Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?

[longeyes]

If you don't want to use a holster, or can't, use a Saf-T-Blok, as needed.

 

[MCgunner]

That's not as much as a Ruger, but it's on par with a lighter DA revolver such as a target or slicked up S&W action.

A revolver with a 4 lb trigger would never go off. They're a bit longer throw, too.

 

[Cosmoline]

Some are pretty short. I've owned a slicked up Dan Wesson that had a throw nearly as short as a Glock's, and no two stages or safety trigger either.

All my BS alarms go off when I hear about the Glock "AD's" from LEO's. I suspect we're dealing with people who are trying to holster the thing with their finger on the trigger. Certainly anyone who caps off a round because they never checked the chamber before breaking it down for cleaning has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

The problem with external safties is that in the heat of the battle you can always forget to remove the safety from the off position. Then what good is your gun to you then? By the time you remember, it is probably to late. I own two Glocks and I don't have a problem with not having an external safety. The only problem one would have is if you are are certain DEA agent who is the only one qualified in the room to operate a Glock 40.... and then shoot yourself!

 

[dhoomonyou]

someone has this as there sig line:

Keep your booger pick off the bang switch.

 

[BluesBear]

What's the difference between carrying a Glock with one in the pipe and a S&W J frame with no external hammer?

The J-frame isn't constantly partially cocked. There is a hammer block that rests between the hammer and the frame until the trigger is pulled. And with the internal hammer J-frame guns that means a somewhat heavy, long, traditional double action trigger pull.

Now I know that Glocks pass all of the standard drop tests but there is absolutely no way you could drop a Centennial hard enough to cause it to fire.

 

[gitarmac]

I didn't think my glock trigger was light until I got a ruger GP100. I have 3 glocks and decided on my G26, my CCW gun, to put a ny1 trigger. It's not really revolver like, it starts out easy and the final trigger break is a little harder. I have 3.5lb connectors on my G34 and G21, for GSSF shoots.

I just got the new trigger today, I liked it when I dry fired it, it makes me feel a little better about carrying it.

 

[JohnKSa]

...but there is absolutely no way you could drop a Centennial hard enough to cause it to fire.

For a Glock to fire from being dropped, the following parts would have to be compromised.

Firing pin safety which prevents the striker from moving forward far enough to contact the primer until the trigger is pulled to the rear would have to be broken or jammed in the up position.

In ADDITION to this, the rear of the trigger bar and/or the downward protrusion of the striker would have to break since the interaction between these two items also prevent the striker from moving forward enough to contact the primer until the trigger is pulled.

It's not sufficient for something to force the trigger bar down. Until the trigger is pulled, the safety ramp prevents the trigger bar from being pushed down enough to clear the downward protrusion of the striker. With the trigger in the forward position, the trigger bar and safety ramp work together to turn the trigger bar into a second striker safety.

FURTHERMORE, according to Glock, there is not enough energy stored in the partially cocked striker to fire the pistol. So even if the above parts (that's partS--it takes at least two failures) were compromised and allowed the striker to fall, it still shouldn't fire the pistol.

I suppose it's also theoretically possible that a TREMENDOUS impact could shear the trigger safety lever and provide enough acceleration force to move the trigger through it's normal arc of motion. I can't see this happening from anything short of a cataclysmic event.

Bottom line, if a Glock fires without the trigger's being pulled, at least TWO parts are broken/damaged/modified, AND there has been some sort of very ill-advised modification to the striker or striker spring.

It's safe to say that your statement would be equally correct if you inserted the word "Glock" in place of "Centennial".

