External safety for Glock?

[Lonestar]

I have seen and handled a Glock with an external safety and here is the only problem.

SAFETY INSTALLATION JIG - Holds your Glock frame securely and has two, machined slots that correspond with the cut you’ll have to make to install Cominolli’s Manual Thumb Safety, shown above. Slot marked “SM” is for 9mm, .40 S&W, and .357 SIG; slot marked “LG” is for .45 ACP and 10mm. Requires the use of a 3/32" End Mil, listed below, and a high-speed rotary tool (listed elsewhere) to properly make the cut. Delrin® guide makes it easy to cut the correct angle

The cuts this guy made unfortunately look like dookie, but it worked as advertised. If your not a "tool guy" and you don't have a steady hand, don't do it yourself.

Others are mentioning getting an XD but honestly the grip angle and triggers are different than the Glock, and a grip safety is not the same as a manual safety switch.

 

[ace99]

i would say glocks are a little less safe than revolvers to carry without a holster. i carried one for over a year without a holster and nothing happened, and that included alot of activity. and im geussing most people use holsters here so you really have absolutely nothing to worry about. it's just not child proof.

 

[CajunBass]

By your logic, every trigger is a "safety."

Thank you. My point exactly.

 

[glocktoberfest]

The manual safety argument is a circular one - if you're smart enough to practice trigger discipline, you're smart enough to use a manual safety. Likewise, if you're too stupid to practice trigger discipline, then a manual safety isn't going to save you.

Fog, the problem I see is in a stressful situation , hold up , car jacking and such , forgetting to release the safety just might get you killed . Can you tell me without a doubt , you would never ever forget to release the safety when you cleared leather after watching your companion just got shot twice by some thug ? How about the members your preaching to , will they never forget the safety is "on" . With the glock , you damn well know its coming out hot . That's what I like , my taurus 85ul is the same way , its ready to go .
Now I do agree with you , If , you want to play with your pistol , show it off , let others play with it too , have a safety on it for sure . If your not comfortable with out a safety , DO NOT BUY A GLOCK . Shoot and carry what your comfortable with . have an open mind and try different guns . you may find one you really like . I did . YMMV

 

[Flopsy]

I honestly think that after you carried it for any length of time,you'd realize that it isn't necessary.

I ended up feeling the opposite. I sold it.

 

[outofbattery]

I got a BHP as my first handgun because I wanted visual and tactile confirmation that the gun was cocked and on safe.It took me about a year to figure out that the thing is simply not going to " go off" on its own and I started becoming comfortable with DA/SA decocker pistols, got a couple SIG's
and am still happy with them.I wasn't a big fan of either the Glock's strange trigger or seeming lack of safety until I actually bought one and put a couple thousand rounds through it at which point I finally realized that not only did it carry well and shoot as well as any other pistol I've carried but was also just as safe.It's all a personal choice and if someone doesn't like a Glock for any reason then that's fine but there really is far,far too much hype about them being any more "unsafe" than any other pistol.ND's have happened since firearms were invented and any firearm made to be as safe as possible isn't going to be practical for multiple reasons.I own 1911's and still have the BHP but they are no more or less safe than my Glocks.If you listened to some,there should be hundreds of us that carry Glocks hobbling around because we've all have shot ourselves in the leg so many damned times but fact of the matter is that it doesn't happen.As far as X number of cops discharging their Glocks that's skewed statistics,if 60-70% of cops carried 1911's then there would be people saying it's an unsafe design because invariably,there would be ND's and the gun,not operator,would be blamed.

If you can't trust yourself to keep your finger off the trigger,don't get a Glock.If you can't trust yourself to work a safety,don't get a single action- there are more than 2 kinds of guns in this world for a reason.

