How dangerous would a Glock be sans trigger safety?

[Onmilo]

Every time I see one of these Goofy threads I remember the story of the Texas Ranger who habitually carried a 1911 chamber loaded, full cocked, safety off, and shoved into his waistband.
When asked, "Isn't that dangerous?" the Ranger replied,
"Heck yes it's dangerous! It's a gun isn't it!"

 

[browningguy]

It would have the same level of safety with or without the trigger nub.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

It would be equally safe. The gun has a firing pin block. It ruins the ergonomics of the trigger. A company needs to make a striker-fired pistol without this stupid "safety"... Oh would you look at that!

Sig P320

 

[twofifty]

I noticed the P320 features include:

"Rotation of takedown lever allows disassembly without tools or trigger manipulation."

emphasis mine.

 

[JohnKSa]

The only thing the glock trigger "thingy" does is prevent inertia from pulling the trigger if dropped.

It also makes the trigger more snag resistant than it would be otherwise. Something contacting only the side of the trigger, or a snagging object that rides up the curve of the trigger to the top won't be able to fire the gun.

In a nutshell, the trigger safety locks the trigger bar in place. That's important because the other two passive safeties depend on the trigger bar not moving unintentionally. If the trigger bar moves sufficiently, then the other two passive safeties will be deactivated.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@twofifty: Yes! I have to get one in hand in order to see if the trigger is nice or not. If it passes that test all that will be needed is for someone to make a good appendix carry holster for it and it WILL be mine.

 

[ericbc7]

I have had a Glock 19 for over 20 years. I have never trusted the "trigger thingy" like i trust the grip safety and locking safety of my 1911. That said, I suppose that my security six has less safety features than either, but the glock ranks last on my list of "safe" loaded carry weapons.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

It seems to me that anything that can apply 5 pounds of force on the trigger is thick enough to depress the trigger safety lever if it gets caught inside the trigger guard. A small branch on a bush would just snap off. A heartier branch is thicker and would depress the trigger safety and fire the gun. Unless a fish hook very precisely hooks into the side of the trigger (and not on or around the safety) I don't see what that safety plans on stopping once it gets passed the trigger guard.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It seems to me that anything that can apply 5 pounds of force on the trigger is thick enough to depress the trigger safety lever if it gets caught inside the trigger guard. A small branch on a bush would just snap off. A heartier branch is thicker and would depress the trigger safety and fire the gun. Unless a fish hook very precisely hooks into the side of the trigger (and not on or around the safety) I don't see what that safety plans on stopping once it gets passed the trigger guard.

The trigger safety is not 100% effective in preventing inadvertent activation of the trigger. What it does is significantly reduce the possibility of inadvertent activation of the trigger from causes other than a deliberate pull of the trigger by the user. Holsters that cover trigger guards, and attention to holstering further reduce inadvertent activation of the trigger. The combination of mechanical design, and user choices and competence make the Glock trigger safety system sufficiently effective.

Disabling the trigger safety is dangerous enough that only the foolish would do it for a trivial advantage it may provide in playing gun games.

 

[JWH321]

The best advice is to not go around dropping your gun. I have carried guns for over 40 years. 36 of them on the job. I have never dropped a gun. I've done almost every other idiot thing that can be done, but I was always of the opinion that my gun was a very expensive investment in my protection. I have also never dropped a baby, or a beer. I did drop a hot dog once -- but only once.

It is possible to go through life being just a bit careful.

 

[tarosean]

A Glock without its safety will break out of the safe and kill you in the middle of the night. That's all there is too it...

 

[fiftybmg]

My 2 cents : as a duty sidearm, in a duty holster, the Glock is great to carry loaded.

IWB in a soft [ non-kydex / stiff leather ] holster, I'm not so sure - I am not comfortable carrying mine like that. IWB in a soft holster with no trigger safety ... Darwin candidate.

The loaded gun is fine with no safeties at all, as long as nobody handles it.

Removing the trigger safety adds risk to handling the loaded weapon when it's not in it's holster, enough risk to qualify, again, as a candidate for the Darwin awards.

 

[burk]

Taking the OP's point of discussion - the trigger dingus is removed, how dangerous is it?

It would result in the gun being no more dangerous than a LCP, or any of dozens of revolvers that are DA with no other safety at all. It would require the full depressing of the trigger to finish cocking the striker before it could be released by the sear, right? At that point it would be just as if a P7 with the grip safety, or a P938 with the thumb safety off. In other words, something with nothing more than the trigger pull to make it go bang.

