How dangerous would a Glock be sans trigger safety?

[iMagUdspEllr]

@balance 740:

I did say

...nearly every single striker fired pistol manufacturer...

But, a design with a trigger safety is a mistake because it doesn't stop the trigger from being pulled if something snags it (because most things that would snag on the trigger would disable the trigger safety in the process).

Your Steyr M9 argument is a straw man because I am pretty sure it was clear that I stated the trigger safety lever was a mistake... not firing pin blocks. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not X model has X safety or not. My argument is that the point of a safety is for it to prevent the gun from firing when you don't want it to. My point about a trigger safety is that it doesn't stop a gun from firing when you don't want it to.

GLOOB pointed out that the Glock design needs the trigger safety because they designed the pistol to use the trigger safety to hold the trigger bar in the forward position while the gun cycles. If the trigger bar isn't held in the forward position while the slide cycles the firing pin block and drop safety will not be engaged as they should. At least that is my understanding of what he said.

I would also like to repeat that the OP was asking about how safe a gun intended to not have a safety lever on the trigger was. That has nothing to do with disabling safeties on designs that are designed to have them. So, you are talking about something beside the point of discussion.

To be absolutely clear (because I have to repeat myself in a text-based medium for some strange reason). I think anyone who owns a gun designed to have a trigger safety should leave it as configured from the factory (especially the safety features).

Now, as far as the OP's point of discussion, a gun designed without a trigger safety is just as safe as one that is designed with one. To support this argument of mine (for I guess the third time now) I would like to point out that anything that snags the trigger will nearly 100% of the time also snag the trigger safety lever also (which defeats the purpose of having a trigger safety). I have asked other people to give an example of something that would snag the trigger but not snag the trigger safety also. Nobody has cared to respond to that request.

So, I'm not talking about disabling safeties on existing designs. I'm talking about how companies should have never designed their guns with a trigger safety if they could have helped it.

At least Glock does not classify the trigger safety as a drop safety. The Glock's drop safety is it's drop safety.

Glock Safe Action

GLOOB pointed out that if the slide cycles with the trigger safety disabled the gun will not function properly because the trigger bar will move rearward with the slide which will cause the other two safeties to be deactivated. But, again, this is besides the point the OP wanted to discuss. Neither the OP or myself are talking about disabling safeties on currently manufactured guns. We are discussing whether or not it would be so bad if these guns were designed without these safeties from the beginning.

The Sig website states that the Sig P320 has a striker safety (i.e. firing pin block) not sure about what else. But, I would be surprised if Sig decided to make a gun to compete with other striker fired pistols and not make it drop safe like the rest of them.

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.

I never claimed that. Straw man. I am claiming that if you make a gun without one it would be just as safe as the designs that do have them. I am confident that a company can make a gun drop-safe without the stupid trigger safety many striker pistols have. Actually, they did. Colt series 80. They put firing pin blocks in them so you could drop them without the firing pin freely slamming into the primer. I don't see why a company couldn't do the same with a striker design. Yes, I know the 1911 has a grip safety and a manual thumb safety that physically blocks the path of the hammer. But, blocking the striker is all you have to do on a striker fired pistol. Anyway, it looks like Sig has done it. But, yes, I will have to wait for a manual or a diagram to know for sure.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@barnbtw: Thank you barnbtw. I am glad someone actually understood what I was saying.

 

[JohnKSa]

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.

Well, not exactly.

For one thing the trigger safety does not cover the entire front surface of the trigger, it is only at the center line of the bottom 2/3 of the trigger. So it's not true that "anything that gets inside the trigger guard" can activate the trigger safety. It's not even true that anything that snags on the trigger can activate the trigger safety since it doesn't cover the entire front of the trigger.

Second, if something VERY stiff hits the front of the trigger and engages the trigger safety then it would set the gun off. However, if something with some initial yield to it (something that will flex or give a little initially) gets against the front of the trigger, there's a tendency for it to ride up the curve of the trigger to the top. You can verify this pretty easily if you have a Glock (or similar design) on hand. Having a snagging object ride up the curve of the trigger is very good. Something pressing on the upper third of the trigger can't operate the trigger since the trigger safety is only on the lower two thirds.

Third, if you look at the Glock trigger guard width compared to the trigger thickness, and then compare that to other pistols, it's clear that the wider than average trigger guard provides extra protection against things getting into the trigger guard in the first place

None of that will absolutely prevent a trigger snag from setting off a Glock, but it's actually a pretty well-designed system and one that's not so easy to improve upon without going to a completely different operating system. Ruger found that out when they released their first SR series pistol with a different trigger safety design and then had to recall it and re-release it with a Glock style trigger safety.

