Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Graystar, Jan 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FranklyTodd

    FranklyTodd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    Holy FIVE YEAR old threads, Batman!

    Nonetheless, I've pasted two posts of mine together from a thread/argument I had over at the Glock forums after putting the Cominolli on my Glock26. Here they are if anyone is interested. Starts with reasons why, then goes to a range report:

    Quote on:
    I won't be drawn into an argument of whether Glock SHOULD have a safety. I like that they don't for those that don't want them, and that one can be easily added. It would be nicer if Glock offered it as a factory option, but the Cominolli is very tried and tested. At least a few LEO agencies installed them for all their guns.

    As for why, for me personally, I wanted it? M&P340 is about 3/4" of 10-12lb trigger pull; G26 is 1/2" of 5.5lbs. For me (not you? fine by me), that's too light for me to carry for civilian CCW. I've shot these, and of course a 1911. To me a Glock feel closer to a 1911 without the manual safety - which also should be fine with "trigger discipline" and the "safety between your ears," (heck a 1911 even has a grip safety!) but I don't see too many carrying cocked and unlocked. I tried the NY1 trigger spring before the safety (which makes the pull about 8lb), and it was an improvement (safety-wise, not the feel of the trigger), but with such a short pull and no cylinder rotation/hammer, still didn't feel comfortable. Without the safety, I was carrying the 26 condition 3 (not often - mostly carried the 340). I know people say: carry without one in the chamber for 24 hours (or a few days), and if the trigger isn't back, you are good to go! Well, I intend to carry for 30 more years, if I live that long, and a 24 hour test isn't good enough for me. I've driven my car for almost 25 years without an accident (knock on wood), that doesn't mean I don't wear a seatbelt... ;)

    Others will say if Gaston Glock intended a safety... Well, it's not like a thumb safety is a foreign concept, 1911 has had one for 100 years. For me, I have the best of both worlds - a model 1926, or maybe call it a 2611... :)

    A manual safety provides the comfort to me that allows me to carry with one in the chamber, and bringing the gun to bear is a fast, simple, one-hand operation, compared to a two-hand rack, or awkward one-hand rack. It played NO part in my decision, but for those that put stock in "experts" here's some literature, including an article by Massad Ayoob, whom I had never heard of before internet forums, but who gets quoted constantly as an authority. http://www.cominolli.com/readingroom.html

    My first autoloader and 20 year gun was a Taurus PT92 DA/SA with manual safety (obviously way pre-dating CCW in Ohio). Turning off the safety is a natural part of my gripping the gun (when readying to fire, of course). I would have loved a similar setup for CCW, but it just doesn't exist in a platform as small, concealable, reliable, and powerful as the G26. I looked!

    To be candid, the safety was installed yesterday - I've dry fired it about 3 times so far. :) I may end up hating it and selling it - I hear they go for a lot with the safety on gunbroker. What I've noticed so far is that a natural gripping motion brings your thumb in contact with top of the safety - I think it will be very natural to sweep it off as part of presentation. I will practice with it for a few weeks and probably 1000rds before I carry it and rely on it for SD. Whatever I end up thinking about it - good or bad - maybe I'll post at that time. If I hate it, I'll sell it and stick with the Smith, or keep looking. A SIG DA/SA without safety, but with long 10lb first pull is intriguing, or an HK USPc var. 1, but both are huge by comparison...

    Ok, there's my reasoning. If any disagree, that's completely fine, I am not the safety nazi, and would not seek to convert anyone to my way of thinking. But my way of thinking isn't wrong, it just might be different than yours, and hey, no problem with that!

    RANGE REPORT POST:
    I know many (most) of you would never put a safety on your Glock, and I totally understand your position, and do NOT seek to change your mind. I personally decided I wanted a subcompact with a manual safety, and that's a very hard thing to find! I explained my reasoning [above].

    I finally got out to try my Glock 26 with a Cominolli safety installed, and wanted to give an honest report. I had it installed by Ronnie B at http://www.boomboomtactical.net/. He does some crazy "bling" customization too, for those into that. Good guy, easy to work with.