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Putting an external safety on a Glock makes as much sense as putting one on a DA revolver

Sure does. Click and enjoy.......
http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

 

[S&W620]

Personally, I see both sides of this argument. I don't think that wanting an external safety on a glock is a bad idea, if that is what YOU want. Nothing wrong with trying to be as safe as you can. I am a glock owner and I personally don't think they are unsafe nor do I feel the need for an external safety. If an external safety is a must for you, do it. Then again if you want an external safety, maybe a Glock is not the right choice for you in the first place. There are many other types of guns that have external safeties built into their original design. I suppose this falls into the category of "you are the one who has to shoot and operate it so do whatever the hell you want."

 

[JohnKSa]

I suppose this falls into the category of "you are the one who has to shoot and operate it so do whatever the hell you want."

Yup--pretty much sums it up for me. I only start to bristle when someone feels the need to rationalize/justify their "want" by trying to prove that Glocks aren't safe.

 

[Jamie C.]

I've shot 1911-type pistols for so long that my thumb automatically goes through the motions whether the safety tab is there on the gun or not.... it's just a reflex/habit.

So, as for putting a safety on a Glock... sure, go ahead... may as well give my thumb something useful to do.

Doesn't bother me to not have one on it though... and I do agree that Glock's trigger block is of little practical use. One could probably get close to the same level of "safety", concerning trigger snags, simply by making the trigger more narrow... ( Remove that 1/8 inch on each side that everybody worries about causing trouble by catching on things. )

Honestly, I have always thought the little flapper on the trigger was simply a marketing gimmick... Just there so Glock could claim to have one more safety feature.

Still, for all that, Glocks work just fine as they come out of the box.... Any changes one thinks should be made are just personal preference. *shrug*

Speaking of that, I've often though about putting a manual safety on a G-19, and replacing the trigger with a solid one... This would suit me just fine, but would probably throw some other folks into convulsions.

Anyway... to each his or her own.


J.C.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The Glock has the safety in the trigger and even if a finger-like object gets in there and catches it, it still requires a good five pounds on a two-stage trigger to set off.

There are many many 1911s out there with 5 pound (or even more) trigger pulls.

Don't get me wrong here. I like Glocks, and a stock G19 is one of th guns I carry most often. I think you just have to be real careful, but then that goes without saying with any firearm.

The safety on most guns is just an added level of protection from doing something stupid. Keeping your finger off the trigger is great advice, but humans are prone to make mistakes. Thats where external safeties might save you.

Also, another thing to consider is that if a criminal gets ahold of your gun, the presence of a manual safety might slow him down for a few seconds and give you a chance to get the gun back or run away. There are documented cases where police officer's lives have been saved by the fact that a criminal couldnt figure out how to get the safety off of a police officer's gun that they had wrestled away from him.

There are advantages and disadvantages of the safety, and advantages and disadvantages of not having a safety. The Glock would be a fine weapon either way. I wish they would offer some models with an external safety, and see how well they did with consumers. I suspect the models with the safety would sell better. But at this point, Glock will never offer a gun with an external safety, because it would be construed in court as an admission that their product was unsafe, and subject them more liability in the event of a negligent discharge.

 

[Cosmoline]

Also, another thing to consider is that if a criminal gets ahold of your gun, the presence of a manual safety might slow him down for a few seconds and give you a chance to get the gun back or run away.

Maybe this is a concern with LEO's, but I'm not planning on arresting anyone. If I feel justified in drawing and the guy still rushes me, I'll be emptying the pistol into him. Having extra cumbersome safety devices to confuse the bad guy reminds me a little of putting a trauma plate on the back side of your chest to protect against snipers.

Besides, no mechanical safety can make up for poor training.

Honestly, I have always thought the little flapper on the trigger was simply a marketing gimmick... Just there so Glock could claim to have one more safety feature.

I feel the same way about the 1911 grip safety.

 

[Lt. G]

I bought a Glock 26 from a buddy about a year ago. It had a comnilli, (mispelled), safety on it. It also has metal belt hook/retainer/clip on the outside ,(no holster needed).