Finally, as others have pointed out, it's true that the trigger safety isn't primarily designed to defeat snags. The primary purpose is to insure that the trigger bar doesn't move when the gun is subjected to impacts. That's a pretty critical function since the other two passive safeties depend on the trigger bar being locked in place when the gun isn't supposed to fire.

But, a design with a trigger safety is a mistake because it doesn't stop the trigger from being pulled if something snags it (because most things that would snag on the trigger would disable the trigger safety in the process).

It's not a mistake. It may be a design tradeoff that you wouldn't have made had you been the designer, but that's not the same thing as a mistake.

The fact that you think it should make the trigger completely snag proof instead of just snag resistant doesn't mean that it doesn't do what the designer intended. It just means that your idea of what it should do is different from the designer's.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@JohnKSa: You are describing some sort of object that gets in the trigger guard. Do you mind telling me what it is? Several people have alluded to some object that meets the criteria... but none of them have actually named it. Why? I'm begging you to give me an example.

None of that will absolutely prevent a trigger snag from setting off a Glock, but it's actually a pretty well-designed system and one that's not so easy to improve upon without going to a completely different operating system.

It is pretty easy to improve upon. Don't use a trigger safety and don't use the trigger bar to deactivate the drop safety and firing pin safety.

Ruger SR9 Recall

In 2008, we determined that some Ruger SR9 pistols manufactured between October 2007 and April 2008 could, under certain conditions, fire if dropped with their manual safeties in the "off" or "fire" position. The pistols will not fire if the manual safety is in the "on" or "safe" position.

The Ruger SR9 would not fire if the manual safety was on before the recall. So, I don't see why they couldn't design it so that it wouldn't fire with the manual safety off without using the Glock design. The reason why they didn't is probably because they were rushing to correct the safety hazard so why not copy Glock? Colt Series 80s managed to do it. And, truly, all you need to do is block the firing pin/striker from moving forward and you are good to go. I don't see that requiring a completely different "operating system" (by that I assume you mean SA, TDA, DAO, striker, etc.). Berettas and others have managed to make their guns drop-safe without a trigger safety with firing pin blocks alone. They did this by designing the trigger bar to actuate a separate lever that would move the firing pin block out of the way once the trigger bar was pulled far enough to the rear. The trigger spring and mainspring held the trigger bar in the forward position. So... just do something similar in a striker fired pistol and there you go.

That's a pretty critical function since the other two passive safeties depend on the trigger bar being locked in place when the gun isn't supposed to fire.

Which is why I think it is a poor design. As a whole it is a good design, I just think they should have come up with another way to block the firing pin from moving if dropped (like many other companies have).

It's not a mistake. It may be a design tradeoff that you wouldn't have made had you been the designer, but that's not the same thing as a mistake.

The fact that you think it should make the trigger completely snag proof instead of just snag resistant doesn't mean that it doesn't do what the designer intended. It just means that your idea of what it should do is different from the designer's.

Not pursuing a better alternative design is a mistake in my eyes. Something with a mediocre design performing as intended is still a mediocre design. Which designs are good or bad is relative to what kinds of other designs are out there. But, I do understand what you are trying to say.

I only ask if you see how there are many different ways a gun can be made drop-safe and it doesn't rely on a particular "operating system" to make it that way and it doesn't require a trigger safety? That is just what Glock came up with and other companies copied it.

 

[Nom de Forum]

iMagUdspEllr,

Sometimes I am really glad to be away from a thread long enough for someone else to do the heavy lifting of making more detailed explanations. Before my first post others explained how the trigger safety functions as a drop safety. JohnKsa has now in detail sufficiently explained how the trigger safety functions to reduce inadvertent activation of the trigger. So do you get it now? I only ask because you asked if I had examples to support my claim. Do I still need to provide those or is what JohnKsa provided sufficient to prevent further exposure of the foolishness of asserting that the Glock's trigger safety is irrelevant? You implied comparison of the drop safety of a Series 80 to a Glock is ludicrous. Of course you could design a striker fired pistol without a Glock, MP9, etc. trigger safety but Skibs’ question being addressed is “So how dangerous would a Glock be without that trigger safety?”. We all but you essentially answered: Unnecessarily dangerous. Do you now understand why?

 

[Nom de Forum]

Good Grief!

@JohnKSa: You are describing some sort of object that gets in the trigger guard. Do you mind telling me what it is? Several people have alluded to some object that meets the criteria... but none of them have actually named it. Why? I'm begging you to give me an example.