 

[dairycreek]

Just love to see the Glock "faithful" come out of the woodwork saying "can't do it", "don't do it", "shouldn't do it" and the litany goes on. If you want an external safety for the Glock (and why not?) try this out. They have made external safeties for Glocks fo years. http://www.cominolli.com/

 

[FruitCake]

I too wouldn't mind my glock having an external safety. I bought my Glock and did not like the grip so I did the grip reduction. Why? Because its what I wanted. I don't see why if you want a gun because of its good reputation and you modify it to personalize it being a big deal to others. It happens all the time with other guns and their owners modifying their guns to their own preferences. Why should this be any different? Because its a glock- Please! Are some of of you saying that you've never modified a weapon that you own? Why? Too make to where YOU like it! If any of you opposed to the owner modifying his Glock to have a external safety to make him happy then you're also not allowed to modify any of your weapons in any shape or form. Thank you.

 

[HighDesertDrifter]

A couple thoughts to add on the topic of this thread since it still comes up on Google searches...

Adding a manual safety to the Glock doesn't mean you always have to have it on. Carrying in a quality holster and trust your handling? Then you can confidently leave it off and be "Mr. Ready Ranger".
Your Glock is unholstered in the nightstand and you're concerned about fumbling in the dark or that curious little fingers might find it? Then you have an option to be just a little bit more responsible.

On the comparison of a Glock to revolvers without safeties - that's not quite apples to apples. The much different trigger pull was mentioned. But say you have your revolver tight up against your hip IWB, the cylinder can't easily rotate. That is a pretty significant impediment to an AD that the Glock doesn't share.

Personally I've grown up with 1911's so the use of a manual safety doesn't bother me at all.

 

[GLOOB]

Sure. Spend bucks. Hack frame. Add safety. Then leave it off. LOL! Sorry. That sounded funny.

 

[mdauben]

It's really personal preference and the extra safety on the XD makes me feel better carrying it that I do a glock.

This. We can all argue that the Glock is prefectly safe to carry with its own built in safety features, but if you worry about carrying a gun without a manual safety then there is no reason why you should not have one. Personally, I chose Glock as my primary SD pistol because it does not have a manual safety. Its one less thing I have to worry about in a highly stressful situation and I feel perfectly comfortable carrying one concealed in either an IWB or OWB holster.

That said, I'm a bit leery of making aftermarket, mechanical changes to the guts of my Glock. As they come from the factory they are supremely reliable, if you start tinkering with them I would worry more about reliability. If you really want a manual safety you might be better served just buying a polymer gun that is built with one from the factory. I believe some of the S&W M&P pistols, for example, come with thumb safeties and there are others.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

This is not an endorsement, merely pointing out that it is out there.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cominolli+thumb+safety+for+glock

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Glocks need external safeties like revolvers need external safeties.

Some users of autoloading pistols used to using manual safeties instinctively might want an external safety, but that's personal preference, not necessity.

 

[scythefwd]

UHHHHHHH revolvers don't have a manual safety. Would you carry one of them?

Yes, many of them DO have a manual safety. Some of them are hammer blocks, other are trigger blocks. Also, most revolvers that are designed to be carried with one under the hammer are using trasfer bars. You have to cock it before it'll shoot (a manual action on the gun to make it fireable). If it's double action, the trigger pull is HEAVY and very difficult to actually pull on accident. You don't run into that issue with striker fired pistols.

Glocktoberfest - Make the removal of the safety part of your draw. Practice the draw about 1k times, and it will be automatic. I cock my single action revolvers as they level off from coming out of the holster and they are ready to go by the time I have my sights on target. It took a lot of fussing to get the draw right, but I can now pull and fire as smoothly as someone who has a double action or a semi auto with safety off because cocking isn't a separate motion but is integrated into my draw stroke. Messes with me a little on my semi-autos

 

[Zerodefect]

With a Glock, you can have a decent trigger, or a safe gun, but NOT both. A manual safety would allow the user to use the lighter connector, and still have a gun safe for the street. Of course, it would still be too wide, point the wrong direction, and have crappy sights...