At first I was a little apprehensive about the slip it IWB with no holster bit. After a little practice, (empty gun,chamber), it was simple and very easy.
During those practice sessions I noted that it would be real easy to catch the trigger on clothing and possible ND. This is where the external safety helps. I engage the safety then carefully place the weapon IWB.

Deploying the weapon and pushing the safety down is almost second nature, (I work with a lot of 1911s), I own more glocks and when my paycheck permits I will get them all equipped with the external safety. I do love 1911s and other pretty guns but I live in the humid state of Florida. Glocks do not need TLC everyday.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Would anybody be opposed to Glock making two models: one with external safety, and one without? And just let people have a choice?

I mean I can get variations with other brands. Why not with Glock?

 

[tsuehpsyde]

I'd like to point out that the Sig P229 (not sure about other models, but I will comment on the one I know about) also does not have an external safety. If the other models are the same (I'm guessing they are), it's rather strange how nobody bags on Sig for doing the exact same thing as Glock.

 

[gallo]

The Glock is an extremely safe gun and simply cannot fire unless the trigger is fully squeezed.

Aren’t all guns extremely safe until someone pulls the trigger?

I don't understand this need to lock the trigger.

I can think of one reason: Mexican Carry.

The grip safety is a good system. However, that safety is turned off when you grip the gun.

That’s the whole point of the grip safety.

It’s hard, but not impossible, for kids under 5 to activate a trigger and safety grip mechanism at the same time. This make the XD a little safer in my opinion. But this should not even be debated. Get gun safe.

 

[KenW.]

Because of this: something gets caught inside the trigger guard upon holstering, is one I've seen. Like the drawstring lock thingamabob on a coat.

 

[Warren]

From Gunblast.com's Shot show diary:

"Springfield Armory is offering their excellent XD pistol with an external ambidextrous safety that effectively mimics the feel of the popular 1911 safety."

So there you go a poly gun with a grip safety and a 1911 type safety AND the anti-snagger.

Don't like GLOCK's offering? Then you need merely go buy an XD.


Plus there is this "Siderlock crossbolt safety for the Glock trigger." which looks like it will keep the trigger from going back at all.

So really, there is no point in arguing about the issue. You can set your gun up however you want it. No safeties...or maybe all of them! Your choice. Capitalism! WooT!

 

[steelhead]

///////////

 

[Badger Arms]

There is a Glock with a manual safety

See here: http://www.glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s

 

[SAWBONES]

Why, indeed?
Redundancy can be a good thing when it means you have spare benefits, but not when it effectively hinders use of an emergency tool which is already sufficiently provided with safety measures.

 

[Jack2427]

I own a G22, my only Glock. I use the T block AND I had a safety installed. I have spent several tours on overseas contracts as LE/Security trainer. We gave the Iraqis several thousand Glock 17/19s, same with a couple of other military/LE organizations that we were trying to jump start. Why Glocks there? They are cheap, and the manual of arms is incredibly simple, read easy training. Same reason we give folks like that AK 47s. Most of the folks I trained saw a handgun as a symbol of authority or badge of office, and did not much care if they could hit anything with it. One group was an exception, the female Iraqi Police trainees, to a man, oops, person, they wanted to shoot well, probably something to do with how their men had been treating them.
My reasons for wanting a safety? Can you spell "gun grab"? I have carried arms professionally for almost 50 years now. I have never lost a weapon to gun grabber, but have had some close calls. When I work in close confines with lots of people around I carry my BHP, half cocked with the safety on. Let some grabber try to figure that one out, before I get out my 940 BUG and ruin his day. As I become older I become aware of two things:
1. I am not as strong as I once was
2. I want to get older and weaker

I am not the man I once was, but I am the man I was at least once.

 

[KenW.]

Once again I state that all factory safeties on a grock are entirely PASSIVE.

It should require an active and intentional decision to disengage a safety device BEFORE ENDING SOMEONE'S LIFE, other than the finger on the trigger. And that device should be able to be disengaged while that finger as at the ready.