A drawstring loop on a jacket that contacts only the bottom of the trigger. Any rigid projection (branch, cabinet knob, etc.) a user passes while holding the pistol that partially engages the bottom or side of the trigger. These are example where the trigger safety reduces the possibility of inadvertent activation of the the trigger by a foreign object. It also reduces the possibility of an N.D. from unintended partial contact of the trigger by the trigger finger.

It is pretty easy to improve upon. Don't use a trigger safety and don't use the trigger bar to deactivate the drop safety and firing pin safety.

Ruger SR9 Recall

The Ruger SR9 would not fire if the manual safety was on before the recall. So, I don't see why they couldn't design it so that it wouldn't fire with the manual safety off without using the Glock design. The reason why they didn't is probably because they were rushing to correct the safety hazard so why not copy Glock? Colt Series 80s managed to do it. And, truly, all you need to do is block the firing pin/striker from moving forward and you are good to go. I don't see that requiring a completely different "operating system" (by that I assume you mean SA, TDA, DAO, striker, etc.). Berettas and others have managed to make their guns drop-safe without a trigger safety with firing pin blocks alone. They did this by designing the trigger bar to actuate a separate lever that would move the firing pin block out of the way once the trigger bar was pulled far enough to the rear. The trigger spring and mainspring held the trigger bar in the forward position. So... just do something similar in a striker fired pistol and there you go.

Which is why I think it is a poor design. As a whole it is a good design, I just think they should have come up with another way to block the firing pin from moving if dropped (like many other companies have).

Not pursuing a better alternative design is a mistake in my eyes. Something with a mediocre design performing as intended is still a mediocre design. Which designs are good or bad is relative to what kinds of other designs are out there. But, I do understand what you are trying to say.

I only ask if you see how there are many different ways a gun can be made drop-safe and it doesn't rely on a particular "operating system" to make it that way and it doesn't require a trigger safety? That is just what Glock came up with and other companies copied it.

Great, now we know your opinion on something this thread is not specifically about. Why don't you start a new thread and give us the details of your new safety design. I am sure it will be interesting. The rest of us are content to have correctly answered the question asked with facts. Your post strikes me as an attempt to obfuscate that fact.

 

[fiftybmg]

@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?

Trolling is done by people talking about fishing hooks pulling triggers, that do not own a Glock.

 

[fiftybmg]

@iMagUdspEllr

The question of wether a Glock needs a trigger safety or not, is a valid discussion point, and the answer is 'Yes, it does'.

When we expand the discussion to include design, then we muddy the waters between what a design needs, and what is a good design.

The Glock is designed to work with a trigger safety. To re-design it without a trigger safety changes the internal workings of the pistol, to the point where it may no longer be Glock.

Almost universally, modern polymer striker-fired pistols have a trigger safety similar to Glock, and where they do not, they have a de-cocker, such as the MR Eagle 9mm and 40.

You will also find that with modern polymer pistols, where there is no trigger safety, or no de-cocker, the trigger is DOA, or at least first shot DA. This is a design issue, relating to safety.

Does a semi auto pistol need a trigger safety ? Does it need a de-cocker ? What safety features compliment each other, and which exclude each other. These are design issues, relating to safety.

Do you want safety ? Do you consider the only valid safety to be between your ears ? If so, that is another issue, not relating to pistol design, but keep in mind that no amount of grey matter ever prevented an accidental discharge.

 

[fiftybmg]

@iMagUdspEllr

" But, a design with a trigger safety is a mistake because it doesn't stop the trigger from being pulled if something snags it (because most things that would snag on the trigger would disable the trigger safety in the process). "

No, it is not, and no, it would not in every case. In snagging, the trigger safety will need to be depressed first.

You're not comparing apples with apples.

The trigger safety is not a safety catch, it's there to prevent the trigger from unintentionally being pulled, to reduce the chance of an accidental discharge.

A Glock does not have a safety catch. It has safety mechanisms.

There is a difference between a trigger safety and a safety-catch trigger block. Only the trigger block [ 1911, Beretta 92, H&K etc. ] is completely snag-proof, if it is engaged.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Here is the simplest reason why the Trigger Safety significantly reduces the chances of the Trigger/Trigger Safety Assembly being pulled.