    For those unfamiliar, it looks like this:

    On Safe:
    [​IMG]

    Ready to Fire:
    [​IMG]

    First the good: It performed exactly as advertised, no gun-related problems of any kind (admittedly with only 200rds so far - a few hundred more will go through it before I trust it completely). With the safety on, you can rack the slide (convenient for loading/unloading), but not pull the trigger. All the factory safties are still functional. The position of the safety is such that in the process of gripping the gun to fire, your thumb (for a righty) hits it, so sweeping it off will be no problem, and plenty fast. Here's an article by Massad Ayoob about how it affects speed of draw: http://www.cominolli.com/images/AmericanHGart2.pdf

    It is fairly easy to turn the safety off with your thumb (but it is tight enough, and there is a "click"); it's actually quite stiff the other way, which is good - would seem to reduce any chance of the safety engaging when you don't want it to. :eek:

    Also good, for me, is it made carrying with one in the chamber more comfortable. I know the safety is between my ears (if I only had a nickel...), but the safety between my ears works in conjunction with the Caminolli; you can actually have both "safeties" functioning. :neener:

    The Bad: As you can see from the picture, you must cut (or have someone cut) the frame. This doesn't bother me much with a Glock - I love 'em, but they aren't exactly works of art... If I take it off, it will be perfectly functional, just with that notch. It is also going to wear a line on the frame next to the notch - again, I don't really care.

    The only bad thing to me is that the lever is kind of sharp and gets in the way. I haven't decided whether to tuck my thumb under it, or leave my thumb on top of it like some people shoot a 1911. It will take some getting used to, but so far I think it's a keeper. I shot it just as well even with the adjusted grip. It does not impact carry with any of the holsters I have - although I suspect the lever might wear a spot on my Nemesis pocket holster, but I don't use that much anyway.

    I can't think what else anyone might like to know - any questions, feel free to ask. Any criticism, feel free, but I've already heard how a Glock is like a revolver (no it's not) about trigger discipline and the safety between my ears, the four rules, how a Glock has never gone off by itself, how Gaston Glock intended it, etc., etc. All fine points, but really, already beat way to death.:barf:

    To each his own, and safe shooting to all!

    FranklyTodd

    PS: it's three months or so since adding the safety. Still like it very much, but admittedly carry my M&P340 10X as often.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2008
  2. DerbyDale

    DerbyDale Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    258
  3. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,698
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    The Glock is essentially a "double action only" (or trigger
    action) automatic.

    It does not have a safety for the same reason a double
    action only revolver does not have a safety: if the user is trained
    to use the gun as designed, a seperate safety is an unnecessary
    complication. The gun is safe from accidental discharge unless
    the finger is on the trigger. The finger should be on the trigger
    only if the sights are on an identified and intended target.

    Why would anyone want an external "safety" on a Glock?
    It would be an advantage if weapon retention failed: if your
    Glock was taken from you by a protaganist unaware that there
    was a manual safety (people have had "safeties" installed on
    revolvers for that reason.) I am trying to think of a rational
    reason, and that's about all I can think up.
     
  4. FranklyTodd

    FranklyTodd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    Anyone who's shot a DAO revolver and a Glock would call B.S. on this. It might be the same reason, but there really isn't any comparison. Trigger pull 3/4" at 10lbs, or 1/2" at 5.5lbs. I am NOT SAYING A GLOCK IS UNSAFE W/O AN EXTERNAL SAFETY. I'm just saying it's not incomprehensible or nonsensical to add one. The Glock is NOTHING like a revolver, on so many levels.

    Wouldn't all this be true of a cocked-and-unlocked 1911 also (and yes, many modern 1911 have passive drop safeties)? Would you carry that way?

    Ok, I already regret typing this post, as it's a very, very, very tired argument. I'm going to post it anyway, but I'm just going to be a spectator now...
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2008
  5. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    11,941
    Location:
    DFW Area
    There are many reasons why a cocked-and-unlocked 1911 is different from a Glock, the most pertinent is that Glocks are never cocked unless you've pulled the trigger nearly all the way to the rear. Also interesting that after comparing pull weights and pull lengths of Glocks & revolvers and stating that they affect the safety factor, you completely ignore that issue when comparing a 1911 and a Glock. To paraphrase a quote I read somewhere: "The Glock is NOTHING like a 1911, on so many levels." ;)
    If a heavier trigger makes you feel safer, Glock offers factory parts that are easily user installed to make that modification. You can have a pull heavier than 10lbs if that's what does it for you.
     
