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

[Snarlingiron]

It's real simple. Glock built the thing with the advice of many military and leo individuals. No external anything. So, when you pull the trigger it goes bang. First time, every time, all the time. I bought my first Glock about 1 year ago. I have fired about 6000 rounds through it since then. Two, count 'em, two misfeeds. In 6000 rounds!!! Sorry, guys it really don't get any better than this. The absence of the decockers, safetys, etc. etc. is really the point. If you don't think you are competent enough to keep your finger off the trigger until you want to go bang, then get a Beretta or a Ruger. Obviously, the idiot with the Fawty wasn't in spite of telling everyone he was. Thing is, if I draw the thing, my decision has been made. I am going to fire. If someone is not dead at the end, it is because I made a mistake.

I was like many others in the beginning. "Hell's Bells, I ain't going to have no Plastic Gun!!" A few trips to the range with a friend that is a fanatic Glockster sold me. Now, I can't imagine having anything else. I cary my Glock 19 everyday with one in the pipe, and I don't feel unconfortable in the least.

THE GLOCK IS UNEQUIVOCALLY THE FINEST AUTOLOADING PISTOL DESIGN EVER EXECUTED!! DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH IT!!! If there was ever any pistol that is NOT for playing games, this is it!!!

If you can't handle it, get something else, that wil likely get you killed because it doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger.

I will have to say that I can't agree enough that you can never have enough training whatever tool you choose.

 

[Car Knocker]

THE GLOCK IS UNEQUIVOCALLY THE FINEST AUTOLOADING PISTOL DESIGN EVER EXECUTED!! DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH IT!!! If there was ever any pistol that is NOT for playing games, this is it!!!

If you can't handle it, get something else, that wil likely get you killed because it doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion - doesn't mean it's right or wrong, just that it's their opinion.

 

[DMSHEPARD]

It seems that most of these replies are coming from people who do not know the Glock inside and out, and I am talking about BOTH people for and against.
The Glock design uses 3 safeties, just some of them are internal and you can't see them.
1. The "I'd rather a long DAO trigger bit". THe Glock trigger is long, first the trigger loads the spring that "cocks" the firing pin, then you have to actually make it fire, which in itself is a heavy pull. Doesn't this put the Glock in the same catagory as a DAO? Uncocked and unlocked?
2. It was not designed for Mexican carry, or to be left in your local kindergarten unattended. It was designed to be put into action very quickly with the least possibility of failure. Those who question Glocks simplicity are probably the same people who won't buy a new gun with mag safeties, saying it is just one more thing to go wrong in an emergency. Going to have your cake and eat it too?
3. This post is not intended to piss anybody off, but it seems that most of the people are just fighting to get their opinion approved. Are you insecure in your choice of weapon? The effort that has gone into developing and testing these guns was done by people far more qualified than most of us (including me).

I usually just delete a response like this, having vented by the time I have finished, but-THIS HURTS----->:banghead:

 

[Snarlingiron]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion - doesn't mean it's right or wrong, just that it's their opinion.

Couldn't agree more. Prior to getting the Glock I had a variety of 1911 style pistols, including Hi Powers. Nothing really wrong with any of them...I just really, really love the Glock.

Guess I tend to wax a little over-enthusiastic.

 

[JohnKSa]

Take all the safeties off the 1911 and you basically have a glock.

The trigger safety and the wider than normal trigger guard make Glocks more snag resistant than most pistols.

With the trigger in the forward position, there are two different parts that positively block forward movement of the firing pin, and even if they both break, there is not enough energy stored in the partially cocked striker spring to fire the pistol.

Glocks are not for everyone, but they're safer than most folks realize. They're certainly more drop and snag safe than a 1911 with no safeties.

the three most common times to have an ND seem to be holstering, unholstering, and cleaning.

I posted a poll awhile back and got well over 100 responses from people who had unintentional discharges. Of the NDs, over 80% were from people intentionally putting their finger on the trigger, and over 60% were from people intentionally pulling the trigger.

