GBExpat
Member
OUCH!
Why not make a version of Glock with a thumb safety?
- Thread starter Balrog
- Start date
- Status
OUCH!
bassjam
Member
Copy? I'd say they were inspired by Glock, and managed to make some improvements along the way. Just like you can have a cruiser that's water cooled, vibration free, and arguably more reliable made by Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha, or Kawasaki. They certainly were inspired by Harley Davidson but instead of purely copying them they listened to consumers and made improvements based on that.
fastbolt
Member
S&W originally only designed a manual thumb safety for the M&P 45 because it was being developed as a submission for the suspended 2005 USSOCOM pistol test (canceled in 2006, as I recall), and a manual safety was a requirement. Like a couple of other major makers who had been developing submissions, the new .45 was subsequently released on the commercial market.
S&W was caught unprepared when the commercial market suddenly produced a demand for a manual safety on the other caliber models. (People often want things they are told they can't have.
)The thumb safety option couldn't be "retrofitted" to existing frames because of some features of the original design (the ability to accept the optional internal lock system, a differently designed sear housing block and ejector, and the lack of frame cutouts for the manual safety levers). They finally relented to market forces and redesigned the frames, and made the "standard" sear housing block the one that would accept the manual safety parts (which meant that frame plugs could be used if the cutouts for the manual safety assembly weren't utilized).
Having listened to LE market trends for M&P's since they were first released in '06, it seems there's been very little demand for having a manual safety option on LE weapons. (Some SWAT, here and there, probably due to the influence of the 1911's design utilizing a thumb safety.) A more popular option among LE users is the magazine safety/disconnect, but it's not as prevalent as it once was when the S&W metal-framed guns were mainstay's in LE.
fastbolt
Member
I haven't yet read through the entire thread, but you folks do realize that Glock has long had a manual safety option, right? It was required for some years as an option for some European orders, and more recently the MHS submission had to have one (different design). It just wasn't something being demanded by the commercial market here in the US, so the company had no impetus or desire to offer one.
Last edited:
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
They don't really "copy" Glock, they ride the marketing wave for striker-fired-safetyless guns masterfully created by Glock. If you take note, there are no real "Glock clones" out there, to the contrary: everybody is selling something that they think addresses one shortcoming or the other of the self-appointed "perfect" 2"x4".
People have "just copied" the 1911, more than 80 manufacturers. And the CZ 75. And S&W revolvers, and Colt revolvers. And others. But Glock? Apparently it's not so perfect that people just want to copy it... They're interested in copying the sales, yes and double yes, but not the graceful lines and creaking trigger...
S&W tried it and got sued. So nobody has followed in their footsteps.
But you have a plethora of striker fired, 1.5 action, polymer framed, double stack plastic fantastics on the market that are essentially the same thing. That's what I'm getting at. If Glock is guilty of not innovating, then what about all the people doing essentially the same thing.
Yep, everybody is aware of that. The safety version is not produced or available in the US.
I not from several responses here that I am not the only person to wish Glocks had a manual safety option. I specifically went with the M&P Shield because I could get a safety on it, and not on the Glock 43. I own 2 Glock 19s and a Glock 23 and have for sometime. If I had it to do over again, I would take a serious look at the M&P series instead, just for the thumb safety.
fastbolt
Member
Because unlike out of the country, it wasn't previously being demanded by Mil/LE end users in the US.
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.
JohnBiltz
Member
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.
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
i have the shield 45, it has no safety..
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 trigger pull weight and trigger pull distance of virtually all double action revolvers are both far greater than those of the vast majority of str iker-fired semi-automatic pistols. There is really no comparison.
Of course, unintended discharges have occurred from time to time when revolver hammers have been cocked.
98bluewave
Member
I have Glocks, Colts, and Sig automatics and S & W revolvers. Personaly I don't feel any less safe carrying my Glocks with a rd. in the chamber than I do carrying my Sigs cocked and locked. If you want a gun with a safety, there are many choices. Glock ain't one of them.
there are numerous stories on the interwebz of drawstrings, keys, etc. resulting in ND/ADs.
exactly..
The popular ones are quite different internally. Other than the browning tilting action and double column magazine on a poly lower the all have different sear arrangements, etc.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
If I ever shoot myself in the leg with one of my Glocks because my finger was on the trigger when I holstered it I will defiantly claim something else caught the trigger.
If it should happen with one of my other strikers that don't have manual safeties either, would it still be called Glock leg?
Last edited:
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Odds are there is no video of most ND's.
People are embarrassed, or should be, and will try to blame the gun.
quite certain you are correct on that aspect. Just pointing it out for the fools who claim my finger is my safety. That a simple piece of string can ruin your day if you are not paying attention.
Glocks are my plastic pistol of choice. However, if I just "had to have" a thumb safety, I would buy something else. As there is nothing that makes Glocks better than the other competitors on the market.
FAS1
Member
Exactly. If someone sells everything then it's just about the money and nothing else. They are selling the design that the company believes in and it's OK if you shop elsewhere. I for one respect them for that. Just look what Glock did for the polymer gun that every gun manufacturer bashed in the beginning and now they all have copied. They all initially jumped on the Glock bandwagon when they offered a polymer gun to begin with.
JR24
Member
Really though, can we assume these folks carelessly jamming their glocks into holsters would remember to engage a thumb safety?
I submit we cannot. Either you are paying attention while holstering (you should be!!!) or you are not.
stchman
Member
I am sure someone at Glock did a financial study and looked at if there were any benefits to making models with a manual safety.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Manual safety or not, your handgun should not be pointing at you leg or anything else you wish to keep, when holstering.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
This.
After 30 years of pushing the "our no-safety gun is safe" stuff repeatedly in the face of criticism (it's easily the #1 complaint about Glocks), they can't just back down now.
entropy
Member
You want a safety on your Glock? Here you go:
http://www.brownells.com/handgun-pa...kit-for-glock--prod5532.aspx?avs|Make_3=Glock
You can put it in yourself, or have your gunsmith do it if you aren't up to it.
http://www.brownells.com/handgun-pa...kit-for-glock--prod5532.aspx?avs|Make_3=Glock
You can put it in yourself, or have your gunsmith do it if you aren't up to it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