  6. FranklyTodd

    FranklyTodd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    That's semantics - so it's 60% cocked? Fact is, you pull a 1911 with approx 4lbs of pressure and it (usually) goes bang, pull a Glock with 5.5lbs, and it goes bang. I didn't say a Glock was just like a 1911 (and didn't initiate comparing Glock to anything - it is what it is); I said if you want to analogize a Glock to another gun, it's closer to a cocked-and-unlocked 1911 than a DAO revolver with a 10-12lb. pull. Adding a NY1 or NY2 trigger is a fine solution - I never said one thing against that plan. In fact, I never said anything negative about a stock Glock. When people take a stock Glock and CCW it with a 3.5lb connector I think they are making a bad choice, but I wouldn't even pass judgment on that.

    I said for ME, I wanted an EXTERNAL/MANUAL safety. That's what "does it for me." I'm perfectly content with my set-up, but am not proselytizing in order to convert others. The statement I find ridiculous is that someone "can't even imagine" or "can't think of a rational reason" (beyond weapon retention) to have an external safety. Someone who would make that statement is either grossly lacking in imagination, or simply has a completely closed mind. Again, I could care less how you carry yours, and similarly could care less of what you think about how I carry mine. I was sharing MY experience so that others can learn from my experience/mistakes, not passing judgment on anyone else.
     
  7. Big Gay Al

    Big Gay Al Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Mason, MI, USA
    I can't believe we all missed this before.

    A cocked and unlocked 1911 does indeed have a secondary safety. The grip safety. If it is not depressed, the gun won't go off.
     
  8. mgregg85

    mgregg85 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,008
    Location:
    Midland, MI
    Even more questionable, why would anyone want an external safety on an SA XD? Its safer than the block already, so why would it need one.
     
  9. FranklyTodd

    FranklyTodd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    THIS is my last post on this topic. No, really...

    Note, it was Big Gay Al that said a 1911 with its safety off is safer than a Glock, not me!!! ;)

    I could be wrong, but I think Smith and Springfield are moving towards having the safety optional. If that's the case who would be against having the choice? There's still something about having two conscious steps before the gun will go off - all the passive/automatic safties in the world can't replace that. I'm NOT saying everyone or every gun needs two steps (safety off / pull trigger), but I am NOT alone - I guarantee you that the XDs/M&Ps with a manual safety will sell, and sell well. I do hope they are optional - I'm really not advocating that ALL pistols need manual safties, I swear!! I hope there's always a choice.

    If I openly carried (i.e., like a cop) I might choose to go striker-fired, sans safety. Even if I CC'd in a rational state I might be ok with it - put it on the the AM, take it off in the PM. However, CCW in Ohio means a lot of on and off, and because of the use of pocket holsters, SmartCarries, and IWB holsters during the insane number of administrative handlings, many in an awkward seated position in the car - my carry guns will either have a long, fairly heavy first pull with some sort of visual shooting cue - i.e. rotating cylinder or moving hammer (Sig/HK), or else if it is an internal striker fired pistol it will have a manual safety. :neener:

    Nothing I've found with a factory safety can hang with a G26 in terms of size, power, and reliability, so - had to add the Cominolli! :cool:

    I'm such a hypocrite - I swore like 5 posts ago I was stepping to the sideline on this one... :rolleyes:

    Safe shooting to all, no matter what flavor you carry! :p

    FT

    PS: What is this??? http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/trigger_lock.html Edit: nevermind - looks like Europe-only Glock factory safety.
     
  10. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    11,941
    Location:
    DFW Area
    No, by spring LENGTH it's about 50% compressed. But in terms of stored spring energy it's only about 26% of maximum. In other words there's not enough energy stored to fire the gun. As I said earlier, a Glock is not cocked unless someone is pulling the trigger and has it almost all the way to the rear.
    When it suited your argument you asserted that both pull weight AND pull length were important in distinguishing between Glock and DA revolver triggers. Now when it suits your argument in comparing Glock and 1911 triggers you completely ignore pull length and compare only on the basis of pull weight.

    In addition, when a stock Glock trigger pull is measured at any point other than the absolute point of the trigger where leverage is maximized, they're usually 6lbs or more.