Plenty of guns do that, and they are actually preferred by some who claim they don't want to fumble with any safety in a moment of stress. To add to the comparison, that is exactly why Glock put the lever in the trigger, so that it would closely resemble the same actions needed as if it were a service revolver - which was his target market and one he conquered quite successfully.

As with any DA action, the Glock was always required to have a holster to protect the trigger from accidental or premature use, which is when the technique of keeping the finger alongside the slide became much more used, too. We now had to pay attention, as a ND was still possible if placing the finger on the trigger during the draw. That also reinforces that the gun would be just as safe - or dangerous - as the average service revolver.

We generally don't mess with safeties, but in this case, I don't see it being any worse than tens of thousands of other guns that don't come with any.

And that story does sound bogus. Lost his FFL? Link or citation, please, or it didn't happen.

Not true, the LCP, Sig 250 and LC9 are double action hammer fired with far longer trigger pulls then a Glock. I suspect that the triggers on those firearms travel three times the distance to engage the firing pin. While I feel perfectly safe with my LC9 in a holster without the safety engaged, to disengage the Glock trigger safety makes accidental discharge a far more likely occurrence. Plus what part of the fact that disengaging the "trigger thingy" disables the drop safety on a Glock do you not get?

My 2 cents : as a duty sidearm, in a duty holster, the Glock is great to carry loaded.

IWB in a soft [ non-kydex / stiff leather ] holster, I'm not so sure - I am not comfortable carrying mine like that. IWB in a soft holster with no trigger safety ... Darwin candidate.

The loaded gun is fine with no safeties at all, as long as nobody handles it.

Removing the trigger safety adds risk to handling the loaded weapon when it's not in it's holster, enough risk to qualify, again, as a candidate for the Darwin awards.

Great post. There are some guns, 1911's, Sig P238's and P938's, XD's, M & P's that just require a little more holster commitment. I'm going back to Glock as my main carry after carrying a Kimber 4" for years, and both are in more robust holsters. The reality is the need to keep the trigger area secure is paramount with those guns. And to be honest good holsters like the Milt Sparks VM II or Crossbreed Supertuck are more comfortable anyway.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Nom de Forum

Well, my argument is that it is virtually 0% effective. To reiterate, anything that gets inside the trigger guard and is sturdy enough to exert five pounds of force on the trigger is also thick enough that it will depress the Glock trigger safety (e.g. a branch). So, the trigger safety might as well not even be there.

You claim that it significantly reduces the possibility of something inadvertently activating the trigger. Do you have an example of what it stops? My joke example was that it might stop a fish hook from pulling the trigger if it very precisely gets caught on the side (and not on or around the trigger safety). I don't think people go fishing for their Glock... so I'm at a loss for what the trigger safety stops. It doesn't stop a branch. A branch is the most likely thing that I can think of that could accidentally get caught in the trigger guard and exert five pounds of force on the trigger.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@burk:

The length of the trigger pull is irrelevant. If something is going to exert enough force to pull the trigger it isn't going to do it slowly and it isn't going to somehow magically stop after X distance. I will go back to my branch example. If a branch gets caught in the trigger guard and gets shoved against the trigger the gun will fire whether the trigger pull distance is .2" or 1".

Do you have an example of something that is going to pull on the trigger for a distance sufficient to discharge a Glock but not far enough to discharge a weapon that has a double-action length trigger pull?

Disabling the Glock trigger safety doesn't disable the drop safety or the firing pin block. Disabling the trigger safety allows the trigger bar to move rearward. The trigger spring attached to the rear of the trigger bar keeps the trigger bar in the forward position (it doesn't wiggle back and forth freely just because the trigger safety is disabled). That prevents the firing pin block and the drop safety from being bypassed unless something gets jammed in the trigger guard and pulls the trigger rearward. So, again, that thing that gets caught in the trigger guard is something like a branch... which would not be stopped by the trigger safety... because the branch would depress it. Many guns have that weakness.

Now, a gun that has a >5 lb trigger pull, a thumb safety engaged, or a grip safety engaged would not be as likely to fire in the same situation as a Glock. But, if the gun is out of the holster I'm confident that the grip safety and thumb safety have been disengaged at this point and I also think it is unlikely for a branch to exert 6 pounds of force on the trigger and not 15+. That is unless you have a good example for me that I'm not seeing.

 

[fiftybmg]

@Nom de Forum

Well, my argument is that it is virtually 0% effective. To reiterate, anything that gets inside the trigger guard and is sturdy enough to exert five pounds of force on the trigger is also thick enough that it will depress the Glock trigger safety (e.g. a branch). So, the trigger safety might as well not even be there.