Total Front Surface Area of the combined Trigger/Trigger Safety Assembly - Total Frontal Surface of Trigger = Total Front Surface of Trigger Safety

The Total Front Surface of the Trigger Safety is significantly smaller than the Total Front Surface Area of the Trigger/Trigger Safety Assembly. The Trigger Safety must be pulled to fire the Glock. A smaller surface is inherently more difficult for a object to contact than a larger surface. The Trigger Safety significantly and sufficiently reduces the inadvertent discharge of the Glock by an object inside the trigger guard.

 

[G29SF]

I see there are still folks who don't get it.

Hint: it isn't about fish-hooks. Go back and read about gravity, inertia, sudden stops, etc.

 

[wally]

Hint: it isn't about fish-hooks. Go back and read about gravity, inertia, sudden stops, etc.

If F = mA with A exceeding 50+g (at 50g onces turn into multiple pounds!) don't make it clear what can happen, nothing will, until some yahoo removes it, drops the gun muzzle up and the bullet hits some one. Muzzle up discharges are far more dangerous that muzzle down, but bullets or fragments flying around at random will never do good things.

I take drop safety of firearms very seriously as a cousin was instantly killed in a hunting accident when a loaded shotgun was dropped.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Nom de Forum:

This thread isn't about whether or not a Glock as designed today needs a trigger safety or not. The thread is about whether or not a Glock (or similar pistol) would be any less safe if it was designed without one.

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.

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.

Got it? I understand that some people in this thread have decided to derail the thread and turn it into an opportunity to rabidly defend the fact that Glocks (as designed today) should not ever have their trigger safety disabled. So, probably for the fifth time now, realize that IS NOT what this thread is about. Please actually read the OP's post. Please engage in discussion concerning the pros and cons of a design without a trigger safety vs one with a trigger safety.

I have understood what you have been saying for a very long time. You just refuse to actually discuss the thread topic. I can tell you aren't even reading what I'm typing because you would have at least said, "No, this thread is about this." When I quoted Skribs several posts ago. But, you are just now actually responding to that. Please, actually read what I am saying. I am thoroughly reading and addressing what you are saying. Please offer me the same courtesy. Much time has been wasted because of this.

I never said the Glock's safety is irrelevant. I'm saying that Glocks, M&Ps, XD, et cetera should have been designed without it. I am saying the designers of those guns should have found another way to make their guns drop-safe like other designers have.

Skibs’ question being addressed is “So how dangerous would a Glock be without that trigger safety?”. We all but you essentially answered: Unnecessarily dangerous. Do you now understand why?

I understand that all of you misunderstood what Skribs was asking. He explicitly stated that he wasn't asking about disabling the safety on current designs. He was asking a theoretical question about what if Glocks et cetera were designed without one. I have understood exactly what all of you have been saying. But, for some reason none of you want to listen when I try to explain to you that you aren't on topic.

A drawstring loop on a jacket that contacts only the bottom of the trigger. Any rigid projection (branch, cabinet knob, etc.) a user passes while holding the pistol that partially engages the bottom or side of the trigger.

I don't wear jackets with drawstrings but I can see how that might be a concern for some people. Wouldn't the trigger guard push the drawstring away from the trigger? The unintentional partial trigger contact makes sense to me. A branch would deactivate the trigger safety if it got inside the trigger guard. A cabinet knob makes sense... but I don't normally slide my pistol along my cabinet's doors when it is out of the holster and the trigger is protected inside the holster. Thank you for actually responding to what I said. It really helps move the discussion along when we do that. I really, truly thank you for having a two-way conversation with me at this point.

Great, now we know your opinion on something this thread is not specifically about. Why don't you start a new thread and give us the details of your new safety design. I am sure it will be interesting. The rest of us are content to have correctly answered the question asked with facts. Your post strikes me as an attempt to obfuscate that fact.

Actually you have that backwards. Please read the OP or what I quoted from the OP. This is the crux of the miscommunication right here. You are content with giving the answer you wanted to give rather than actually discussing what the OP wanted to discuss.

Total Front Surface Area of the combined Trigger/Trigger Safety Assembly - Total Frontal Surface of Trigger = Total Front Surface of Trigger Safety

Absolutely true. The problem is that in reality objects that get in the trigger guard tend to depress both the trigger safety and the trigger. As long as you aren't wearing a coat with drawstrings, pushing your pistol against cabinet knobs, or pulling the trigger on the side (but not on the trigger safety) then the trigger safety serves no purpose. I have no idea why you would unintentionally pull the trigger only on the side. If you lose awareness I would think that you would naturally let your whole finger curl around the trigger... not unnaturally crinkle your finger so that just the tip of your finger contacts the side of the trigger. If that is all you were trying to argue then I concede. I totally give up on that front if all you are trying to say is that a trigger safety stops a negligent discharge 1% (or some small percentage) of the time, cool. But, my argument is that small percentage is a joke and it ruins the ergonomics of the trigger. This affects accuracy... which is important to me. Missing a vital organ, the bad guy, or hitting a bystander isn't worth that iota of safety (imo).