    You claim that a revolver trigger with a 10lb pull and 3/4" of travel is significantly different from a Glock trigger. The Glock trigger pull is 40% lighter than a DA revolver with a 10lb pull and has a trigger travel that is about 33% shorter. A 1911 trigger pull is around 1/4" of travel and about 4lbs in weight which means it is 33% lighter and 50% shorter than a stock Glock trigger. Similar relative differences in both pull length and pull weight as in comparing a DA revolver to a Glock.
    Actually, OC is a situation where most agree that a pistol with a manual safety is better than one without. Any time your gun might be snatched, there's value in having the grabber waste some time determining how to get your gun into action.
     
  11. FranklyTodd

    FranklyTodd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    JohnKsa, I think you have proved my point.

    Of course - I'm a lawyer... ;) Actually, I was trying to make a point, not formulate a mathematical proof.

    I recognize the weapon retention issue, but I'm ignoring it, since I will have a safety on mine, and will not ever open carry. In my head the whole discussion was about ADs and NDs, and the risk of both are directly proportional to the number of administrative handlings, I would think. I don't want to cloud the issue with weapon retention, which only supports having a safety.

    I was responding to an individual who claimed he couldn't even imagine or even find it rational that one might prefer a manual safety on a striker-fired pistol.

    I think comparing a Glock to a 1911 is VERY STUPID. However, comparing a Glock to a DA revolver is EQUALLY STUPID. My whole point in bringing up the comparison with a 1911 was to illustrate how stupid it was to say a DAO revolver has no safety, ergo, a safety on a Glock is dumb - you have gone on to exhaustively, mathematically prove how stupid it is, congratulations! I still claim that in the spectrum of trigger pull length/weight, a Glock is AS CLOSE to a cocked 1911 as it is to a DAO revolver. You pretty much agreed:
    But recognize, you've conceded the Glock is 1/2 way between what almost everyone considers a safe carry gun - DAO revolver, no safety - and an absurd gun that NOBODY would carry - cocked-and-unlocked 1911. So if the Glock is 1/2 way to an ABSURD gun, can't we at least agree that is is a judgment call whether one would like to have a manual safety on it??

    Now, will you please acknowledge that desiring a safety for a Glock/XD/M&P is a rational choice (even if you think it's ultimately a bad choice - rational basis is a low standard of decisional review) for some people, some of the time - or are 100% of the people who would prefer a manual safety on a Glock/XD/M&P complete morons? If I could just extract that admission, I'll shut up, I promise...
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2008
  12. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    11,941
    Location:
    DFW Area
    No, I've proved that IF one believes there's a significant difference between a DA revolver trigger pull and a Glock trigger pull they must also acknowledge that there's a similarly significant difference between a 1911 trigger pull and a Glock pull.
    I tend to agree.
    Well, given that we agree that both comparisons are "VERY STUPID" I suppose that this claim is valid in at least one sense. ;)
    I've conceded nothing, I've only shown that the conclusion of your comparison between a 1911 and a Glock is inconsistent with the conclusion of your comparison between a DA revolver and a Glock.
    I never said it was irrational. I have said (in various posts on this forum--some on this thread, some not) that there are guns out there with similar characteristics that have manual safeties for those who feel the need for such accoutrements, that there are aftermarket Glock accessories for those who want Glocks but reject the philosophy behind their design and furthermore that there are Glock factory parts available for those who want a more "revolver like" trigger pull--at least in terms of pull weight.
     
  13. FranklyTodd

    FranklyTodd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    double post somehow - see below...
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2008
  14. FranklyTodd

    FranklyTodd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    Aw, c'mon, you won't concede that a DAO revolver is a vastly different animal than a Glock? You seem knowledgeable enough that I assume you've shot both... :rolleyes: Your credibility is plummeting... :scrutiny:

    Name one that's similar to a Glock 26 in size, power, and reliability. CZ Rami 2075P is the closest I've found, and it's cocked and locked only - can't put the safety on with the hammer down in DA mode. It's also unproven compared to the Glock in terms of reliability. Beretta PX4 Storm SubCompact is somewhat bigger, and you flip the safety UP to fire - sorry, can't change that habit!

