Glock's trigger safety not enough?

[DentThat]

I'm trying to make sense of Glock's trigger safety.

Can someone explain to me WHY it works? I mean, if something with enough force were to accidentally pull the trigger, then it'll just push the safety in, basically nullifying the whole point of the safety.

Plus, for prolonged range shooting, the "sharp" trigger safety puts a strain on your trigger finger.

Now, I love XD's trigger safety AND rear grip safety. Now THAT, I 100% advocate and love.

Thanks!

 

[mgregg85]

I believe the idea is that the trigger safety will prevent anything from brushing up against the side of the trigger and discharging the weapon. If something gets inside the trigger guard then it probably won't stop it from pulling the trigger.

I felt better about the XD with the grip safety so I bought an XD45 instead of a glock 21.

 

[23Glock]

Glock's trigger safety is designed to prevent lateral force from pulling the trigger. Something needs to be on the trigger and pushing it straight back...say, like your trigger finger.
And sharp? What's sharp about the trigger safety? And why would the XD trigger safety be any different/better in your opinion...?

IBTL, my troll radar just went off.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

It helps to ensure that only your finger, fully wrapped around the front of the trigger, should be able to pull it. In actual service, as noted, other objects that get fully inside the trigger guard can also do this. It would be a bad idea, for example, to wear a sweatshirt with a drawstring as a cover garment. It is also part of the "drop" safety system, to prevent a hard blow from jarring the trigger. Still, IMO virtually all these AD/NDs could be prevented by not putting your finger on the trigger unless and until you plan to shoot. If you don't think you can do this, there are plenty of makers of double-action and/or thumb-safety equipped pistols that will be happy to part you from your money.

 

[TAB]

Judging by the number of LEOs that shoot themselfs in the leg with thier glock, I'd say it does not work.

 

[61chalk]

I first saw a Glock that my son bought....I looked.."Wheres the safety!"..I'm use to my 1911...At first I didn't like the Glock because of the trigger type safety...He has good holster that prevents anything from getting in...an then I realized that revolvers really don't have a safety at all, you just squeeze the trigger an the hammer comes back...so I think that most people who own the Glock realize how it operates an how it should be handled, my first concern about it is no longer a concern.

 

[autospike]

A whole lot of LEOs have shot themselves with other things besides Glocks. Even revolvers.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Judging by the number of LEOs that shoot themselfs in the leg with thier glock, I'd say it does not work.

On the contrary, it is performing as it was designed to. It is the operator who is at fault, by not observing Rule Three.

DA/SA and thumb-safety-equipped pistols are not immune from this, either, if the operator forgets to decock or apply the safety and then breaks Rule Three.

 

[DeepSouth]

Can someone explain to me WHY it works? I mean, if something with enough force were to accidentally pull the trigger, then it'll just push the safety in, basically nullifying the whole point of the safety.

Annoy a liberal, or Glock designer, use logic and reason!

Couldn't help it.

 

[TAB]

On the contrary, it is performing as it was designed to. It is the operator who is at fault, by not observing Rule Three.

DA/SA and thumb-safety-equipped pistols are not immune from this, either, if the operator forgets to decock or apply the safety and then breaks Rule Three.

Its true it is operator error.


The best safety is the one between your ears, its also the most likly to fail.

 

[cactusgeorge]

glock safeties

Gentleman,
The ultimate safety does not reside in some switch, lever or truly unique trigger safety, it resides between your ears and a hard and constant focus URFS #3...!!!

 

[earlthegoat2]

The glock relies on the most fundamental safety there ever was and ever has been.

In short, dont pull the trigger until you have a target to shoot meathead.

 

[sgt127]

As I understand the Glock trigger safety, it is not a safety at all. It helps prevent the gun from firing if dropped. If you drop the gun on the butt, the trigger is moving at the same speed as the gun (object in motion law of gravity and all) the trigger is moving the same speed as the gun. Gun stops on the floor, trigger keeps moving backwards, gun fires. Trigger safety is supposed to prevent that. Trigger cannot move backwards unless the little tab is depressed.

 

[stana]

What Cactusgeorge said.

I've witnessed too many AD / ND's. Two did damage. One with a revolver that discharged into the holster (duty holster) during the draw. Leather, pants material and a 38 wc ended up in his cheek. The second a 1911 45acp discharged into a IWB holster (in the appendix position) during holstering. The victim in obvious pain and fear ran for the porta potty. After what seem an incrediblely long time he appeared and incrediblely announced to the crowd surrounding the potty that all was intact. Both became famous.

 

[possum]

i am not a fasn of manual safeties on fighting guns, the glock/xd etc trigger safety is enough for me, and really if it wasn't on there that wouldn't bother me a bit either.

 

[possum]

Plus, for prolonged range shooting, the "sharp" trigger safety puts a strain on your trigger finger.

you must have weak girly hands, i have never had this issue at all, after many high round count training courses and many high round count range/training sessions.

