Quantcast

Glock modification - dumb idea or what do you think?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Hokkmike, Nov 8, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,877
    Location:
    Sullivan County PA
    Found out that Brownell's has an $85.00 kit to install a manual thumb type safety on a Glock handgun. Since I always pocket carry in a kydex (Alabama) holster I thought it might be a measure of extra safety.

    I have toyed with the idea of moving to a SIG P-365 with the thumb safety already installed but it is not as comfortable or as easy to carry in ALL of the pockets of the clothes I wear.

    It is not a .380 vs. 9mm thing, or a Glock vs. SIG comparison. While size is a factor the central issue is availability of the manual safety.

    What do you think?
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  2. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,203
    Location:
    NW Florida
    I'm a 1911 guy, pretty much all I shoot, and a fan of the 1911 with a thumb safety, but I don't think I'd put a thumb safety on a Glock.

    This may be a better solution, the Striker Control Device, SCD or Gadget as it is commonly known

    https://taudevgroup.myshopify.com
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  3. JTQ

    JTQ Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,203
    Location:
    NW Florida
    To add: A Glock, once holstered in a kydex holster that covers the trigger guard, is a pretty safe gun.
     
  4. FL-NC

    FL-NC Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    4,878
    Location:
    Fl panhandle
    If you are carrying in a holster that covers the trigger, it shouldn't be a problem.
     
  5. bdickens

    bdickens Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    845
    Location:
    Hockley , TX
    Glocks are as safe as any other pistol as long as the trigger is covered. I wouldn't bother.
     
  6. huntsman

    huntsman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,218
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    I leave all my CC guns stock, as for PC I bought a Nemesis for my Shield9 and like my LCP remove the holster(from pocket) prior to inserting gun.

    I believe in safe gun handling regardless of features on a firearm.
     
    Obturation and Buzznrose like this.
  7. <*(((><
    • Contributing Member

    <*(((>< Luke

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,034
    Glocks + Good Holster + Good Handling are safe.

    If one “needs” a manual safety then just buy a gun with a manual safety. In no way would I install a manual safety on a Glock. There are plenty of good manufacturers of firearms that include a manual safety.

    I like my Glocks the way they are but recognize they aren’t for everyone, a good reason they are so reliable is the simplicity of design.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  8. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,904
    Location:
    Florida
    If you "feel" the need for a safety (regardless of brand) then get one.
    No different than any other striker fired gun with a trigger dongle thing. Except XDs with a grip safety also
     
    Buzznrose and drband like this.
  9. Trey Veston

    Trey Veston Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2017
    Messages:
    804
    It's all about what makes you feel better. I alternate between a G19 with no safety and an M&P40c with a safety, which I specifically bought for the safety. I wouldn't add a safety to my G19, as I think that could open a can of worms, but I haven't researched the kit, so who knows.
     
  10. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    7,939
    If your concerns are around what happens while the gun is firmly in the holster, I agree that a manual safety is not very likely to do much. If you concern is over a discharge while holstering, or if the gun gets mis-holstered in some way (such that something is in the holster along with the gun), or if the gun comes partially out of the holster while still in the pocket (all of which strike me as pretty valid concerns), then adding a safety may make sense in principle.

    I care about all those scenarios/issues, so I just don't buy semi-autos without manual safeties in the first place. I would want to have a very thorough understanding of how Glock's internal "safeties" work and how this add-on device interoperates with them before I even contemplated fooling with it.

    Glock and other tagalongs have done a pretty good job of making guns that don't "just go off." But there's more inherent risk of that with striker-fired guns, because the striker and sear/release are typically working across the not-fixed frame-to-slide gap. This is why Glock, and those who followed them, absolutely had to add all the "safe action" internal parts to prevent a trigger-press-less discharge. Most gun guys take the efficacy of that stuff for granted, but, as the P320 and FNS problems show, it is not actually that easy to make a striker-fired gun that has a decent-ish trigger and also not susceptible to having the sear and striker disengage without a trigger pull.

    While I personally have no interest in Glocks, and do not like what their marketing spiel has done to shift certain thoughts in the gun community to views I think are misguided, you really have to tip your hat to their engineering on the issues in the prior paragraph. They got that part right, and lots of people don't understand how challenging that is to get absolutely right. I'd be pretty loathe to screw with it.
     
    Mosin Bubba, SwampWolf and Buzznrose like this.
  11. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,253
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    If it makes you feel better, go ahead, but even I, who 'swipes' the non-existent thumb safety off on Glocks when I shoot them sometimes, feel it unnecessary.
     
    Buzznrose, George P and JR24 like this.
  12. JR24

    JR24 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,620
    Location:
    The center of the mitt
    Pretty much my opinion.

    Though, I do not modify the internals of carry guns as a rule.
     
  13. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,108
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    S&W M&P Shield 9mm with thumb safety are for sale for $249.00 on several websites. For only $165.00 you would have a compact gun designed to use the thumb safety.
     
  14. JeffG

    JeffG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,537
    Location:
    NE Wisconsin
    Other than steel night sights, and Pierce mag base plates, I don't modify my Glocks.
     
    JR24 likes this.
  15. Logwood

    Logwood Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    If you've carried and practiced shooting your Glock for a long time, you might want to consider that in an emergency, you may forget to release the thumb safety before attempting to fire your gun. I would at least limit carry to the 365 until I'd had the modified Glock out at the range a number of times.
     
