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

[fastbolt]

I am not sure that is the reason. S&W and some other manufacturers of polymer competitors of the Glock are certainly selling them with thumb safeties. I guess Glock can do without that business.

There's really no way to know, definitively. Glock corporate is pretty guarded about many of their business decisions and reasons for doing things. It's not at all uncommon to hear their LE reps or armorer instructors claim they have no idea why something was done, or why some change was made, as the company hadn't passed along any of the info to them (sales/LE support people).

Of course, that's not "proprietary" just to Glock, as other companies sometimes do much the same. It's certainly not uncommon for everyone to communicate with everyone else inside a gun company. Not everyone needs to know everything in order for the business to run day to day.

 

[Kendal Black]

...

I think this video is a useful warning. Thanks for posting it. It is important to holster only the pistol. Of course that is true not only of Glocks; it is a good policy all around.

The video affirms that the little tab on the Glock's trigger face needs to be depressed, in a line straight back, before anything untoward can happen. The curious facility with which a jacket's drawstring slider works to do that should be noted, but in principle, anything not your finger should not be allowed into a position to press on the trigger. That was an important lesson also in the days when the DA revolver was in constant use.

In one case of which I was aware, a cop had put an aftermarket trigger shoe on his S&W revolver, the shoe hung up on the edge of a slightly saggy, worn leather holster as he reholstered, and he produced an AD and a wound that was fortunately not life-threatening. Now, a Glock would not have fired in that circumstance, due to the tab in the trigger resisting anything but a rearward pressure on the center of the trigger.

 

[bnolsen]

For each their own, but for many years many millions of revolvers without any kind of safety have been carried. If the nanny-state crowd's Chicken Little fears are right, every person who has holster carried a revolver without a safety should be missing a few toes from an AD.

The exposed hammer on a revolver allows you to push down on the hammer while holstering. That can be an extra level of safety if used properly.

It has nothing to do with nanny state unless for some reason the state stupidly forces it. However technology has advanced such that we can have things like manual safeties on our pistols if we want and if the manufacturer offers them. And as that indiana police chief video shows, things other than a finger can fire a striker/non exposed hammer pistol that only relies on a trigger safety.

And if anyone talks to me about pistols and about purchase I will tell them the pros and conns of a manual safety or multiple external safety mechanisms and ESPECIALLY the importance of paying attention while holstering something that's good to go.

And *everyone* should be training with their pistol which makes the external safety argument fairly academic. Can we all agree that its a bad thing to *not* be familiar with your weapon?

 

[Edcnh]

I carry a S & W Shield without a safety and feel perfectly safe doing so. My Shield is carried in a leather holster or an Alien Gear kydex holster. I own both a Glock 17 and Glock 21 and would not hesitate to carry them as I own good quality leather holsters for both. I carry the Shield because of it's size. As someone else stated: If you carry with the safety on you MUST train with the saftey on. A few times a year will not develop muscle memory when you need it in a stressful situation. Most of us have never drawn a gun under stress!

 

[JohnBiltz]

i have the shield 45, it has no safety..

Eventually they did make versions without the safety. By then the boat had sailed. I also have to say what a terrible safety they had on it. It was poorly designed to be swept off while it was fairly difficult for it to be inadvertently engaged while carried it did happen. When I looked at it, it seemed to me it was meant to be carried without the safety engaged and was there to be sold in markets that required a safety.

 

[justice06rr]

There is a rational for external safeties.

There are many popular handguns such as the 1911, HK USP, Beretta M9 (92FS), M&P, SR9, etc that have had external safeties for decades. These handguns have been popular and successful both in the civilian and Military/LE world.

If you really think about it, many firearms have safeties and people don't complain about that external safety.
AR15, AK47, SCAR, G36, MP9, SKS, the list goes on. Even shotguns have safeties. We don't complain about the external safeties on those firearms; we actually appreciate them and use/train with the external safety.

Why would a handgun such as the Glock be any different? No wonder it has never been adopted by the US Military because of its lack of external safety.

I think they have not done it because of marketing. They are known as point and shoot and that is what their customers generally want. I know that is what I want. If they suddenly put safeties on all their guns I'd never buy one again. A safety is what kept me from ever buying a Shield

It would be offered as an option. I doubt Glock would put thumb safeties on ALL their firearms even if they decided to add external safety to their pistols in the future.

Personally I've owned a Glock 19/23/26 and I do like them for their utility and reliability. But I've also had many other pistols that have thumb safeties. I do not have an issue either way; It is a matter of training, ultimately.

 

[JR24]

Why would a handgun such as the Glock be any different? No wonder it has never been adopted by the US Military because of its lack of external safety.

Except, of course, it has been adopted by several branches of the military. MARSOC and the Rangers come to mind.

Rifle and shotgun triggers generally are lighter and have significantly less travel than a Glock or M&P pistol, so a safety makes sense. That and longarms typically can be expected to be handled with a round chambered and no holster covering the trigger for longer periods of time, slung or in hand. Not so with a pistol.

Drawing a pistol from a holster is essencially the same step as disengaging the safety on a longarm. It be like putting a second safety on your rifle, one more unnecessary step.

 

[danez71]

MARSOC and RANGERS is, what, 5k maybe 10k? There's something like 1.3 million in the Military. Not a great statistic to use to support, imo.

Glock and M&P triggers are significantly shorter and lighter than DA revolvers; if using the same logic, they should have manual safties too.....


Taking into account that a holster, or a scabbard for a matter of fact, isn't part of the gun, by definition, it isn't a safety feature of the gun in any way. AD/ND while drawing hasn't been an issue as far as I remember... it's the holstering part that seems to be the issue on occasions.

 

[Robert101]

Thumb safety is fine with me. I have guns with and without. I don't mind the lack of a thumb safety on the Glock because I see the gun as a semi-auto revolver. No thumb safety on revolvers. Just pick it up and aim. That is part of the attraction to me. I can holster my gun just fine without issue.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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.

Glock will not add a thumb safety for the same reason Remington will not go to a 3-position, firing pin-locking safety on the Model 700 rifle.

 

[murf]

MARSOC and RANGERS is, what, 5k maybe 10k? There's something like 1.3 million in the Military. Not a great statistic to use to support, imo.

Glock and M&P triggers are significantly shorter and lighter than DA revolvers; if using the same logic, they should have manual safties too.....


Taking into account that a holster, or a scabbard for a matter of fact, isn't part of the gun, by definition, it isn't a safety feature of the gun in any way. AD/ND while drawing hasn't been an issue as far as I remember... it's the holstering part that seems to be the issue on occasions.

murf

 

[Kano383]

murf

The AD in that video is peculiar to Serpa holsters. These holsters' design has been deemed unsafe by many shooting/training schools, who ban them. The reason is that during the draw, the trigger finger must activate the release - which puts the finger right over the trigger, and pressing inwards, as you pull the gun out.

Interestingly, while trying to show the inherent qualities of these holster, a Guns & Ammo editor ended up putting his finger on the trigger during draw, right in font of the camera...

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/02/23/guns-ammo-editor-nearly-shoots-proving-serpa-holsters-suck/

Now, regarding Tex Grebner's AD: he was shooting a 1911, yes, but he disengaged the safety prior to draw. Then, he proceeded to pull the trigger with his finger as he was drawing... So, to answer the question that nobody has asked, NO, a 1911 with the safety OFF is not much safer than a Glock or anything else...

(OK, there is still a grip safety to deal with drawstrings and other critters, but this horse has been beaten for so long that it strongly resembles a carpet having spent twenty years in a downtown Detroit brothel's hallway...)