I also assert that those things wouldn't happen because people don't slide their guns against cabinets and they don't crinkle their fingers unnaturally when they aren't paying attention. Or they would be very rare: a drawstring not getting pushed aside by the trigger guard... yet still finding a way to hook the trigger? I don't think I need to buy a jacket with a drawstring and film myself repeatedly holstering a Glock with the drawstring exposed at various lengths, and then post it on YouTube to prove that the trigger guard will just push the drawstring out of the way. Also, that event is avoidable if you just don't wear jackets with draw strings.

@fiftybmg: I do own a Glock 19 and I was discussing what the OP wanted to discuss... not whatever I felt like... like many people in this thread decided to do.

You will also find that with modern polymer pistols, where there is no trigger safety, or no de-cocker, the trigger is DOA, or at least first shot DA. This is a design issue, relating to safety.

Just because X was what was done doesn't mean that is the only way it could have been done. Gun companies are under pressure from a lot of angles to make things a certain way. Designing a gun is a big investment and it would suck if either A) It isn't what civilians are used to so they don't like it B) The government decides it isn't safe enough for duty use or some other circumstance. That would put the engineers who designed it and the company who manufactured it in a tough spot.

Does a semi auto pistol need a trigger safety ? Does it need a de-cocker ? What safety features compliment each other, and which exclude each other. These are design issues, relating to safety.

Well the question is indeed whether or not a trigger safety is needed in a striker fired pistol design. I assert that it isn't needed for all of the reasons I have already stated. Thank you for actually addressing what I have said.

Do you want safety ? Do you consider the only valid safety to be between your ears ? If so, that is another issue, not relating to pistol design, but keep in mind that no amount of grey matter ever prevented an accidental discharge.

This is beside the point of the OP's discussion. But, I do want safety. The question is whether or not having a striker fired pistol design with a trigger safety actually makes it safer than one designed without one or not. Nothing prevents accidental discharges. They happen when the gun fails and the user wasn't the reason why the gun failed (part broke or whatever). Safeties are intended to prevent negligent discharges. But, negligent discharges only happen when your grey matter fails (which is your fault... not the gun's). I can see why some people would want their gun to compensate for their lack of trigger discipline. I get it. I can get behind that. But, the negligence is still on the user. You choose to not pull the trigger when you shouldn't all the time. Of course there have been instances where the user has failed to use their brain, but thankfully the thumb safety was on or what have you. But, truly, the only thing that is actually stopping a gun in someone's hands from firing is grey matter. There will be a point in time where the user deactivates the safeties (to make it ready to fire... because that is the idea) and then the user pulls the trigger when they shouldn't. Any safety can't do anything to stop that. But, at least a thumb safety isn't deactivated via the negligent action of pulling the trigger when you don't mean to (assuming the user hasn't already deactivated the thumb safety). This is why I find the idea of a trigger safety to be silly. Doing the thing that causes the gun to fire deactivates it. Pointless in the role of stopping the user from doing something stupid.

I'm pro trigger discipline myself. I'm not a fan of DA/SA, DAO, or thumb safeties. Trigger safeties are the safety I dislike the least. But, I'm still not a fan. It doesn't matter how many safeties are on the gun. I will deactivate them and it will be my fault if I fire the gun when I shouldn't. It will not be the gun's fault for its lack of safety features (because regardless of how many it has... they will be deactivated so that I can use the gun). But, this is beside the point. The point is: How safe is a design with a trigger safety is versus a design without a trigger safety. I'm saying they are virtually the same as far as safety. Nom de Forum appears to think that they make the gun significantly safer (not slightly, not marginally, but significantly) and I don't agree in that regard.

Safety = safety catch. There is no difference between a safety and a safety catch. I didn't know they had different definitions. There are passive and active safeties (or automatic and manual safeties).

Trigger Block

What are you referring to? Are you referring to the firing pin block/striker block?

@G29SF and wally: Hint: Nobody is talking about disabling safeties on existing designs. Well, except for all the people that wanted to flex their knowledge of Glock safety features instead of discussing what the OP wanted.

 

[Nom de Forum]

iMagUdspEllr,

Here is the text of Skribs' post #1:

How dangerous would a Glock be sans trigger safety?