While one can argue about the 20% or so who put their finger on the trigger but didn't mean to fire (in direct contradiction to the gun safety rules, I might add), it's clear that the more than 60% who INTENDED to pull the trigger weren't going to be saved by an extra safety lever. There is no safety device which can defeat the INTENT of the shooter without rendering the gun useless.

There were no snag related discharges, and only 6% of responses were due to the finger accidentally being in the triggerguard (holstering discharges would make up some of these). If we believe the poll responses, these types of unintentional discharges aren't nearly as common as it might seem.

 

[pablo45]

I totally agree, there is no need

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The only safety on a pistol should be your trigger finger. These pistols are designed for life/death situations. In those situations you want to be able to unholster your weapon and lay into your adversary. In such a scenario, a safety is only a hinderance and potential death warrant. The best way to be safe is to be a safe shooter.

You could say just about any sort of semi-auto pistol like a 1911, Glock, Kahr, Beretta, etc. was designed for life or death situations, even revolvers. So that point is sort of meaningless as a unique justification for Glock.

I had no idea that Glocks were so much faster than 1911s with 1911s being all hindered with that slow manual safety, and yet, first shot times with 1911s are often quicker than with Glocks. Interesting. Of course, it could be the shooter, not the gun.

 

[Big Gay Al]

Well, call me old fashioned if you want to, but I have problems with any firearm, where part of the disassembly instructions have you pull the trigger for the slide to come off.

But that's just me.

 

[Xigris]

To each his own ...

After reading all of the discussion so far, I'd say the answer to the original question is NO - don't change the Glock.
Simply let those who like it the way it is, carry it. For all of those who don't like it the way it is - there are plenty of very good alternatives.

I own a few Glocks (G20, G21 & G29) and they're great. But the pistols I carry most often are an HK USP 40 compact and a Sig P229 SAS.

 

[Blacklabman]

I do not care for external safeties. Besides fit and feel ,this is one of the reasons I prefer Sig's.
Yes the Sig's are SA/DA, with the first shot being the long/heavy DA pull. However the fact that Sig's do not have an external safety, is a fact I enjoy.
On the whole not having an external saftey issue. Glock got it right.

 

[45auto]

Before the Joint forces ditched the proposal for a new handgun, the vast majority of handguns to be purchased were to have a manual safety.

So, if Glock wanted to compete for the "big sales", they would have had to design a manual safety. I suspect, in the future, if they do replace the Beretta, it will probably have a manual safety also...that just a guess.

Obviously, the potential "biggest customer" wants a manual safety. There must be a reason for that. Now, before eveyone says the "Goverment" doesn't know what they are doing or how stupid they are, just keep in mind we have the finest armed force the world has ever seen...so I think they make a lot of good decisions. That doesn't mean it's the best option for everyone, but it probably "ain't stupid" either.

Anybody walk around with a rifle or shotgun without the safety on?

Edit: You can have two Glocks. One with manual safety and one without. It doesn't have to be one or the other! It exist now, but it's an "after market" modification.

 

[loadedround]

How about asking that DEA Halfwit who shot himself in the footwith his Glock. Maybe he was too "professonal" to need an external safety. Still LMAO over this guy...our government agents at work protecting us!

 

[Big Gay Al]

How about asking that DEA Halfwit who shot himself in the footwith his Glock. Maybe he was too "professonal" to need an external safety. Still LMAO over this guy...our government agents at work protecting us!

Don't under estimate the value of that agent. He taught us all a valuable lesson. Regardless of the mechanical devices, the most important safety is YOU. If you don't engage your brain, something bad might happen.

Of course, he also showed us another lesson. Always drop the magazine (clips to you neophytes out there) BEFORE racking the slide to empty the chamber. Other wise, you just did that for nothing.

I still say I don't like any firearm that has you pull the trigger to seperate the slide from the frame.

 

[Zach S]

After reading this thread, I wish my glock had an external safety.