 

[PT1911]

in my eyes, the glock "safety" is not much in the way of a functional safety only a drop safety, meaning, it ensures the trigger must be pulled in order for the gun to fire... that is why so many other guns (xd, m&p, steyr....etc) incorporate them into their guns... that said, I do prefer the m&p and Xd and Steyr triggers to the Glock's, but that is a new thread altogether..

 

[oneounceload]

If Glock could make it even simpler, I'm all for it - I have no need for manual safeties that can break or malfunction at the wrong time. Point the gun, pull the trigger, hit your target - it doesn't need anything more than that

 

[punkndisorderly]

As long as it's carried in a proper holster rather than say jammed into the waistband of a pair of sweatpants or in a purse full of junk, I think it's totally sufficient.

Since I usually don't carry during the work week and instead just keep mine on the passenger seat of my car and lock it in the glovebox while at work, I went to a double action revolver. Didn't like the idea of either carrying my Glock with an empty chamber and having to rack the slide if it was ever needed.

For holster carry, the Glock's safety hasn't been an issue for me. Manual safetys are somewhat of an issue as you have to remember to disengage and re-engage under stress.

 

[Drail]

I don't see how the Glock system can even be referred to as a "safety". To my thinking a safety will disable a weapon so that it will NOT fire when the trigger is pulled. The Glock trigger will always fire when the trigger is pulled. The accidents that people have with Glocks are a personnel training problem. I used to be an instructor and I can assure you there are many times more poorly trained people out there than there are unsafe weapons. As others have said, if you can't discipline yourself to keep your finger off of it while handling it then a Glock is NOT for you. It will not tolerate any sloppy handling whatsoever. A double action revolver will tolerate a lot more carelessness than a pre cocked SA Glock.

 

[ExtremeSquared]

/\ What about a 'drop safety'? It has no 'manual safety'.
This is all glock has, drop safety, by design. Love it or hate it.
And then get on the internet and tell everybody how much you love it or hate it and how everybody else is wrong.

 

[ScareyH22A]

There's plenty of times that firearms, not just Glocks, have been accidently discharged from all things besides a finger inside the trigger guard.

Ill. deputy accidentally shoots self

Editor's note: Law Enforcement Firearms columnist Richard Fairburn says, "If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a bang when you didn’t expect one. Good, stressful training can eliminate most of your officer’s negligent discharge problems, but not all of them." Read his article Causes and cures for the negligent discharge for more information on gun safety.

WAUKEGAN, Ill. — A Lake County sheriff's deputy was airlifted to a hospital Friday morning after accidentally shooting herself at the County Building parking garage.

Karen Harris, a 22-year veteran of the sheriff's office, was recovering from surgery Friday afternoon at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge. She is expected to make a full recovery, authorities said.

At 8 a.m. Friday, Harris was removing her service weapon from the trunk of her car on the third floor of the parking garage when the gun fired, sending a .40-caliber bullet through her right hand and into her abdomen.

Waukegan police determined the trigger was pulled by a hanger stuck in the trigger guard, said Waukegan police Cmdr. Wayne Walles.

"It's an accident. It could absolutely happen to anyone," Sheriff Mark Curran said. "We pray for her, and we feel terrible for her."

Harris, 46, of Gurnee, was taken first to Vista Medical Center East and later flown to Lutheran General. She was conscious and alert after surgery, police said.

The Waukegan Fire Department and other court security deputies responded to the scene almost immediately, said sheriff's Sgt. Christopher Thompson.

There is no protocol on where deputies keep their weapon, but some put them in their car trunk, Curran said.

Harris is the daughter of former Waukegan Ald. Frank Harris. Attempts to reach the family Friday were unsuccessful.

Copyright Chicago Sun Times

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro.../1791915-Ill-deputy-accidentally-shoots-self/

 

[Mainsail]

sgt127 has it correct. It is to prevent the trigger from moving rearward due to inertial forces. The Glock pistols are as safe as or safer than revolvers. The Glock was originally marketed in the US as a replacement to police department issued wheel guns. It allowed an easier transition for officers. There are no added moves for an officer to learn, you point the gun, look down the sights, and pull the trigger. You are rewarded with a loud bang and some recoil.

If one is too inept to safely handle a Glock pistol, then one is far too stupid to safely handle any handgun, buy some pepper spray instead. The Glock is completely safe when you read and follow the warnings in the owner’s manual as well as follow all the standard gun safety rules.

Things that require knowledge to operate safely that stupid or careless people shouldn’t own:
Guns (Glocks included)
Automobiles
Chainsaws
Power tools
Sharp metal things like knives and razors
Lawnmowers

 

[VINTAGE-SLOTCARS]

Ive seen too may civilians that shot themselves w/a glock,no thanks.

 

[Guillermo]

The safety mechanism on the Glock is more than sufficient.