Why not make a version of Glock with a thumb safety?

[Balrog]

I realize a Glock does not need a thumb safety. I am not suggesting otherwise. If you don't pull the trigger, the gun will not fire. Safety is the responsibility of the shooter.

That said, S&W makes its M&P in versions with and without a thumb safety. Some people prefer a thumb safety for whatever reasons. For example, I have heard some people say that if their weapon is taken by someone (such as in a fight), a person unfamiliar with it might not realize the thumb safety has been deactivated.

Also, there are reports of Glock shooters, through their own negligence, discharging their Glock when trying to reholster. This is not a deficiency of the weapon, but of the shooter. Since guns are easier to fix than people, why not add a thumb safety? It might reduce this type of negligent discharge.

Let it be said I am a fan of Glock, and would prefer to not be trashed by Glock shooters by asking this question.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

There is no need. You summed it up. Negligence causes AD, not poor design.

 

[Bwana John]

Because Gaston does not care what you want.

 

[Balrog]

There is no need. You summed it up. Negligence causes AD, not poor design.

As I said, Glock is a great design and I agree a thumb safety is not needed. I am not asking if its needed. I am asking why not make one with a thumb safety in case someone wants a gun with a thumb safety?

They make some Glocks in flat dark earth. They make some in gray. The colors are not needed either, but some people want them.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I'm guessing their sales don't warrant a design change, as does their mirriad of law enforcement and military contracts.

Not to mention, the phrase "just in case someone wants one" typically costs companies a lot in initial overhead. I'm sure they'd sell, but if they're doing well without that segment of the market, why would they change?

 

[JONWILL]

I am not sure if I am correct.

I think the only reason S&W put thumb safeties on the M&P was because of some Police Department policies.

 

[WVsig]

They do make Glocks with thumb safeties they just don't sell them to the commercial market because there is really not a need for them. Glocks as a % are not more prone to ND IMHOs. There are a lot more Glocks in LEO, Military and civilian hands these days than any other brand so the number of NDs is higher than any other pistol but in terms of the % in the market they are not statistically higher.

Here are some examples of Glocks with factory thumb safeties. This is a gun from the 1982 Austrian pistol trials.



Here is another.



And of course the gun they submitted for the most recent M17 pistol trials.

 

[FL-NC]

There HAS been Glocks made with off switches in limited numbers in the past.

 

[Gary A]

Didn't the Glock submitted for the military procurement have a manual safety? I though I had heard that model may be offered commercially. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

 

[jmr40]

I'd have no problem with a safety on a Glock if it were well designed. You could choose to use it or not. Carried in a proper holster it isn't needed. But if used as a night stand gun, purse gun, stored in a cars console or glove compartment with no holster a safety would be an asset.

Negligence causes AD, not poor design.

I doubt if negligence is the cause of 1 out of 1000 AD's But it has become popular on the internet to throw that word around an awful lot. Actually a poor design WOULD be considered negligence if the manufacturer knew it were a poor design and produced the product anyway. A lapse or error in judgement without other contributing factors is not negligence. If someone's error in judgement is due to drug or alcohol use then it would be negligence.

 

[bearcreek]

Didn't the Glock submitted for the military procurement have a manual safety? I though I had heard that model may be offered commercially. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

There's a picture of one two posts above your post. Might want to skim the thread before posting.

 

[Gary A]

And sure, you're right. Pretty good advice. I should take it.

 

[Balrog]

I'm guessing their sales don't warrant a design change, as does their mirriad of law enforcement and military contracts.

Not to mention, the phrase "just in case someone wants one" typically costs companies a lot in initial overhead. I'm sure they'd sell, but if they're doing well without that segment of the market, why would they change?

Smith and Wesson offers both thumb safety and non-thumb safety version of the M&P. I actually went with the S&W Shield over the Glock 43 because of the thumb safety. I think Springfield offers both models on it polymer pistols too.

I wonder if the reason Glock doesn't do it is because of liability. Lots of Glocks out there and if they added a thumb safety, I wonder if plaintiff's attorneys would try to claim they added the thumb safety because the original design is unsafe. This would be a bogus argument, but having dealt with plaintiff's attorneys a lot, I can say 95% of their arguments are bogus.

 

[cfullgraf]

I'd have no problem with a safety on a Glock if it were well designed. You could choose to use it or not. Carried in a proper holster it isn't needed. But if used as a night stand gun, purse gun, stored in a cars console or glove compartment with no holster a safety would be an asset.

I agree with this but it is counter to what most folks with striker fired pistols want.

 

[bnolsen]

It really doesn't matter and there's a ton of people who are super passionate on both sides. For CC I'll take a safety! As noted there's plenty of fine pistols on the market that have them.

 

[grampajack]

I just don't see the point. If there's a safety to contend with, then I want a single action trigger. The whole point to the Glock is that it doesn't need to have a safety. You just draw and shoot. Put a safety on it and it loses all relevance. Leave it to the Army to adopt a striker fired double action only with a safety. They already had the G19 in inventory, it wasn't causing any problems, the soldiers loved them...it's like they go around looking for things to fix that don't need fixing, while totally ignoring the things that absolutely do need fixing.

 

[Balrog]

I just don't see the point. If there's a safety to contend with, then I want a single action trigger. The whole point to the Glock is that it doesn't need to have a safety. You just draw and shoot. Put a safety on it and it loses all relevance. Leave it to the Army to adopt a striker fired double action only with a safety. They already had the G19 in inventory, it wasn't causing any problems, the soldiers loved them...it's like they go around looking for things to fix that don't need fixing, while totally ignoring the things that absolutely do need fixing.