You claim that it significantly reduces the possibility of something inadvertently activating the trigger. Do you have an example of what it stops? My joke example was that it might stop a fish hook from pulling the trigger if it very precisely gets caught on the side (and not on or around the trigger safety). I don't think people go fishing for their Glock... so I'm at a loss for what the trigger safety stops. It doesn't stop a branch. A branch is the most likely thing that I can think of that could accidentally get caught in the trigger guard and exert five pounds of force on the trigger.

Your examples are theoretical and not relevant. Fish hooks and branches have nothing to do with removing a Glock trigger safety.

A Glock has a very light trigger with little travel. If that trigger safety is gone, normal handling of the loaded pistol, especially under concealed carry conditions, exposes you to unnecessary risk of an accidental discharge. These, as per Murphy's law, are never fatal to the shooter, and usually fatal to by-standers.

A P250, as mentioned by burk, has a trigger very similar to a revolver, and that makes it great for concealed carry with a soft IWB, like the Blackhawk.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@fiftybmg: My examples are rooted in the real world and are relevant. They don't have any examples to support their position at all. Fish hooks and branches are things that can get caught inside the trigger guard and depress the trigger.

A glock doesn't have a "very light trigger" and the travel is irrelevant for the reasons I explained to burk here:

If a branch gets caught in the trigger guard and gets shoved against the trigger the gun will fire whether the trigger pull distance is .2" or 1".

If that trigger safety is gone, normal handling of the loaded pistol, especially under concealed carry conditions, exposes you to unnecessary risk of an accidental discharge.

How? What risks? Do you have any examples? You can't just make a claim and not support it in any way.

How does a P250 prevent an accidental discharge? An accidental discharge happens when something gets caught in the trigger guard and the user pushes against it which causes it to fire, right? Well... what would that thing be if a branch is not "relevant"?

 

[fiftybmg]

I have a Glock 20. My Glock has a trigger safety. The trigger is very light.

I have a P250. It lives in a holster. Branches do not get in my holster.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@fiftybmg:

Glock triggers have standard weight triggers. I don't know how you figure you can define them as "light".

My Glock 19 lives in a holster. Branches don't get in my holster. If I disable the trigger safety on my G19 branches still will not get in my holster.

Done trolling?

 

[GLOOB]

It would be equally safe. The gun has a firing pin block. It ruins the ergonomics of the trigger. A company needs to make a striker-fired pistol without this stupid "safety"...

Test 1: Unload your Glock and tape the trigger safety back. Now rack the slide. Notice how the trigger goes all the way back, by itself.

Now, when the slide is actually pulled back, the disconnector is pushed out of the way, so the sear doesn't actually disengage. When the striker goes back without the slide, the disconnector is not disengaged. It can push the sear down, releasing the striker.

Test 2: You can see how this works yourself. Take the slide off your glock. Push the trigger bar forward until the trigger resets. Now, while holding the trigger bar, push the trigger safety in and gently let the trigger bar back against the spring pressure until the sear comes to rest against the disconnector. If you have the regular 5 lb disconnector, the sear will probably "perch" here, with the sear pressing against the angled disconnector. This is the position where the trigger is "staged," except there's no striker spring pushing in the opposite direction. Very lightly tap the gun on any hard surface, in any direction, and the sear will slip off and be completely disengaged. (If the gun had been dropped that hard, it would still be vibrating. The sear would, in all likelihood, slip due to the vibration, if the extra inertia of the parts wasn't enough). You will see the trigger go fully back and the sear drop down and out of the way of the striker engagement surface. It will not reengage until the disconnector is pushed out of the way by the slide. Until the gun is next cycled, all safety systems are disabled.

If your glock has a 4 lb disconnector, it might go all the way back from the start. That precarious 45 degree perch is now an even more glancing angle.

This is almost identical to what would happen if the gun were to fall on the back of the slide with enough force to send the striker all the way back. The only other significant impediment to trigger travel would be the force needed to push the firing pin safety up.

The type of person that would remove the trigger safety is also more likely to change out to a lighter sear and even a lighter striker spring. That makes the gun even less drop-safe.

 

[j1]

I really do wonder why you are asking that here?

 

[balance 740]

Somebody should call the vast majority of polymer striker fired pistol manufacturers and tell them that they could all save money by no longer designing pistols with "trigger safeties", as they are all as useless as this thread.

It is a safety feature.

To think that almost every polymer striker fired pistol manufacturer, on almost every polymer striker fired pistol design, got this safety feature wrong, is pretty ridiculous IMO. To advise that it is just as safe without the drop safety on the trigger, without doing extensive drop testing, is just as ridiculous, IMO, considering that if you are wrong, a lot of bad can happen to whoever or whatever is in range of that pistol if it is dropped and it goes off.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

Thanks GLOOB I did not know any of that information. That is good stuff. Thank you for correcting me.

