How dangerous would a Glock be sans trigger safety?

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Nom de Forum:

Wow. You are the one who is insulted? Okay. Forget it. Then I apologize.

Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean that is what is what they concluded. I think I will go with what GLOOB said. They took the easy way out. They copied a cheap and easy design that worked. It is easier to copy than it is to innovate.

No, I don't need you to recreate it. At this point I would accept you telling me that the trigger safety saved you from a drawstring ND (if that honestly happened to you). I'm not baiting you to do anything except be reasonable and honest with me. Level with me. If the trigger safety never saved you and you are having this hard of a time coming up with a common and legitimate example that proves me wrong (not some obscure highly unlikely event), then it looks like the trigger safety isn't so useful just like I have been saying this whole time.

I think it is pretty reasonable for me to say that most things (and the most common things) that get in the trigger guard are going to press the trigger safety and the trigger, not just the trigger. I think you are being unreasonable by claiming the trigger safety significantly (not slightly, not marginally) decreases the chances of an ND when you are having this hard of a time presenting an honest and legitimate counter-example. I'm not trying to tell you to lie. I'm trying to get you to admit that you are grossly exaggerating the usefulness of a trigger safety.

If you don't want to do that, cool. If you think that the trigger safety having the ability to save you from a jacket drawstring counts as "significantly decreasing the chances of having an ND", cool. We will agree to disagree, then. We are done here if that is the case. This has nothing to do with trolling. It is called honesty.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I do not know the XD system very well. I just took a look though. I may be wrong but it appears the grip safety on the XD does not block the trigger from being pulled, it blocks the sear. Doesn't this mean it function like the cruciform in the Glock? So doesn't this mean the XD needs both the trigger safety and the grip safety to do what the Glock does with the a trigger safety and the cruciform? It appears the XD is not a better mouse trap that has a trigger safety as a unnecessary redundancy to appear Glock-like for marketing purposes. Please let me know where I got this wrong.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Nom de Forum: I am not able to open up my XD(M) at this time because I am not in the states, but if the grip safety blocks the sear... how is the gun going to fire if it is dropped? That combined with the striker block is going to prevent the gun from firing, right? I do know that if I press the trigger on my XD(M) without depressing the grip safety it will not fire. But, as soon as I press the grip safety it fires (kinda like a 1911 with the thumb safety off).

I assume that if the gun is dropped and the sear doesn't move because the grip safety is still active... the striker can't hit the primer (because the sear captures the striker to the rear and it doesn't have a path to slip off like in the Glock design.) The striker is captured in a channel that only allows it to move forward and backward and the sear is pinned in place and can only rotate out of the way if the grip safety is depressed and the trigger is pulled.

Wow, and I'm not even that much of a fan of the XDs I don't like how the striker is retained by a roll pin. I don't understand why they put the trigger safety on the XDs.

 

[Nom de Forum]

@Nom de Forum:

Wow. You are the one who is insulted? Okay. Forget it. Then I apologize.

Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean that is what is what they concluded. I think I will go with what GLOOB said. They took the easy way out. They copied a cheap and easy design that worked. It is easier to copy than it is to innovate.

No, I don't need you to recreate it. At this point I would accept you telling me that the trigger safety saved you from a drawstring ND (if that honestly happened to you). I'm not baiting you to do anything except be reasonable and honest with me. Level with me. If the trigger safety never saved you and you are having this hard of a time coming up with a common and legitimate example that proves me wrong (not some obscure highly unlikely event), then it looks like the trigger safety isn't so useful just like I have been saying this whole time.

I think it is pretty reasonable for me to say that most things (and the most common things) that get in the trigger guard are going to press the trigger safety and the trigger, not just the trigger. I think you are being unreasonable by claiming the trigger safety significantly (not slightly, not marginally) decreases the chances of an ND when you are having this hard of a time presenting an honest and legitimate counter-example. I'm not trying to tell you to lie. I'm trying to get you to admit that you are grossly exaggerating the usefulness of a trigger safety.