DanO

Superlight Glock triggers actually shoot worse, far worse for those I've had try it, especially myself.

I use a 3.5 LoneWolf connector and all the trick parts for a light trigger. Then I stiffen it back up with the striker springs. I have 4 weights of striker springs, stock being the stiffest. The 3rd stiffest, just a hair softer than stock works the best.

Having a Glock trigger too light will cause the gun to go off without a good solid break and be really inconsistant. Haveing a connector too aggressive will cause the Glock to double or even bumpfire. Superlight trigger and Glock don't go together. It's not a SA revolver afterall.

With the Glock 3.5 or Lone wolf 3.5 connector and the stock striker spring, you really can't get so light that it's problematic. And should still be safe for CCW.

I also feel that a trigger unsafe for CCW is unsafe for competition. Which gun gets handled and shot more often? Which is used under stress more often?



As far as wanting a manual safety? No shame in that. Get an M&P with a manual safety or a 1911. Both fine guns with the safety you want.

 

[GLOOB]

Yes, many [revolvers] DO have a manual safety. Some of them are hammer blocks, other are trigger blocks. Also, most revolvers that are designed to be carried with one under the hammer are using trasfer bars. You have to cock it before it'll shoot (a manual action on the gun to make it fireable).

Umm, sorry to point this out to you, but those aren't manual safeties. A modern semiauto is just as drop safe as a modern revolver. The revolver's transfer bar or hammer block is the equivalent of a semi auto's firing pin safety. The revolver has no equivalent for a manual safety.

 

[JROC]

Not needed, and I recommend against one.

Ol'e Gaston new what he was doing when he designed his gun. Glocks are designed not to need external safeties. An external safety just add complexity to what is suppose to be a very simple gun, and give it something that could potentially go wrong when it matters most.

 

[scythefwd]

Gloob, the transfer bar isn't a manual safety, but the hammer block and trigger block both are. I have to manually flip the safety off to fire one of my revolvers... any claim that it isn't a manual safety just shows either an intentional misrepresentation of the facts or a level of inadequate experience with revolvers to speak with authority. If you don't count hammer down as a safety on a single action revolver... please explain how pulling a lever back (the hammer in this case) to make the gun fireable is any different than moving a lever down (a safety) to make the gun fireable on a doa.

 

[GLOOB]

First off, I thought you were talking about DA revolvers.

Now that we're on the same page, the hammer block on even a SA revolver is NOT a manual safety. I don't even know what a trigger block is, so you'll have to enlighten me.

Manual safeties are by definition safeties that are put on/off manually. The hammer block comes off automatically when the trigger is pulled. If that's a manual safety, then a Glock has 3 manual safeties.

Decocking the hammer on a SA pistol, revolver or semiauto, is neither here nor there. If you want to call that a safety, that's ok with me.

 

[scythefwd]

gloob, no, hammer blocks aren't all removed automatically. Mine, is literally a block of steel that is half round. In the safe position (an actual manual switch), the half round is out and the hammer cannot reach the firing pin, I move the gun to fire, and now the flat side is out and the path the the FP is no longer obstructed. A hammer block is NOT the same thing as the passive firing pin blocks in many modern design guns, which require the trigger to be pulled to be removed. Heritage arms uses one on their small bore rough riders, both in 22lr/mag and the .32 H&R versions. The large bore are made by pietta and do not include the safety

A trigger block is a type of safety that physically stops the trigger from being pulled. One of the most common examples of this is on some older rifles. The trigger cannot be depressed, push the button in the trigger guard to the fire position and the trigger moves free. It is a mechanical stop with a groove in it that keeps you from moving the trigger until it is in the right position and the trigger can move through the groove. It appears that I've been using the wrong term.. Crossbolt safety apparently is the correct term. The charter arms dixie derringer uses one and apparently some webly's came with them as well.

There is also the half-cock notch. Wont stop you from firing the DA revolver, but a SA it will. That's more for drop safety than to keep it from firing from an accidental trigger pull. PICS to follow of a hammer block type safety.

