the little trigger thingy is anything more than just a "safety feature"

Again, I don't know where you got the idea that anyone is arguing that the term "safety feature" does not apply. It does.

But that is not the only term that applies. The term safety also applies. You'll find multiple references to Glock safeties on the Glock web site.

Here's a good one:

All three pistol safeties are deactivated when the trigger is pulled -and automatically activated when it is released.​

 

[Guns and more]

Lacking the tab, if you dropped the gun muzzle up, the gun would stop when it hit; the trigger would tend to keep moving under inertia and might travel far enough to fire the gun... straight up. The tab blocks that.

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.

 

[zstephens13]

Uh...what safety?
Ha! just kidding.

 

[carguy2244]

Glock Safety.

You're offering the possibilty of a Glock being dropped with adequate force that inertia would simultaneously move the trigger and trigger safety rearward and the gun would then fire. Is that your proposed scenario?
Certainly there must be a formula to calculate how hard that drop would need to be.
Maybe if the Glock was fixed backwards to the nose of a Starsteak missile and fired into the Norad blast doors, the inertia would fire the pistol...nahhh...I don't think so.

 

[JohnKSa]

...wouldn't the trigger safety also have the same inertia and move also? Thereby defeating the purpose?

No, it wouldn't.

Inertia is based on velocity AND mass. The trigger bar is much heavier than than the trigger safety. The trigger safety is very light and therefore has much less inertia than the trigger bar at any given velocity.

In addition, the trigger safety is also on a pivot which means that the the only part of the trigger mass that works toward deactivating the trigger safety is the part of the mass that is on the side of the pivot that is toward the tip of the trigger. The mass on the OTHER side of the pivot actually works along with the trigger safety spring to keep the trigger safety from deactivating.

It's a pretty smart system and works very well.

Without getting into all the technical details, it should be sufficient to note that Glocks have been extensively drop-safety tested and found to be completely drop safe. Not only by the manufacturer but also by purchasing organizations and government safety testing organizations. Which means that the trigger safety performs its primary function admirably.

If that weren't enough, the additional evidence that Ruger fixed an admitted drop-safety problem on their SR9 pistols by recalling them and installing an exact copy of the Glock trigger safety on them at their expense should take care of convincing even the most skeptical critic.

 

[danez71]

Again, I don't know where you got the idea that anyone is arguing that the term "safety feature" does not apply. It does.

It was the "rediculous" comment.

The problem is that the traditional words and thoughts used havent kept up with the evolution of guns.

GLock also says: "Contrary to conventional, the trigger is the only operating element."

Read literally, I guess the slide, slide release etc dont operate. It could have been worded better.

John, when I re-read my post it may read as if it was in all CAPS. I didnt mean it that way. Sorry if it came across that way.

I do agree that glocks safeties are very good and that trigger safefty works to the point if something, not just your finger, pulls the trigger it will fire.

And there lies the "difference" with passive safeties and manual safeties.

With a manual safety, it doesnt matter if anything pulls the trigger. If the manual safety is on, it doesnt fire.

This part could be worded a lot better.
A passive safety has the gun making the decision and a manual safety has the operator making the decision as to if the gun should fire if the trigger gets pulled.

 

[pbearperry]

For half of my career I carried some form of S&W revolver in 38spl.The other half I carried a Glock in 9mm and then 40S&W.As far as I am concerned,they are both the same as far as being safe.They both have a drop safety internally,and if you don't pull the trigger,they will not fire.
Out of 190 people on my job,only one person shot himself with his Glock.The moron pulled the mag out after racking the slide a few times,he then pointed the gun at his hand and pulled the trigger.Kaboom!
Any semi auto would have done the same thing.Was it an accident,we will never know for sure.This same guy tried over and over to get a pension by different injuries and was finally fired.To me,the Glock is a large capacity firearm that works a lot like a revolver.You load it,you aim it,and you pull the trigger to fire it.Is the Glock a perfect pistol,no it is not.I don't think there is one out there that is perfect.

 

[ExtremeSquared]

It is a drop safety.

I really don't understand where all the controversy comes from. The gun is drop-safe. If you want a manual safety add one.

 

[DeepSouth]

I short

If you keep your finger or other object off the trigger it will not shoot.
If you put your finger or other object on the trigger it will have the ability shoot.
That isn't a safety, that is a common feature of every gun I have ever owned.

 

[ezypikns]

Thank you!

There is no safety on a Glock.

Not in the conventional (manual) sense.