If you don't want to do that, cool. If you think that the trigger safety having the ability to save you from a jacket drawstring counts as "significantly decreasing the chances of having an ND", cool. We will agree to disagree, then. We are done here if that is the case. This has nothing to do with trolling. It is called honesty.

As posted earlier you are entitled to your judgement of what is significant.

The problem with providing examples of when the trigger safety did function to prevent pulling of trigger is far harder than when it didn't because the end result is far less dramatic and often unnoticed.

Grossly exaggerating? Nope, simple math as previously posted shows how reduction of percentage of area that must receive pressure for an action to occur limits the possibility for sufficient pressure to be exerted to cause that action. Just because the total area of trigger and trigger safety is small it does nothing to change the big percentage differences of what would occur between a trigger and a trigger with a trigger safety.

I agree we need to agree to disagree as we will just be "spinning our wheels getting nowhere fast" if we continue to contribute to this disagreement.

 

[balance 740]

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.

You obviously either ignored the rest of my post, or couldn't find an argument against it.

From the first post:

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.

I don't see "if it was designed without one" anywhere in there.

Nom de Forum, I appreciate the correction. I've discussed this with both Glock and S&W armorers previously, and neither ever mentioned it being anything other than a drop safety.

 

[Nom de Forum]

@Nom de Forum: I am not able to open up my XD(M) at this time because I am not in the states, but if the grip safety blocks the sear... how is the gun going to fire if it is dropped? That combined with the striker block is going to prevent the gun from firing, right? I do know that if I press the trigger on my XD(M) without depressing the grip safety it will not fire. But, as soon as I press the grip safety it fires (kinda like a 1911 with the thumb safety off).

I assume that if the gun is dropped and the sear doesn't move because the grip safety is still active... the striker can't hit the primer (because the sear captures the striker to the rear and it doesn't have a path to slip off like in the Glock design.) The striker is captured in a channel that only allows it to move forward and backward and the sear is pinned in place and can only rotate out of the way if the grip safety is depressed and the trigger is pulled.

Wow, and I'm not even that much of a fan of the XDs I don't like how the striker is retained by a roll pin. I don't understand why they put the trigger safety on the XDs.

From my very limited experience with the XD I did not become a fan. It just does not offer me anything I want. Higher bore axis and grip safeties are not something I desire. As such I have spent virtually no time learning the ins and outs of its system. So I have little interest in further pursuing the topic. Beyond the fact that the design apparently needs a trigger safety because the grip safety is not considered sufficient. If you want to provide all the details fine, but I am not going to research it.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Nom de Forum:

...the design apparently needs a trigger safety because the grip safety is not considered sufficient.

Who said the design NEEDS a trigger safety BECAUSE the grip safety is considered insufficient? Nobody. That is you right there making stuff up especially since you admitted you don't know much about the design. Ever heard of redundancy? You know... for safeties sake? A series 80 colt doesn't need a manual thumb safety. The firing pin block and grip safety cover dropping the gun either on the butt or the muzzle. The manual thumb safety was just kept from the previous design. IF you read the XD(M) manual it states the XD(M) will not fire even if the trigger is pulled so long as the grip safety is not depressed. But, hey, why go any further. You already expressed you aren't interested. It looks like you are back to not listening and not bothering to actually have a discussion. Thank you for sharing how talented you are at avoiding sharing and discussing ideas.

@balance 740:

Here you go:

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.

Also, news flash, many people in the gun community are stupid and blind with pride in their knowledge (or lackthereof) of guns. Armorer or not. I, myself, am guilty in this regard. GLOOB showed me (and please GLOOB... correct me if I'm wrong again) that the trigger safety must not be disabled so that it can hold the trigger bar in the forward position when appropriate. IF the trigger bar isn't in the forward position when the gun is dropped the firing pin block will be deactivated and there is nothing to stop the trigger bar from slipping off of the actual drop safety in the Glock (as defined and illustrated in the link I gave you). Sorry, your armorer friends were oversimplifying.

 

[Nom de Forum]

iMagUdspEllr,

Cool down. Just when I'm starting to like you, you're going to Defcon 3. I will be back in a few hours to reply.

 

[balance 740]

GLOOB showed me (and please GLOOB... correct me if I'm wrong again) that the trigger safety must not be disabled so that it can hold the trigger bar in the forward position when appropriate. IF the trigger bar isn't in the forward position when the gun is dropped the firing pin block will be deactivated and there is nothing to stop the trigger bar from slipping off of the actual drop safety in the Glock (as defined and illustrated in the link I gave you). Sorry, your armorer friends were oversimplifying.

So all this time that I was trying to tell you that it was a drop safety, and thus, necessary for safety when dropped, I should have just told you that it was a drop safety, thus, necessary for safety when dropped.

Next time I won't try to oversimplify it for you.

Goodbye.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

Over your head I'm afraid balance 740. By your logic you might as well call the trigger safety a striker block... even though it isn't. The link I gave you twice shows the drop safety as defined by Glock and it is clearly not the trigger safety by their descriptions or illustrations. The trigger bar moves to deactivate the drop safety and the firing pin block. But it isn't them and neither is the trigger safety attached to it.

 

[barnbwt]

"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."

Yup. The logic stating that "the area of the safety is smaller therefore less likely to be pulled" actually jives with the notion the Glock should have never had the safety lever put there in the first place; 0% area is even smaller . In any case, the % that actually matters is the likelihood of a snag hitting the lever; since it covers a good 1/6th there's a good chance right there, and if you factor in the size of most snagging objects, it's worse. If a pull-cable on a jacket rode up the trigger and didn't fire, it's solely because it had to ride across the safety in the first place; the "safety" was mere chance due to the direction the cable was pulled --hardly something I'd ever put faith in again (and I imagine someone who'd experienced that still doesn't truly expect to be saved that way again, and is thus more careful, though thankful)

While not a real gun or even Glock, my Airsoft MP7 has the same trigger safety, and I'll be darned if it's not hard to imagine a situation that only snags the side of the trigger safety. Smack it hard enough to go off, and you've likely hit the lever, too. Jam something in there, it crosses the lever. I'll be darned-er if I'd have any faith in that safety preventing any given snag-induced discharge, as would any clear thinking person --probably the strongest case against it, since most all of us trust most all other safety designs to keep a gun from firing.

"By your logic you might as well call the striker block a drop safety... even though it isn't"
Um, if the striker could only be dislodged by rearward travel from a drop (and how else could it be?) then that is exactly what I would call the safety. Firing pin block makes it muzzle-down safe, the dingus makes it muzzle-up drop safe. Both/all bases covered as every good pistol design should be.

Perhaps a better term for the Glock dingus is a trigger-mounted transfer bar safety, since that is the real effect of the device; locking down the trigger guts when the gun isn't being fired. Lot of guns do the same thing with a manual safety, Glock just made it spring-loaded and put it in a stupid place

As far as the "original intent" or whatever of the thread;
"Why is a Glock unsafe without the dingus" is a far more interesting topic than
"Would a Glock without the dingus but designed to be just as safe as a Glock with a dingus be less safe than a Glock with a trigger dingus?"

Think about it. Alas, but this thread has started to go south with people quibbling over the names of things instead of focusing on what they do; what are you people, Anti's?

TCB

 

[TAKtical]

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...

this thread in a nutshell

 

[JohnKSa]

You are describing some sort of object that gets in the trigger guard. Do you mind telling me what it is?

I'm describing a TYPE of object because it is the characteristic I provided that makes the difference, not the specific object in question.

One example of a snagging object with some give or flex to it would be a branch that is not so thick or brittle that it won't give or flex. The key isn't WHAT it is, but what characteristic it has.

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.

If you actually read what I said, you will note that your response does not actually address my statement. What I said was: "...one that's not so easy to improve upon without going to a completely different operating system."

Colt Series 80s managed to do it.

Yes, with a completely different operating system.

And, truly, all you need to do is block the firing pin/striker from moving forward and you are good to go.

Saying "truly" in a statement doesn't make it any more valid.

No, simply blocking the firing pin/striker is not enough if the mechanism that blocks the firing pin/striker can be easily deactivated by something as simple as dropping the firearm. That's the situation you would have in a Glock with no trigger safety.

Which is why I think it is a poor design.

Well, since you've demonstrated that you don't fully understand the design, it's a bit much to criticize it as being poor. What you really mean is that you don't like the design. Which is perfectly fine--you're not the only person out there who doesn't like the design. There are lots of guns out there that operate differently for people who share your preferences.

Not pursuing a better alternative design is a mistake in my eyes.

I can see that. Of course, you realize that statement is simply an inflammatory way of stating your preference.

There are lots of gun designers out there and many have chosen alternative designs to the Glock's operating sytems. What you end up with, as a designer, depends on what you start out to make and what requirements you are trying to meet. But as long as it does what it is supposed to, it isn't a mistake just because some folks and/or some designers prefer a different solution.

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?

Of course. There are many different ways to make a gun drop safe. But if your design criteria drive you towards a "Glock like" operating system, the trigger safety is a pretty efficient and elegant solution.

If you go a completely different direction--say towards a hammer-fired approach--then a trigger safety might make no sense at all.

What you're doing here is the rough equivalent of telling a car designer that his design is a mistake because it has four wheels. You tell him that you know this to be true because you ride a motorcycle and it has only two wheels. Of course it's possible to get from one place to another on a vehicle with only two wheels, but that's not proof that the extra two wheels on a car are superfluous. It's just that the car designer is working with a different set of requirements than the motorcycle designer. Neither design is a mistake even though they use very different solutions for what appears to be the same basic problem.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Who said the design NEEDS a trigger safety BECAUSE the grip safety is considered insufficient? Nobody.

That would be me. My name is Nobody. I said it, no one else did. You can get to know me better by going here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_is_Nobody

By the way, I think barnbwt may be an alias for Jack Beauregard.

That is you right there making stuff up especially since you admitted you don't know much about the design.

Come on buddy, there is a big difference in making stuff up and making a legitimate statement of what something appears to be to the person making the statement.

Ever heard of redundancy?

Sure I have. In fact, I think I may have once heard that the trigger safety was not on the pistol as originally conceived. It may have been put on the design later because the cruciform was not considered enough to prevent forward movement of the striker in a very low percentage of probability drop situation. This may be a miss-remembrance, I’ll try to find a reference.

..... IF you read the XD(M) manual it states the XD(M) will not fire even if the trigger is pulled so long as the grip safety is not depressed. But, hey, why go any further. You already expressed you aren't interested. It looks like you are back to not listening and not bothering to actually have a discussion. Thank you for sharing how talented you are at avoiding sharing and discussing ideas.

I ration my research time for projects I consider more important. This is why I posted I did not want to do the research myself. You post, I’ll ask questions. I am more than happy to read anything you post on the XD system.

Also, news flash, many people in the gun community are stupid and blind with pride in their knowledge (or lackthereof) of guns. Armorer or not. I, myself, am guilty in this regard.

Don’t be so hard on yourself or the rest of us for that matter. Most of us, including you are not stupid and blind with pride. You have already demonstrated that in this thread, and so have others as in statements such as “I stand corrected”, “Gloob showed me” “I appreciate the correction”etc.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@JohnKSa: No the actual object really matters. Because, I can come up with characteristics of a mythical and real objects all day long that would be defeated by a trigger safety. But, the problem is that it is unlikely or even nonsensical for a large number of objects to be anywhere near a gun let alone have a chance to make their way inside the trigger guard. Let me illustrate this as clearly as possible:

A screwdriver is a real object. The shaft is thin enough that it won't contact the entire face of the trigger. That allows the screwdriver to possibly miss the trigger safety... which would allow the trigger safety to do its job. But, you see, what in the world is a screwdriver doing anywhere near your trigger guard? Did you throw your Glock in a tool box? The same goes for a knitting needle or any other object with the characteristics you described. The problem isn't so much the what... but the how these objects end up inside the trigger guard. I gave the branch on a bush example because that is the most common thing that I can think of that could realistically make it into the trigger guard (defending a rural property, hunting, etc.). And a branch would defeat the trigger safety.

...without going to a completely different operating system. ...Yes, with a completely different operating system.

No, now it seems like you are choosing to misunderstand me. There is nothing stopping anyone from adding the parts that were added to the colt series 80 to make it drop safe to another design. i.e. The firing pin block and the plunger that deactivates it. That is one example. Another method, Nom de Forum and I started to discuss. Was how the XDs do it. The striker is captured by the sear. The sear is captured by the grip safety and the pin that holds it in place. There is nowhere for the striker to go without the grip safety being depressed because it is captured in the striker channel. Even the trigger can't move far enough to the rear to deactivate the striker block without depressing the grip safety (but that is me going off of memory and looking at the exploded diagram). The "operating system" is irrelevant. You just have to block the striker/firing pin from hitting the primer. It doesn't matter if the gun is hammer-fired, striker fired or otherwise. Guns are pretty similar. They have a thing that hits the primer. Hold that thing in place even when you drop the gun and your mission is accomplished.

Saying "truly" in a statement doesn't make it any more valid.

You are responding to tone. The striker/firing pin strikes the primer and causes the gun to fire. So it seems that it is pretty "true" that if you keep the firing pin/striker captured (yes, even when the gun is dropped, obviously) you are done.

No, simply blocking the firing pin/striker is not enough if the mechanism that blocks the firing pin/striker can be easily deactivated by something as simple as dropping the firearm. That's the situation you would have in a Glock with no trigger safety.

Right, which is why we are talking about designing a firearm that doesn't do that. Making something like the XD series or what the P320 seems to be (I have to wait to see a manual or look at it in person). This is the situation that we have with a Glock with the trigger safety disabled. So that is why we are talking about making it differently.

Well, since you've demonstrated that you don't fully understand the design, it's a bit much to criticize it as being poor.

This is an ad hominem. It is also false. GLOOB cleared it up for me and I understand how a Glock works, now. Let's not make this about me and let's be clear that I have shown how you can make a striker fired pistol with the changes I specified and it would be drop-safe. If you deny that then you are being intellectually dishonest. You are trying to play dumb by trying to make excuses like, 'Yeah, the series 80 1911s did it. BUT THEY HAVE HAMMERS!' as if a gun needs to have a hammer to have a firing pin block and a grip safety (XD proves that you don't). Please be honest with me here.

I can see that. Of course, you realize that statement is simply an inflammatory way of stating your preference.

It is not inflammatory. And, it isn't a preference. Are you trying to tell me avoiding choosing the better way isn't a mistake?

I really don't understand why you are fixated on whether the gun is SA, TDA, DAO, or striker fired. Whether there is a hammer or a striker hasn't stopped anyone from putting a firing pin/striker block, a thumb safety, a grip safety, or a trigger safety in any of those "operating systems". It is true that I have never seen a TDA with a trigger safety. But, nothing is stopping a company from doing it. Now, that doesn't make any sense to me, which probably explains why it hasn't been done. Now, please understand that reasoning applies to making striker fired pistols drop-safe without the trigger safety.

You also made it clear that you love the "elegance" and "efficiency" of a trigger safety. Cool. Now, I have to agree with you that it is efficient. It is inexpensive, simple, and effective. But, it isn't really elegant because it makes the ergonomics of the trigger-face worse than previous designs. A trade-off isn't really all that elegant.

I understand the concept that engineers have parameters that they set out to design something within. I understand that by that standard anything they design within those parameters isn't a mistake. But, I highly doubt gun designers said, "We need to have a trigger safety. Make something with that feature." No, the trigger safety is probably an unintended result of attempting to remain within the parameters they were given (at least when Glocks were first designed). But, the companies that imitated the Glock design don't have that excuse. They had the opportunity to innovate, but they copied instead. And, I can't really be that mad at them because they probably had the same parameters the Glock designers had and those constraints probably prevented much innovation.

This might explain why other striker fired pistols are more expensive than Glocks. They added to the design, but those additions contributed to increased manufacturing costs.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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...

this thread in a nutshell

Heavens to Betsy! You know what this means don't you? It is always the middle of the night somewhere so none of us is ever safe from homicidal Glocks.

 

[fiftybmg]

@iMagUdspEllr

trigger-block : my attempt to distinguish between a safety-catch and a safety mechanism by description of function

An engaged safety-catch prevents the trigger from being depressed even when intentionally pulled. A trigger safety is not that.

 

[Nom de Forum]

.......

Yup. The logic stating that "the area of the safety is smaller therefore less likely to be pulled" actually jives with the notion the Glock should have never had the safety lever put there in the first place; 0% area is even smaller . In any case, the % that actually matters is the likelihood of a snag hitting the lever; since it covers a good 1/6th there's a good chance right there, and if you factor in the size of most snagging objects, it's worse. If a pull-cable on a jacket rode up the trigger and didn't fire, it's solely because it had to ride across the safety in the first place; the "safety" was mere chance due to the direction the cable was pulled --hardly something I'd ever put faith in again (and I imagine someone who'd experienced that still doesn't truly expect to be saved that way again, and is thus more careful, though thankful)

Yet that is exactly what the very earliest Glock product literature and books (Kasler) emphasize as the function of the trigger safety. I suspect the reason is more about marketing strategy than using accurate engineering terminology.

So size doesn’t matter in regard to how easy it is for force to be applied or not applied? Tell that to all the guys with oversize thumb safeties on their 1911s so they don’t miss applying force to deactivate it. The size of what must be pulled on the bang switch most definitely influences how easy it is to activate the bang switch inadvertently.

Thats right, you don’t want to put your faith in the trigger safety preventing the trigger being inadvertently pulled. Of course it sure is reassuring that little piece of pivoting plastic does reduce that possibility in addition to preventing discharge when the pistol is dropped in a very specific manner. A very specific manner much like pre-Series 80 pistols having to be dropped in a very specific manner to cause a discharge.

While not a real gun or even Glock, my Airsoft MP7 has the same trigger safety, and I'll be darned if it's not hard to imagine a situation that only snags the side of the trigger safety. Smack it hard enough to go off, and you've likely hit the lever, too. Jam something in there, it crosses the lever. I'll be darned-er if I'd have any faith in that safety preventing any given snag-induced discharge, as would any clear thinking person --probably the strongest case against it, since most all of us trust most all other safety designs to keep a gun from firing.

"By your logic you might as well call the striker block a drop safety... even though it isn't"
Um, if the striker could only be dislodged by rearward travel from a drop (and how else could it be?) then that is exactly what I would call the safety. Firing pin block makes it muzzle-down safe, the dingus makes it muzzle-up drop safe. Both/all bases covered as every good pistol design should be.

Perhaps a better term for the Glock dingus is a trigger-mounted transfer bar safety, since that is the real effect of the device; locking down the trigger guts when the gun isn't being fired. Lot of guns do the same thing with a manual safety, Glock just made it spring-loaded and put it in a stupid place

As far as the "original intent" or whatever of the thread;
"Why is a Glock unsafe without the dingus" is a far more interesting topic than
"Would a Glock without the dingus but designed to be just as safe as a Glock with a dingus be less safe than a Glock with a trigger dingus?"

Think about it. Alas, but this thread has started to go south with people quibbling over the names of things instead of focusing on what they do; what are you people, Anti's?

TCB

Now, now, there is no need to be using fighting words like “what are you people, Anti’s”. What you call quibbling over names is a time honored practice to make language more effective in description and influence. It ain’t just the “Anti’s” that do it, that organization I have “endowed” does it too.

You think “Glock just made it (trigger safety) spring-loaded and put it in a stupid place”. I think JMB was stupid not to make the thumb safety spring-loaded to require it to be held down to prevent re-engagement. Are you aware Jeff Cooper made a slightly similar comment about the 1911 thumb safety? It is all a matter of perspective, and my friend our perspectives are different but equally valid.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@fiftybmg: I understand what you mean now. Some people (not you) are trying to assert that a trigger safety serves to prevent the trigger from being unintentionally pulled. I have to agree with them. My point is that a trigger safety doesn't do a good job serving in that role. I assert that it does such a poor job in that regard that it shouldn't even be used in favor of having a more ergonomic trigger face.

To be clear, I understand that a Glock as it is currently designed today, needs the trigger safety in order for its drop safety and striker block to work properly. So I don't advocate disabling it on Glocks as they are designed today. I just wanted to discuss what Skribs wanted to discuss. Skribs wanted to discuss how safe a design without a trigger safety is versus a design with a trigger safety. Please note that doesn't mean make a Glock and then not give it a trigger safety. That means make something like a Glock and give it a grip safety (just for one example) instead of a trigger safety. Would that gun (that doesn't exist...) be just as safe as a Glock with a trigger safety? I say, yes it would because they would both be drop-safe. The only difference is where the safety features are located.

@Nom de Forum:

I know this post wasn't directed at me. But, yes, having a smaller surface area decreases the chances of something hitting it. That is totally true if you are randomly shooting (bullets lets say) at a small piece of paper versus a large piece of paper. The difference here is that a trigger and its trigger safety (if so equipped) are already protected by a trigger guard so that drastically changes what objects and how those objects are able to interact with a trigger. So, it is too simplistic to just say that the smaller the area one needs to contact on the trigger in order to pull it the less likely it is to be activated. How objects interact with the trigger must be taken into consideration because we aren't just shooting BBs at exposed triggers and writing down how often each one fires. Obviously, in that case, the Glock trigger safety would be activated less often because of the reduced surface area that must be contacted for the trigger to move to the rear. But, that isn't the case in reality.

A very specific manner much like pre-Series 80 pistols having to be dropped in a very specific manner to cause a discharge.

Muzzle-down isn't that specific... especially since people nearly 100% of the time point the muzzle-down to holster the gun and the muzzle is pointed down right after it is drawn from the holster (shoulder holsters etc are exceptions of course). But, this is beside the point because we aren't talking about the Glock as it is today with the trigger safety removed. We are talking about a Glock-like gun that has a different design that doesn't have a trigger safety versus a regular Glock.

You think “Glock just made it (trigger safety) spring-loaded and put it in a stupid place”. I think JMB was stupid not to make the thumb safety spring-loaded to require it to be held down to prevent re-engagement. Are you aware Jeff Cooper made a slightly similar comment about the 1911 thumb safety? It is all a matter of perspective, and my friend our perspectives are different but equally valid.

I know you are just trying to be goofy at this point. But, it is possible to objectively discuss whether one design is actually inferior to another or not. You are trying to claim, 'Its all just opinion, man. Peace, love, chi, Dao, and all that. It's whatever you want, man.'

There are other guns that don't have trigger safeties, so it isn't so much that it is "stupid" just that it has inferior ergonomics when compared to other designs in that regard. Obviously forcing the user to put constant downward pressure on the thumb-safety would put unnecessary pressure on the gun that would mess with accuracy. If you picked up another gun it would throw your shots in the direction of that force not to mention you wouldn't be guaranteed to precisely match the spring tension in the safety which would cause groups to open up. Shooting a pistol accurately is inherently hard enough as it is. So, it isn't a matter of perspective and not all perspectives are equally valid. That is, if you assume knowing anything true about things outside your mind is possible.

 

[Nom de Forum]

iMagudspEllr Post #1 http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=748538

“Every time I interact with the gun community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost.”

I may have been feeling a little, as you say, “goofy” in trying to lighten-up things a little. Your first comment in your other thread clearly indicates how you are feeling and tells me we probably should stop futility attempting to prove each other wrong on something that none of us appears to have the ability to prove wrong. This in not an attempt to do what you mentioned in the above thread: “They need to ensure that they portray us as stupid, emotional, and fanatical in order to win”. It is an attempt to cordially disengage from running in circles.

 

[fiftybmg]

Troll alert on the Speller.

This is a shooting forum, not the debating team practice session.

Probably an anti-gunner on a baiting session.

 

[45_auto]

Obviously forcing the user to put constant downward pressure on the thumb-safety would put unnecessary pressure on the gun that would mess with accuracy. If you picked up another gun it would throw your shots in the direction of that force not to mention you wouldn't be guaranteed to precisely match the spring tension in the safety which would cause groups to open up. Shooting a pistol accurately is inherently hard enough as it is. So, it isn't a matter of perspective and not all perspectives are equally valid.

Obviously your perspective on how "constant downward pressure on the thumb-safety" affects the accuracy of a 1911, or how it would affect your accuracy with another type gun is NOT valid. Have you ever trained with or even fired a 1911 or any type of gun with a thumb safety? 'Riding the safety" (constant downward pressure when you're ready to fire) is pretty standard practice in EVERY training class that I'm aware of.

I rotate between 1911's and Glocks, depending on what I'm required to carry or what type of competition I'm shooting. When drawing or preparing to fire a Glock, my thumb just makes the same downward sweeping motion as on a 1911 when my finger goes to the trigger, even though there's no safety there and no where to apply pressure . Hasn't affected my accuracy at all with either type of gun.

 

[balance 740]

“Every time I interact with the gun community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost.”

Oh please.

You admittedly didn't even know what the trigger safety did before a member here explained it to you. Yet that didn't stop you from first arguing that it was stupid and useless.

The person you are describing, is yourself.

 

[GLOOB]

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.

This is NOT easy to improve upon, at all.

A striker/firing pin block (or other immobilization, such as the Beretta rotating firing pin) is the easiest, most definitive way to make a gun drop safe.

.... But if you want the gun to be more than a paperweight, you need a way to unblock the firing pin when you want the gun to fire.

And uhh, how the heck are we going to do that? Ideally, we want the firing pin to be blocked all the time, except the moment we actually want the gun to fire. How would you do that? By pulling the trigger maybe?

And this is why we have trigger-activated firing pin safeties. This is the culmination of over a hundred years of firearm evolution.

Now, some people have figured out that sometimes a trigger can be pulled even when no one is pulling it. And some smart people figured out a very simple and unobstrusive way to prevent that. I don't see the problem. I have never noticed the trigger safety, myself.

 

[grter]

I happen to like the trigger safety on the Glock and there is no reason that I can think of to remove it.

It is a very good idea and give credit to whoever invented it whether it be Ivr Johnson or Glock. It seems to work fine and trouble free.

I for one don't like unnecessary safeties especially ones that can jam up rendering your firearm inert when you may need it most (S&W built in key lock comes to mind but I don't know if they worked the bugs out of it these days.)

I get the impression some of you guys go overboard when it comes to bias against safeties to the point where you criticize even the good ones .