GLOOB pointed out that because of how a Glock is designed it needs to have the trigger safety in order to allow the trigger bar to remain in the forward position while the slide cycles to allow the safety mechanisms work properly. But, that wasn't what the OP was trying to discuss.

I would like to stress that the OP explicitly stated:

Note that this is not a "I have a Glock and I duct taped the trigger safety so it's always off am I an idiot lol?" but more a question of curiosity.

He was discussing the idea of how safe a Glock would be if it was designed without the trigger safety. In other words, it would be designed to work properly with a single-piece trigger. And this quote reinforces that position:

So how dangerous would a Glock be without that trigger safety? Or any striker fired pistol, assuming a ~6# trigger pull? Many say that the trigger safety doesn't prevent the trigger from being pulled anyway, as it requires you to pull the trigger to deactivate it.

So, my point was that if a striker fired pistol was designed without a lever on the trigger like Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, et cetera it would be just as safe if it was designed with one.

The OP was basically asking if a gun like a Sig P320 (in the normal configuration from the factory) is any less safe than a Glock (or similar pistol with a trigger safety) in the normal configuration from the factory.

I assert that neither one is safer than the other.

@balance 740: Yes, I don't mind telling nearly every single striker fired pistol manufacturer that the trigger safety lever was a mistake and they should have designed them like the P320 ages ago before it came out. I do advise that the P320 is just as safe as a Glock. I am not advising people to disable any safety on their gun especially if it needs it in order for the gun to function properly.

This thread was a design discussion, not a home-gunsmith discussion.

Of course I could be way off and the OP is free to correct me if I misinterpreted what the OP said.

 

[balance 740]

@balance 740: Yes, I don't mind telling nearly every single striker fired pistol manufacturer that the trigger safety lever was a mistake and they should have designed them like the P320 ages ago before it came out. I do advise that the P320 is just as safe as a Glock.

To this I'd ask, what makes you think so, and how was it a mistake?

The Steyr M9 doesn't have a firing pin block safety design like the vast majority of striker fired pistols do. Does this mean that the FPB is also unnecessary, because one manufacturer hasn't incorporated it into one of their designs?

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4211841

The manufacturers saw enough reason to add an extra part in their design to act as a safety feature. I think it is irresponsible to state that it is useless, unnecessary, or anything of the sort, unless you have done extensive drop tests on the pistol or pistols that you claim to have unnecessary safety components.

Glock pistols have a blade in the trigger. On S&W M&P pistols, the bottom half of the trigger pivots. On the Walther P99 AS, the entire trigger pivots. All accomplish the same thing, and since all are considered to be drop safeties according to their manufacturers, I'm assuming none were put there to stop the sides of the trigger from being pulled, as some posts on this thread seem to indicate. The fact that the vast majority of polymer striker fired pistols use this safety feature should be enough to at least caution anyone from removing this feature from the design.

The Sig P320 is a new design. I haven't seen anyone take one apart yet, and I haven't seen any parts diagrams showing the internal components yet. I have no idea if it has a drop safety or not.

 

[barnbwt]

"So, my point was that if a striker fired pistol was designed without a lever on the trigger like Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, et cetera it would be just as safe if it was designed with one."
Smartass . You're absolutely right, of course . Were the Glock not designed with a trigger dingus, it would doubtless have dongle on the slide, a mucket on the frame, or widget on the grip somewhere. That device would doubtless perform the exact same mechanical function in locking the trigger that the dingus does currently. I suspect there are probably early Gaston Glock patents to that effect, too , which were found less elegant than the...thing...they ended up with (the first glock was number 17, right?)

The dingus is the "backward" drop safety, the firing pin block is the "forward" drop safety, by the sounds of it. Cover those bases, and you're pretty well covered

"Well, my argument is that it is virtually 0% effective. To reiterate, anything that gets inside the trigger guard and is sturdy enough to exert five pounds of force on the trigger is also thick enough that it will depress the Glock trigger safety (e.g. a branch). So, the trigger safety might as well not even be there."
Preach. Putting both safeties on the same lever means that deactivating one deactivates the other. That's not to say neither is less effective at what it does because of that, but it reduces the number of stars that must align for an accidental discharge (same no. of stars for a negligent discharge as always ). People think that because the lever is on the trigger, it must be a trigger safety that keeps it from being pulled (despite being where it would be pulled regardless). It's not; it sounds like it's really a reverse drop safety, since striker guns need to be both forward and backward drop safe.

But that's not the same as the safety "not being there." If something else kept the transfer bar and striker from jouncing backward in a fall, it would then be unneeded.

TCB