Maybe it is not an important or necessary feature for you, but some people do seem to like thumb safeties. Seems like it would be a good idea to cater to both opinions. As others have pointed out, it was a requirement for the new military pistol, and same applies to many law enforcement agencies.

 

[entropy]

Whether there's one there or not, I still thumb it off......

 

[Klint Beastwood]

 

[grampajack]

Maybe it is not an important or necessary feature for you, but some people do seem to like thumb safeties. Seems like it would be a good idea to cater to both opinions. As others have pointed out, it was a requirement for the new military pistol, and same applies to many law enforcement agencies.

Well they're free to do whatever they want, but I think it would pretty much kill the Glock for most of us who currently use them. I would no sooner buy a Glock with a safety than I would a revolver with one. My experience is that safeties accidentally get flipped on and off through the course of the day while carrying, or they're so low profile that you can't hardly manipulate them. I do not trust sidearms with safeties, and I know others who don't.

 

[Balrog]

Well they're free to do whatever they want, but I think it would pretty much kill the Glock for most of us who currently use them. I would no sooner buy a Glock with a safety than I would a revolver with one. My experience is that safeties accidentally get flipped on and off through the course of the day while carrying, or they're so low profile that you can't hardly manipulate them. I do not trust sidearms with safeties, and I know others who don't.

I am not saying stop making them as they are, just offer a 2nd model with the safety option. Why would that kill the Glock for you? Would you stop using Glocks if they added a model with the thumb safety? If you like the Glock as is, it would still be available.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I just don't see the point. If there's a safety to contend with, then I want a single action trigger. The whole point to the Glock is that it doesn't need to have a safety. You just draw and shoot. Put a safety on it and it loses all relevance. Leave it to the Army to adopt a striker fired double action only with a safety. They already had the G19 in inventory, it wasn't causing any problems, the soldiers loved them...it's like they go around looking for things to fix that don't need fixing, while totally ignoring the things that absolutely do need fixing.

Hmmm, never been in the military?

 

[Gary A]

I've admired Glocks but never liked Glocks or particularly wanted to own Glocks. More recently, I decided I needed to expand my thinking and explore the Brave New World of polymer striker-fired pistols. After looking at many and reading about striker actions and safety, etc., etc. I came to the personal conclusion that the best design, the safest design, the design that did more of what I wanted with the least fuss and best value overall, and I stress, for me, is the Glock 19 Gen 4. Could just as easily been a 17. I'm no fanboy and I'm 30 years late to the party but for me, the first (first successful, anyway) is the still the best. It has everything I need and nothing I don't. And I don't think it needs a manual safety. Some of the others I'm not so sure about. YMMV

 

[Kano383]

Because after using the name "Safe Action" for something that is not safe in itself, and having pounded into the collective psyche that "We Don't Need No Saftycation", it would probably look bad in their general marketing image to come out with a safety on their standard models. At least, on LE or Army contract models, they can say "They Made Us Do It"...

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Smith and Wesson offers both thumb safety and non-thumb safety version of the M&P. I actually went with the S&W Shield over the Glock 43 because of the thumb safety. I think Springfield offers both models on it polymer pistols too.

Yes they do, and I do think an external safety is a feature many people want. It's the reason that my girlfriend settled on the Ruger LC9S, rather than the Pro model. She has a little niece, and even though she is EXTREMELY careful about leaving her gun somewhere a child could get at it, she just feels better knowing there is one last line of defense should something weird happen. She also tends to carry in a bag. Her body shape and clothing choice doesn't really work with hip carry terribly well, except in a leather case (Sneaky Pete like). In a hip case or bag, knowing that her gun is not riding in a form fitted holster, she wants a manual safety on the gun, and I agree with her sentiments.

However, I think there is a difference between S&W's M&P line and Glocks regarding the global proliferation of each brand. I'm not knocking S&W's M&P line at all, and I know they have a pretty good track record. In fact if they came out with a double stack 10mm, I'd be very interested. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet that Glock has a vastly higher presence with police forces and military outfits around the world than S&W does. If anyone knows differently, please correct me. So we come back to the idea that if Glock is selling their guns all over the world, at affordable prices, and that brings in larger supply contracts, why would they take on more cost if their profitability is good? I believe, again without any real evidence, that S&W caters to the civilian market in the US and is more in tune to the options their civilian market desires. I'm also guessing they designed safety switch models in anticipation of a possible military replacement program. Glock maybe got sick of the "Get ready!" "Never mind." protocols that our government uses.

I wonder if the reason Glock doesn't do it is because of liability. Lots of Glocks out there and if they added a thumb safety, I wonder if plaintiff's attorneys would try to claim they added the thumb safety because the original design is unsafe. This would be a bogus argument, but having dealt with plaintiff's attorneys a lot, I can say 95% of their arguments are bogus.

I suppose that's possible, but profitability while avoiding investment seems a simpler explanation to me. Whatever the reason, I definitely agree with you that by not having the option likely steers some folks away from the brand.

I carry an XDs, and while lots of people don't care for the back strap safety, I find it reassuring when holstering that I can push on the rear of the slide, and even if I've made a terrible mistake and something is in the trigger guard, the back strap safety will keep me from giving myself a new butt crack and a third butt cheek.