I normally shoot 1911s with a high thumb grip. So I pretty much shoot all autos with a high thumb. If my G19 had a thumbsafety, maybe it would slide-lock when the mag was dry... Other than that, the lack of an external saftey doesnt bother me.

 

[Snarlingiron]

How about asking that DEA Halfwit who shot himself in the footwith his Glock. Maybe he was too "professonal" to need an external safety. Still LMAO over this guy...our government agents at work protecting us

!

I saw an interview with that idiot the other day. He is sueing the DEA claiming that their allowing the video to get into the public domain has ruined his career. I guess he forgot about shooting himself. Listen for the sucking sound as another idiot that caused his own demise latches onto the government teat.

There is a reason that the expression "Shoot yourself in the foot" is so commonly used to describe idiotic acts.

 

[ball3006]

If Glocks are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

dangerous because of no safety lever, how come so many other gun manufacturers make a "lever safe trigger" such as Glocks have. I can't see how someone can carry a stubby Glock mexican style. Not enough barrel to be secure in the waist band. I carry mine in my jacket pocket all the time, along with a Kel Tec too. No problem. You have to remember not to grab the pistol by the trigger when pulling it out. To be a safe gun owner, you HAVE to have a SAFE MINDSET. It is when folks get lax, they shoot themselves in the foot, or elsewhere........If you don't like Glocks, buy something else......I believe a Jennings has a manual safety........chris3

 

[SSN Vet]

logical inconsistency noted....

If you don't think you are competent enough to keep your finger off the trigger until you want to go bang

If you can't handle it, get something else, that will likely get you killed because it doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger, get a ...

I think external switch safeties are extremely dangerous.....owners being shot because they couldn't shoot first

So....you have to be "competent" enough to keep your finger off the trigger....if you can't "handle it" get and external safety gun.

But...external safety guns will "get you killed" if you are not "competent" enough to remember to flip the safety off.

So what requires more competence?
1. not actuating little metal flipper called the trigger when you don't want "bang"
or
2. actuating little metal flipper called safety when you do want "bang"

Let's face it.....safely handling a firearm requires competence & safely carrying a firearm for self defense requires even more. This is true whether you have an external safety or not.

Some people feel they need to deploy their self defense weapon very quickly and that risk of forgetting to toggle off the safety along with the risk of not being able to toggle off the safety quickly enough outweigh the risk of forgetting to remove their finger from the trigger guard after firing it and shooting themselves in the leg when reholstering.

Other people may not think that they need to deploy their self defense weapon in such a speedy manner, and therefore balance the risk rewards the other way.

Both these positions have logic behind them.

What has no logic behind it is the continual mindless banter that those who balance the risk rewards differently (because they are different people in different circumstances) are "complete idiots who are negligent and unsafe" or "fraidy cats who can't handle it".

Note that even the professional military minds come down on different sides of the risk reward balancing act.

Glock built the thing with the advice of many military and leo individuals. No external anything. So, when you pull the trigger it goes bang.

and

if Glock wanted to compete for the "big sales" (U.S. Military), they would have had to design a manual safety....Obviously, the potential "biggest customer" wants a manual safety. There must be a reason for that

Why might Glock consider putting a manual safety on their fine firearms? How about to offer more choices! What a concept.

This shouldn't ruffle anybody’s feathers, obviously those who can "handle it" and are "competent enough to keep your finger off the trigger"......should also be competent enough to keep their finger off the external safety (that is...not accidentally engage it when not desiring it).

Of course those smarty pants Austrians will have to develop the worlds first safe action safety, to prevent accidental engaging of the safety, to go along with it.

 

[Jonathan]

The "finger-is-the-safety" concept is continually paraded around, despite studies that have shown that trigger-finger control is not something you can control 100% of the time.

Under the right conditions, even trained people will reflexively clench their fingers, leading to a situation in which the trigger is pulled. It's not their fault, and it might not even be possible to overcome with training: it's just a function of how your central nervous system works.