I own an XDm and a M&P with the APEX trigger. So...not exactly Glocks, but similar enough. Both of these handguns have the same trigger safety that Glock does. Looking at other handguns online, like SR9, Caracal, and Taurus 24/7 pistols, they all have a similar trigger safety. (And, I can't be 100% sure, but it looks like the FNS is similar to the M&P, correct me if I'm wrong...even if I'm wrong, civilians can only get it with a manual safety).

However, even with the trigger safety, most people wouldn't want a lighter trigger than what's already on there (around 5# is the minimum I've seen recommended for carry). It's the same with 1911s - there is a minimum weight you would want, even with the manual safety - to feel comfortable and safe carrying it.

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.

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.

There is nothing in the Skibs’ 1st post differentiating between Glocks as designed today and your hypothetical future Glock or other striker fired pistol designs. How come only you think there is? I have to wonder why Skribs has not modified his thread to reflect what you are asserting it is about. Perhaps it is because the thread is about what everyone else thinks it is about and not what you think it is about.

You are entitled to implying and overtly stating what is in you judgement relevant, irrelevant, significant, insignificant, sufficient, or insufficient. As are all the other people posting in this thread that disagree with your judgement.

I don't think anyone disagreed with you that a striker fired pistol could be designed, with exactly the same trigger pull weight as a Glock, and be just as safe without the trigger safety due to some other device preforming the same function. In fact, I believe barnbwt made that very clear in his post. You are beating a horse everyone knows is dead and does not care about but you. We all agree with you that a Glock style trigger safety is not essential for a striker fired pistol if its function is accomplished by other means.

Skibs question has been asked and answered. Can we all move on?

 

[GLOOB]

GLOOB pointed out that if the slide cycles with the trigger safety disabled the gun will not function properly because the trigger bar will move rearward with the slide which will cause the other two safeties to be deactivated.

No, not at all. Glock will function perfectly fine without a trigger safety, it just won't be drop safe, anymore. The striker safety would not disengage when the slide is manually cycled, because the striker safety is in the slide. When slide is racked, the safety moves back; it stays one step ahead of the trigger bar. The sear would also not disengage, because the disconnector is pushed in when the slide is cycled, so it can't push the sear down. Hence, when you return the slide to battery, the striker will reengage the sear, and the trigger will be pushed back to fully forward. These bad things would happen only if the striker is pulled back while the slide stays in place. This is what would happen if the gun were dropped on the back.

We are discussing whether or not it would be so bad if these guns were designed without these safeties from the beginning.

If this is the question you need answered, I'll tell you. More and more guns will be incorporating a trigger safety, in the future.

1. This is the simplest and most reliable way to ensure that the trigger cannot be pulled by inertia.

2. Today's gun designs aren't all that unique. Most striker fired guns operate very similarly to a Glock. Trigger parts and strker all move to the rear. If you are going to fundamentally change that, you will have to change practically everything. The striker fire design solves a lot of other problems, most notably the cost of manufacture/assembly/service/maintenance. We will just have to wait to see if someone can discover a better way in another hundred years. Having taken apart many firearms (and trying and failing on some!), I can tell you that a minimum wage worker with 1 hour of training can assemble several times as many Glocks in an hour as a skilled worker can put together any modern DA/SA pistol. So yeah, a gun can be designed to not need a trigger safety, but our current choices make the little 5 cent part a very attractive option.

3. You cited the 1911 series 80 trigger safety as an alternative. In fact, the 1911 is also susceptible to inertial trigger pull, as well. If not for the grip safety. So you are trading trigger safety for grip safety.

So on guns that are susceptible to this problem, you will need to invent a new type of safety. The choices we have so far are

A) Trigger safety
B) Grip safety
C) manually applied firing pin safety. Google "HP22" for a laugh.

Obviously, a safety that automatically engages when you drop it is preferred. Hence, we really only have the two choices. I imagine you could make an inertial trigger stop that is completely internal, but then if it gets stuck open, you wouldn't necessarily know it. And if it got stuck closed, well, your gun might be a brick when you need it. So I don't think that's ever going to happen.

The grip safety has its own side benefits of reholstering, etc. The trigger safety has its side benefits of indirect trigger pressures, etc. But those are just side benefits. If they had truly meaningful benefits in terms of preventing certain types of human error, someone would be making a gun with a grip safety AND a trigger safety. It isn't worth the extra manufacturing/assembly costs and parts maintenance. These safeties are a necessary evil to begin with.