If you go halfway down the page on this link, you'll see some beautifully clear pics of the manual safety on his Heritage Arms Rough Rider. He has it both safety on and off as well as highlighted the block. My pics were too blurry to see well.
http://www.hipointfirearmsforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=258870&page=2

 

[basicblur]

What thread is going to slide into the trigger guard and pull the trigger.

Doesn't have to be a thread-could be a (insert something you never though about here)-the OP can Google Glock Leg and read away...then decide.

As far as the XD is concerned...... you still have a grip on the grip safety when holstering, thus when your magical thread grasps the trigger you're still going to have an ND!

'Proper' techinque for holstering an XD (or many sidearms with a grip safety) would be to place your thumb on the back of the slide as you reholster-doing so prevents the slide from moving when reholstering (and possibly coming out of battery, causing problems when you have to use the gun), and by doing so, you remove the web of your hand from the grip safety.
Check out the last picture on this page-I do it slightly differently-I place the pad of my thumb on the back of the slide, which is much more tactile and also raises the web of my hand farther away from the grip safety.

Iff'n it were me and I really wanted a manual safety, I think I'd check out the M&P and XDs that can be had with safeties before I'd start modifying a Glock.

Any particular reason you want a Glock over another quality gun that can be had with a safety?

 

[Pizzagunner]

I can't believe it is 2011 and people are still trying to convince shooters that the Glock and DA revolvers have common operational principles regarding their triggers. It's insane.

Stock Glock trigger pull=~5.0 lbs short stroke pull.

Average DA revolver trigger pull=~10.0 lbs on a long trigger pull.

This is without even going into that most DA revolvers can be reholstered with your thumb covering the hammer to prevent getting a Glock style racing stripe down your leg if your windbreaker's pull toggle gets into your holster and trigger guard while you're pushing the weapon back into the holster.

People need to quit spreading misinformation about Glocks being like DA revolvers, because they just aren't alike.

 

[Single Action Six]

You're Right..!

I always thought Glocks had a manually activated external safety. It's right there on the trigger.

They do. It's like auto manufacturers placing the brake right in the middle of the gas pedal! Makes about as much sense.

Single Action Six

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It's like auto manufacturers placing the brake right in the middle of the gas pedal! Makes about as much sense

You have a point. The Glock is designed on the principle that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire. But not everyone performs perfectly under stress.

 

[Single Action Six]

And Just The Opposite Is True..

MainSail said in part..

I’ve read a few too many incident reports where police officers had been shot trying to fire their weapon with the safety on.

I also have read a few too many incident reports where police officers who (as well as others), have had negligent discharges while using Glocks. Where as if the firearm had had its external safety applied, the NG most likely never would have happened.

Firearms that have a external safety serve a purpose.. that being a additional layer of SAFETY for the firearm that's being used. One recognizes this for what it is.

As far as forgetting to release (or deactivate), the external safety upon drawing, that is NOT a design error on the gun manufacturers part, but rather the lack of training on the users part.

I've carried (both professionally until I retired and otherwise), for close to 45 years. In that time (except when I had to carry a mandated revolver way back when), I used a semi-auto with a external safety.. which is what I CCW with today.

Releasing the external safety on draw just comes as second nature.. as anyone here (who carries one), will tell you.

How many times have we heard of a firearm, ie: (pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun), with a properly applied external safety having a catastrophic mechanical external safety malfunction where a ND occurred?

On the other hand.. how many times have we heard (and seen on You Tube, the nightly news or on gun web sites like this), about people (police included), using Glocks (or other non-external safety firearms) and having NG's?

Since it’s never out of the holster in a loaded condition, it’s as safe - or SAFER - than a handgun with an external mechanical safety.

To make the statement that your holstered Sig is SAFER than a handgun with a properly applied external safety is ridiculous at the least.. and foolishly said at the other extreme.

Single Action Six