    Actually, don't bother to try to name one, I've already looked - you've at least arguably conceded I'm not irrational. At least I have that going for me.

    If I had to do all over again, for a carry auto I would give more scrutiny to the HK P2000SK DA/SA. No safety, but an external hammer and a longer, heavier first pull. I fully admit I've never shot one, but even so, it's my second choice after the Glock 26 with the Cominolli for sub-compact autos. :neener: Actually, if I had it to over again, I'd probably buy an HK USPc Variant 1 and deal with the extra size, since my 90% daily carry has evolved into an M&P340 snub anyway!

    Pleasant sparring with you John!

    Best regards, FT
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2008
  15. Big Gay Al

    Big Gay Al Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Mason, MI, USA
    No, I said that a 1911 "does indeed have a secondary safety. The grip safety." I didn't necessarily say it's safer than the Glock.

    However, since you brought it up, I've yet to shoot myself in the leg with my 1911. ;)
     
  16. Arizona_Mike

    Arizona_Mike Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,078
    Leave the gun, take the Cominolli?

    Sorry if I trigger a zombie thread apocalypse.

    Personally I have no use for this on a pistol but I am looking for one for my dedicated carbine (and soon to be registered SBR) lower. Any non-gunsmithing alternatives? I tried the Siderlock but it malfunctions with my carbine's striker (trigger fails to reset or fires on reset)! I also decided that I don't like the effect of the intended operation on trigger discipline.

    Mike
     
  17. Soldiernurse

    Soldiernurse Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Cedar Park, Texas
    Because it's MY Glock

    Ten-Ring Precision, SATX, installed a (Cominolli) Thumb Safety on my Gen 4 Glock 19. No regrets. It's still a Glock that shoots great. So, all the Glock Purist bring on the hate.
     
  18. Kiln

    Kiln Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,465
    Yup. For me it is equal to carrying a revolver with the hammer cocked.

    I've never liked not having a safety of some sort other than the trigger safety.

    Just saying "don't pull the trigger if you don't want to shoot" isn't good enough. Lots of people have been injured while holstering these guns because of holsters catching on the super safe no safety triggers on Glocks.
     
  19. Collector0311

    Collector0311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    368
    I'm 180 lbs and can carry my Glock21 concealed with a clip-draw and Mic-holster combo. The Mic-holster darn near alleviates most of this critical rhetoric about the lack of an external safety.
    Oh and the trigger safety is technically external....just sayin.
     
  20. HB

    HB Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,295
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    To me the glock is a duty weapon and as such should be carried in a heavily constructed OWB holster. Ask Plaxico if he would have wanted a safety...!

    HB
     
  21. Kiln

    Kiln Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,465
    I've seen quite a few "shot myself with a Glock because the holster was worn" threads. That's why I don't really trust the Glock. At least with the Springfield XD and XDM there is a grip safety to help offset that when holstering.
     
  22. Zerodefect

    Zerodefect Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    4,334
    Location:
    Yakutsk, Sakha Republic
    Because you can't Speed Reholster a Glock when transitioning back to rifle.

    Something you run into when:
    -Rifle training, especially CQB.
    -3 gun comps
    -Swat/Combat training

    I take my time holstering my Glock. So when I do 3 gun or carbine practice transitions, I prefer a 1911.

    Obviously for civvy CCW needs, I could care less about speed reholstering. (a bad idea in almost allways)
     
  23. ku4hx

    ku4hx Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,794
    "speed reholstering" made me think of "instant landing" as in plane crash. There are times to be obsessed with speed and there are times not to be. When, in a confrontational situation, is it going to be advantageous to be ultra fast at taking your personal protection device out of service? Still makes me thing of a plane crash. But in my one and only real world confrontation, I don't remember holstering my gun at all.

    And since I wasn't practicing for a three gun shoot at the time, all other guns were in the safe.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  24. IMTHDUKE

    IMTHDUKE Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Ask Plaxico Burress.
     
  25. YZ

    YZ member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,066
    Location:
    Midwest
    The whole point of the Glock is the absence of thumb safety. Adding it on partially defeats the purpose of this design as always on ready. But people do want both, for one reason or another.

    Springfield Armory listened... and bam! A Yugoslavian clone with not only a manual safety but a 1911 grip safety too. You can't complain!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page