    JeffG likes this.
  16. barnetmill

    barnetmill Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    695
    A major source of Glock discharges occurs when holstering. Putting your thumb on an SCD blocks the trigger bar from moving. It really is expensive and I hope a competitor gets into business.
    On glocks not carried in a hard holster I would use the external brownell safety of the OP.

    What I use:

    SCD-2_530x@2x.png
     
    drband and <*(((>< like this.
  17. CDW4ME

    CDW4ME Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,333
    Location:
    Free State USA
    I made the modification of removing the "finger grooves" (more like humps or protrusions) I dislike them.
    Add a manual safety to a Glock? Nope. No thanks.
     
  18. Old Stumpy

    Old Stumpy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    836
    The effective sear blocking grip safeties found on Browning pistols like the 1903, 1906, and 1910 pistols removed the need for a manual safety.
    The ineffective finger-tip dingus on a Glock does not.
    So an effective manual safety is a must.
    If a manual safety is not required on guns then perhaps we should just remove or disable them on all of our other firearms.
    Yup, I'm just going to carry my trusty hammerless double barrel shotgun loaded and cocked in the field with that useless thumb safety gone.
     
    Ramone likes this.
  19. <*(((><
    • Contributing Member

    <*(((>< Luke

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,034
    You do know that a Glock has two other safety mechanisms other than the trigger dingus right? A Glock will not fire unless someone or something pulls the trigger. The trigger dingus is part of preventing inertia from a drop, and incidental contact to the main trigger shoe from activating the firing pin. That is only one of the 3 part safety on a Glock.

    Your comment like most others about the Glock safety design is more about proving your bias then operating in a discussion with facts.

    The most "risky" part of a Glock safety design is the exposed trigger (which is oddly enough found on all firearms); this "risky" part can be solved with good holsters, and judicious handling when holstering and placement of trigger finger.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  20. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,456
    Location:
    CAAZ
    Link?

    I think that might be the Camonili (sp) safety that you also need to buy a jig for.
     
  21. 460Shooter

    460Shooter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Messages:
    10,480
    Location:
    The Land that Time Forgot
    I'd be a lot more inclined to get a really good kydex holster that covers the trigger or/and buy a different gun that has an external safety than I would be to mess with the internals of a carry gun. There's options out there.

    Not really sure of the motivation behind this exaggeration. No one said a safety isn't needed on any gun. If you don't like them, that's fine. There's lots of options out there.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    Theohazard, JR24 and <*(((>< like this.
  22. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    12,456
    Location:
    Georgia
    I'm a Glock guy and have no issue with them as long as they are in a proper holster. But that is not always possible or practical for them to always in the holster. There are times when the gun is un-holstered, carried in a less desirable holster, or stored in a night stand or glove box. I'm also a 1911 guy and appreciate the 1911 style thumb safety. As much as I like Glock, I think they would be a better pistol with that style safety. It doesn't have to always be used, but is there if needed. And anyone used to using a 1911 will tell you that the safety it isn't a handicap at all.

    My concern is that I'm not certain about how well a modification would work. There are several options for striker fired guns with a good quality safety. I have the Sig M17 and specifically went with the one with the safety and have since added a 365 with the safety. I like both a lot. The 365 comes with two 10 round magazines and I've added two 12 round magazines. The 365 has pretty much replaced my G19 and G43. With the 10 round mags it carries IWB just as easily as my G43, and with the 12 round mags gives up very little to the G19 when carried OWB. And they make 15 round mags for it.

    In addition to Sig, S&W also offers their M&P pistols with a similar safety. As does Ruger. I don't like the Ruger version as well, but it is there.
     
  23. JR24

    JR24 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,620
    Location:
    The center of the mitt
    Hey, if you can give me the same travel and clean break of a 1911 on a Glock I'll take the safety every time.

    With a standard Glock trigger? Nah, not for me. Had that on a SR9c, very good gun and the safety was easy to use if you were used to a 1911, but ultimately not needed IMO if you handle and holster the gun with the proper respect required of handling any loaded firearm (and yes, we treat them all as loaded).

    Also, I am fully against not using a safety feature that is on a firearm. I've have thumb safeties disengaged in the holster numerous times and it stands to reason engaging one (that was holstered "off") is equally likely. Drawing a potentially disabled (via safety device) firearm without practicing the muscle memory to disengage it every time is foolish in my eyes.

    So if it has a safety, I use it. If I don't want to, I get a different gun (or change it to a decocker only variant with a Beretta or similar)
     
  24. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,185
    Location:
    TX
    The guy who almost shot my foot was holstering a 1911. Don’t mess with the gun, buy or use a different gun.

    I still wonder about all those revolvers without manual safeties, why is that?
     
    Theohazard and <*(((>< like this.
  25. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    7,939
    There's a pretty gigantic difference between a Glock trigger that moves about half an inch, maybe less, and produces no big external movement of gun parts and takes about 5 pounds of pressure to depress, versus a DA revolver trigger with 2-3 times the travel length, 2.5-4 times the pull weight, and is very obviously rotating a cylinder and moving a hammer.

    If you want to argue that Glocks are entirely safe, barring user error, that's one thing. Saying that their lack of a safety is functionally equivalent to a revolver's DA pull is just silly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice