Oh this is rich, ruin a Glock with a lever "safety"

Handing my XD, makes me SCARED
and that is the way I should feel

I admit that while carrying a M4 in the sandbox, that at times I was complacent, because 'the safety is on'

I carry those weapons that are DA/SA, in DA mode for the first shot, I have a number of guns that *gasp* 'lack' a "safety" lever

But then, having seen first hand the results of complacency, I don't find feeling a little uncomfortable when I'm handling a dangerous weapon, especially when it reminds ME to BE safe

 

The solution to this is very simple. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And don't buy a used Glock that has had one installed, either. This is an irreversible modification, since the frame would have to be notched out to allow the lever to move. But if there were not some need - real or perceived - they would not be making or selling this device. Personally, I will be leaving my own Glock "unsullied."

 

Good lord, people.

This thread has been spitting and snarling almost from the start

Has anyone's opinion changed?
Has the discussion of RKBA been enriched?

Be more courteous! We are all on the same side where it counts.

EDIT

I am not referring to all posts and obviously, with my newbie status, not trying to play moderator. But it kills me to see terms like "ignorant" and "narrow minded" bandied about over what amounts to a minor difference of opinion.

 

I don't get it, either. I like the fact that a Glock is drop safe as soon as you take your finger off the trigger, though. A Glock with a manual safety would be the best of both worlds. I would want everyone else's Glocks to have one. Even better if they had mag disconnects were always loaded with snap caps.

 

Every auto I own has a manual safety: Ruger Mark II, 1911, CZ52, H&K USP, C96. For the obvious reason that they are usually fully cocked with relatively light trigger pull (compared to my son's Glock).

But I would no more want a manual safety on a Glock than I would want one on my Ruger Security Six or on the double action only auto I used to own. I have used my son's Glock and handle it as I would a double action handgun (OK a double action handgun with a light double action pull, but still more pull required than my autos).

It is not that manual safeties are for sissies or real men or whatever: if it is sweet and simple and works properly when used according to design intent and training, keep it sweet and simple. Finger off the trigger until sights are on an intended target. Don't holster any handgun with your finger inside the trigger guard.

Bottom line: if you don't like the Glock double action no manual safety design, buy a different design with a manual safety. Some folks like the double action no manual safety concept.

 

Manual safety kids for Glocks have been made for quite some time. I personally like the idea of a safety other than just the trigger. However, I would much rather have the grip safety that is used on the 1911 instead of a manual safety.

 

Lets face it, many newbie pistol/gun owners flock to Glock....From what I've seen of their knowledge and handling, if nothing else, the people around them sure could benefit from a manual safety!

 

The glocks are fine the way they are.

I wish I never sold my G35.

It was a bit better than a double action revolver.

 

The person who developed that product is a retired cop.

The product has been out for several years and has had many positive reviews.


Please explain what prevents someone that has a manual safety on their gun from following the proper rules.

Beside hand guns, there are MILLIONS of rifles with manual safeties. I've yet to see someone make a blanket accusation that all rifle owners dont follow basic safety rules.


A manual safety is much like auto companies putting the saftey switch in cars that requires the brake (and or clutch) be pressed when starting the car.

It in no way prevents someway from looking over their should when changing lanes or looking left, right, left again when pulling into traffic.


Most people have thumbs that are just as intelligent as their index finger.


If you are not capable of operating it correctly, please dont assume that others cant either.

 

C'mon guys, the OP prefaced his statement with the word "If"

He's not accusing anyone of anything . . .

This analogy is fallacious.

Car companies installing this brake-before-shifting system is akin to Glock installing manual safeties on all their guns.

The safety linked to in the OP is an aftermarket product - not a manufacturer's design.

 

No, its not. The brake-before-shift was an after market product first as were seat belts too. As were back up beepers and... well, the list can go on and on. They were adopted into the auto industry as a standard.

You're missing the point. The manual safety does not prevent the user from practicing other safety habits. Additionally, the user can choose not to use it.

The M&P's can be had either way. Does the thumb safety prevent those owners from being as safe as the owners of M&P's with out the thumb safety?

Are rifle owners suddenly less capable of using whats between their ears because the presence of a manual safety?

 

Now you're reaching.

A car owner can disable the brake-before-shifting feature?

 

A safety can be disabled...You flip it OFF...I realize for some, this is a tough task to accomplish, with any sense of coordination. Like standing on ones head.

 

It seems to me that a while back, Glock manufactured a batch of pistols with manual safeties, specifically for some European military or police organization. These were not aftermarket refits, but actually rolled off the Glock assembly line fitted with manual safeties.

All this talk about safety being between the ears, not the hands bugs me. There is no reason it can't be both.

 

A good holster with foreign objects in it will prevent a Glock from reholstering, not pull it's trigger. That fat trigger guard works well. Use stiff form fitting holsters, not nylon or thin leather pouches with Glocks.

I prefere good Kydex like Ravens Concealment, or Crossbreed for Glocks. Allthough I'm extra careful reholstering with the Crossbreed since I use that holster at 5:00 and it's very tight to my body.

I've tried sticking my jackets draw string into my holster, and reholster an empty Glock. Never could get it to snag the trigger in any practical fashion.

 

That safety deosn't look terribly bad. Unneeded for my Glocks, but there may be a market for it. It looks nicer than the M&P's safety. Assuming down is not safe, and up is safe, like a 1911.

When I'm in a "run and gun" competition or a carbine class where I'm transitioning back and forth between pistol and rifle alot, I prefere to use my 1911's. Because reholstering my Glock takes alot more patience and concentration.

Not that I've ever been apprehensive about reholstering my Glock. But the majority of leg & foot ND's seem to be from reholstering. So I keep that in my mind allways.

Finger off trigger, sweep cover garment/chest harness strap/tree branch away from holster just like a CCW draw (with my pistol hand because my other hand is bringing my rifle back up), eye ball holster opening, reholster.

With my 1911, I just sweep clear and stuff it back into it's holster.

So maybe that's an example where this safety is practical.

I'm more comfortable reholstering my 1911. But that's not important to a CCW situation, only when shooting with my rifles.

 

apparently, there seems to be a "need" for a manual safety on this specific model of Glock, and this kit (and tool to install it) fills that void..

i am thoroughly unbothered by Glock owners habitually shooting themselves in the foot.. literally and figuratively..

 

I do not own a Glock but if I were to buy one I don't think I would want a safety lever on it. With that said if another person wants to have a manual safety on a Glock that doesn't bother me a bit. We all have our own preferences & opinions. Just because someone chooses to have a safety on their gun does not mean they do not practice safe gun handling. To believe this would be just as inaccurate in my opinion as blaming Glocks for all the people who manage to negligently shoot themselves with them.

 

To each his own, it doesn't bug me if someone wants to put a manual safety on their glock. If that's what you like, go for it. I personally don't want it.

I do find this statement from the website odd:

"I checked the company’s website and read every article that the website contained. Two articles by Massad Ayoob stated that this pistol should not be CCW carried without the MSK installed, since it allowed you to essentially carry your Glock in Condition One in complete safety."

I've read a few books from Massad on guns and CC and it seems to me he finds glocks, factory stock, to be perfectly fine CCWs, given that a proper holster is worn that covers up the trigger.

Whatevs, I know what works for me and that's all I need to know.

 

And one more point. Glock owners should stop defending the absence of a manual safety or other trigger blocking device by comparing the Glock to a revolver. There is no valid comparison when it comes to trigger pulls.

I understand that Glock broke into the LE market by convincing departments that Glocks were similar to revolvers in that all you had to do was draw, aim and shoot, and that departments could save money by not having to provide additional training for transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatics, but many departments learned the hard way that there was a huge difference when it came to trigger pulls. With a revolver, you actually could keep your finger on the trigger when drawing because it is extremely difficult to accidentally discharge the weapon because of the long, hard trigger pull. Not so with the Glock. As many departments found out, you could not keep your finger on the trigger with the Glock because of the risk of accidental discharge. Therefore, departments had to hire Glock Professional, Inc. to retrain LEO's for an entirely new philosophy gun handling, ie., keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

The point I am trying to make is that there is no need for a manual safety on a revolver because it is a totally different weapon and the risk of AD/ND in double-action mode is miniscule in comparison to a Glock.

 

And one more point. Glock owners should stop defending the absence of a manual safety or other trigger blocking device by comparing the Glock to a revolver. There is no valid comparison when it comes to trigger pulls.

I understand that Glock broke into the LE market by convincing departments that Glocks are similar to revolvers in that all you have to do is draw, aim and shoot, and that departments could save money by not having provide additional training for transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatics, but many departments learned the hard way that there was a huge difference when it came to trigger pulls. With a revolver, you actually could keep your finger on the trigger when drawing because it is extremely difficult to accidentally discharge the weapon because of the long, hard trigger pull. Not so with the Glock. As many departments found out, you can not keep your finger on the trigger with the Glock because of the risk of accidental discharge. Therefore, departments had to hire Glock Professional, Inc. to retrain LEO's for an entirely new philosophy gun handling, ie., keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

The point I am trying to make is that there is no need for a manual safety on a revolver because it is a totally different weapon and the risk of AD/ND in double-action mode is miniscule in comparison to a Glock.

 

They should have been doing that in the first place, even with revolvers.

 

This is not a new modification by any stretch of the imagination!

I've seen ads for it in the back of gun magazines for YEARS. (It's a little black & white ad mixed in along all the gunsmith advertisments. Usually in the middle to lower lefthanded side if the page.) It may be a different company but it's the same modification. Some people like Glocks and like manual safeties too. Glock doesn't offer it from the factory, so the aftermarket version is available. Personally, I don't feel the need for one on a striker fired pistol but if you want it on your's get one installed. It will effect resale value if you care....but used Glocks are abundant and don't really go for a premium anyway.

Basically, who CARES about it? The majority of the people don't want it. It isn't like Glock is putting them on all the new models. So, it's not a concerning matter. However, there are enough people that do want it that an aftermarket company us able to make money doing it. LIKE THE MAJORITY of aftermarket Glock (or other duty pistol) upgrades it doesn't do anything other than make the gun a little more personalized to the owner's taste. It is really a non-issue.

 

There IS one thing to complain about for thoe that do want the modification. That is every company that offers it has such a chintzy looking little lever. You would think after all the years it's been available somebody would make a decent looking one instead of that bent piece of scrap sheet metal. They may sell more of them if they looked a little higher quality.

 

I agree with Holsm50.

To me, the difference between a revolver trigger and a Glock trigger, is the same difference between a Glock trigger and a 1911 trigger, much shorter and much lighter. I'd like to hear where the limit is on what is too short or too light a trigger to be on a pistol WITHOUT a manual safety, that is still considered "safe". I wouldn't have a problem carrying a Glock, but then again, I would probably draw that line on a different place than other people would, and that is just fine.

And I believe the car analogy is a good one. If I chose to purchase an older car without this safety feature, and then add it to my car, would Glock owners feel the need to ridicule this decision of adding an extra safety feature to what could be considered a dangerous machine?