 

[Nom de Forum]

If F = mA with A exceeding 50+g (at 50g onces turn into multiple pounds!) don't make it clear what can happen, nothing will, until some yahoo removes it, drops the gun muzzle up and the bullet hits some one. Muzzle up discharges are far more dangerous that muzzle down, but bullets or fragments flying around at random will never do good things.

I take drop safety of firearms very seriously as a cousin was instantly killed in a hunting accident when a loaded shotgun was dropped.

Was that shotgun by any chance a Winchester 97? The same thing happened in Pennsylvania during the 1920s to a relative of mine.

 

[wally]

Was that shotgun by any chance a Winchester 97? The same thing happened in Pennsylvania during the 1920s to a relative of mine.

I was only about seven at the time and honestly have no idea, what I remember the most was nobody blamed the gun or the ammo or was looking for anyone to sue, all anyone did was cry and wonder why they'd failed to unload the guns before crossing the fence as they'd been taught to do.

People will screw up sometimes, its nice when a mechanical device can give them a second chance!

 

[Nom de Forum]

Examples:






The drawstring loop is on the side of my Goretex windbreaker for tightening the wind/snow skirt. It is located directly above my belt holster. No I don't put all my trust in the trigger safety to prevent an N.D. I pay very close attention to holstering.

 

[Nom de Forum]

People will screw up sometimes, its nice when a mechanical device can give them a second chance!

Especially a device they do not have to remember to engage, since it was forgetting that caused both tragedies. From my 99 year old grandmother I was told the Win 97 was dropped due to a loss of footing during deer hunting. It was her uncle that was killed. He had the hammer back when he did not need to. I have a Win 97, not the same one, and never forget this when handling it.

 

[balance 740]

My argument is that the point of a safety is for it to prevent the gun from firing when you don't want it to. My point about a trigger safety is that it doesn't stop a gun from firing when you don't want it to.

It is a drop safety, first and foremost.

That is all it is there to do.

Arguing that the drop safety is there to stop things from snagging on the side of the trigger, is like arguing that the FPB is there to make the trigger pull heavier. It may accomplish this, but this was not its primary purpose for being there.

This doesn't seem to be getting through.

Please get in contact with, and ask the manufacturer, what the "trigger safety" actually does. Please ask if it has anything to do with inertia, because I can assure you that it does.

To say it is unnecessary, or a mistake, without doing extensive testing to prove this, is irresponsible. It is a drop safety. Ask a Glock armorer.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It is a drop safety, first and foremost.

That is all it is there to do.

Arguing that the drop safety is there to stop things from snagging on the side of the trigger, is like arguing that the FPB is there to make the trigger pull heavier. It may accomplish this, but this was not its primary purpose for being there.

This doesn't seem to be getting through.

Please get in contact with, and ask the manufacturer, what the "trigger safety" actually does. Please ask if it has anything to do with inertia, because I can assure you that it does.

To say it is unnecessary, or a mistake, without doing extensive testing to prove this, is irresponsible. It is a drop safety. Ask a Glock armorer.

I became a Glock Armorer in 1991. Perhaps the explanation of the functions of the trigger safety has changed since then. The class I attended was in Salisbury, MD. The trigger safety is primarily a drop safety but it also functions to reduce unintended pulling of the trigger. To deny this is a function is the same as denying that the camming action of a mauser bolt action, in addition to its primary function of locking/unlocking the breach, also functions to create primary and secondary extraction to prevent the safety issue of single movement extraction ripping off the extractor from cartridge's extraction grove or tearing through. Both functions are important, even if one function is more far more important than the other.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Nom de Forum:

Really?

What Skribs said:

So how dangerous would a Glock be without that trigger safety? Or any striker fired pistol, assuming a ~6# trigger pull?... 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.

My interpretation:

'How dangerous would a Glock or any striker fired pistol be without the trigger safety. This is not a, 'I duct taped the trigger safety to it's always off. Am I an idiot?' but more a question out of curiosity.'

Your interpretation:

'If I duct tape the Glock trigger safety how dangerous would it be?'

Just because all of you said what you said, doesn't mean that is what Skribs was talking about. I, of course, could be way off base and Skribs could have been asking about what you are talking about, but just reading his words tells me otherwise. Argumentum ad populum.

Skribs has not modified his thread to reflect what you are asserting it is about. Perhaps it is because the thread is about what everyone else thinks it is about and not what you think it is about.

Post #14

I wasn't planning on messing with the safety on my Glock(-type pistol). I was more wondering if it was necessary for all the new striker-fired pistols that are coming out to have one, or if they're just doing it because Glock does and it's more acceptable that way.

Skribs did clarify himself. I have been polite by repeating myself several times. But, for some reason that doesn't make any difference.

You see, even if I made another thread you would twist it into a chance for you to repeat like a broken record, "Don't disable the Glock trigger safety. It is dangerous and irresponsible." because that is what you did to Skribs thread that was already about the topic I wanted to discuss.

I'm confident this post will have no affect on your stubbornness.

I don't think anyone disagreed with you...

Ignoring what I said and adamantly asserting that Glocks are dangerous with the trigger safety disabled is not disagreeing with me, no.

We all agree with you that a Glock style trigger safety is not essential for a striker fired pistol if its function is accomplished by other means.

First I saw it other than Barnbtw. Thank you. I'm glad we are actually on the same page.

Can we all move on?

This wouldn't have been so hard if you would have just listened to me and responded to what I said.

So the drawstring on your Goretex commonly gets inside the trigger guard as shown in the picture? Or did you place artificially place it there? I don't blame you for being safe and being very careful holstering while wearing that jacket. I would do the same thing. I'm just not seeing how that drawstring is going to end up inside the trigger guard while you are sliding the Glock down into the holster. I imagine I would grab my jacket, move it to the side, and then holster the Glock. But, if you are telling me the Glock's trigger safety saved you from a ND from the drawstring. Then I believe you.

@GLOOB: Sorry for misunderstanding you. I was just saying the Glock no longer functions properly (imo) because if the trigger safety is deactivated the drop safety doesn't work anymore. I understand that the gun will fire and function properly otherwise. Did I get it right that time?

So you think most companies are just going to take the easy way out instead of coming up with something better? I don't see why you can't put the five cent part somewhere else. And I don't mind paying a little more than five cents more for a better design.

The series 80 1911s were drop-safe due to the firing pin block... not because of the grip safety or manual thumb safety. Correct? Earlier 1911 designs already had those safeties and they weren't drop-safe. But, it sounds like you are basically telling me that XDs could have gotten away without the trigger safety because it already has a grip safety and firing pin block (striker block) just like the series 80 Colts.

XDs have grip safeties and trigger safeties. So it seems it was worth the extra manufacturing and assembly costs.

balance 740:

Did you check out that link?

http://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

No, that isn't all it is there to do according to Glock. Thank you for your time.

 

[Nom de Forum]

iMagUdspEllr,

I stand corrected. He did modify the thread. That being said your interpretation of the initial post is nonsense. You presumption of my interpretation of the the initial thread is insulting.

So, is the trigger safety necessary? Yes it is unless it is put somewhere else and given a different name. Since most manufactures don't seem to be doing that, they must have concluded the trigger safety is necessary for more than mere function.

Do you really require me to create a perfect recreation of a possible scenario where the trigger safety prevents my jacket drawstring loop from firing a Glock? That would be an unreasonable request. Your baiting me to falsely claim an incident where the trigger safety prevented me from having an N.D. is a type of trolling and not appreciated around here. Wise up.

 

[GLOOB]

I did not know the XD had a grip safety AND a trigger safety. I stand corrected.

The series 80 1911s were drop-safe due to the firing pin block... not because of the grip safety or manual thumb safety. Correct?

Not exactly. The firing pin block stops the gun from firing when dropped on the muzzle. This firing pin block is deactivated by a trigger pull. Functionally, it is very similar to the striker block on a Glock. If you were to tape down the grip safety on a 1911, it could theoretically discharge if it were to land muzzle up, hard enough to make the trigger move back. I am not entirely sure if this is likely or not, in practice; I'm not that familiar with the workings of a 1911. On a Glock without a trigger safety, such an AD is highly likely, close to 100%, meaning once a certain speed and impact is reached, the gun WILL fire practically every time.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I did not know the XD had a grip safety AND a trigger safety. I stand corrected.


Not exactly. The firing pin block stops the gun from firing when dropped on the muzzle. This firing pin block is deactivated by a trigger pull. Functionally, it is very similar to the striker block on a Glock. If you were to tape down the grip safety on a 1911, it could theoretically discharge if it were to land muzzle up, hard enough to make the trigger move back. I am not entirely sure if this is likely or not, in practice; I'm not that familiar with the workings of a 1911. On a Glock without a trigger safety, such an AD is highly likely, close to 100%, meaning once a certain speed and impact is reached, the gun WILL fire practically every time.

Those Series 80 grip safeties are rarely "taped" down but they have been "pinned" down. Another bad idea. Kinda like removing the trigger safety on a Glock.