In addition, pull weight is insufficient to guard against this effect: although this is just from memory, I recall figures of 15 to 20 pounds of force being measured for these simulated accidents. A long trigger can guard against the jerk reflex, but even that's not a sure thing.



For this reason, an external safety is required. Modern designs can effectively eliminate the concerns of mechanical failure, and a grip or integral trigger safety can help against non-holster accidents, but neither guards against the AD I've mentioned above. Of course, if a person flips off a safety while drawing, but before bringing up to aim, then the benefit is lost.

 

[JohnKSa]

Jonathon,

The idea isn't that you put your finger on the trigger and then try to keep from pulling it voluntarily through training, the idea is that you keep your finger completely OFF the trigger (most recommend that it be out of the trigger guard entirely and indexed on the frame of the gun above the trigger) until ready to fire. As stated by the second rule of gun safety.

The finger on the trigger idea generates two possibilities.

First Possibility: The person has a finger on the trigger when the situation does not warrant it.

If a person is walking around with a finger on the trigger, in direct contradiction to the rules of gun safety, it seems a stretch to think that this same careless person will remember to have engaged the manual safety. If he can't remember to keep his finger off the trigger, why is it reasonable to think he will be careful enough to engage a manual safety? Along the same lines, why would we think he could remember to disengage a manual safety when he actually needs to fire.

Conversely, if a person can learn to engage and disengage a manual safety properly, why do we accept that he can't learn to keep his finger off the trigger until ready to fire? Especially since that's something he's supposed to be doing already!

Second Possibility: The person has a finger on the trigger when warranted by the situation.

If the situation is such that it DOES warrant having a finger on the trigger, then it's hard to imagine that that the person will have left a manual safety engaged to prevent an accidental pull. If a manual safety IS on at this point, it's probably on by mistake!

 

[Richard.Howe]

Glocks are just fine open carry holster pistols, but they're not as good for CCW use as some other types, primarily because their safety is a holster

Just like a revolver, right?

 

[thales]

*


No, a Glock is not just like a revolver. In stock condition, the Glock's trigger is considerably lighter and shorter than the trigger of any double action revolver I have seen; S&W, Colt, Ruger, High Standard, Taurus, etc.

In addition, a lot of people seem unhappy with the Glock's standard trigger pull, so they modify it to make it crisper, shorter and lighter. Accordingly, a brand new Glock ought to have a manual safety, and a Glock with a modified trigger should be considered a "range only" pistol without one.

Some people think "just keep yer booger hook off the bang switch (ya moron), and you won't have an accident and you don't need a manual safety". With equal logic you could say, "You don't need seat belts in your car, just don't have a collision". Or, "You don't need a smoke alarm in your house, just don't let a fire start in the middle of the night". The point being, of course, that pistols are manipulated by people who fail to do things 100% right 100% of the time.

It is not difficult to learn the rules of safe gun handling and practice them faithfully under normal circumstances. But people get complacent and casual in handling their guns, just as they do with Skil-saws, and that complacency is a major source of accidents. Like the cop who reholstered his Glock in a holster with a safety strap that entered the trigger guard, causing an accidental discharge. (He was keeping his booger hook off the bang switch, but he was not perfect enough to foresee such an accident. I guess Glock and Fobus weren't either.) Ditto another cop who did much the same thing with his Glock, but with an elastic cord from his jacket. (This sort of accident has happened with revolvers, too.) Ditto the infamous "professional" DEA agent. It may be fun to call him a moron, but his main fault was complacency. Now I know none of us are dumb enough to let any such thing happen to us. But unless you have never run your car out of gas, never cut yourself shaving, and never burned yourself with a hot skillet, then you should learn rather than laugh. It can happen to anybody and a manual safety can help.

We normally handle our guns routinely; range, home, holster, etc. We can all reasonably expect to live a lifetime without needing to use a pistol to defend ourselves. If we do have such a need, then normal safe gun handling practices will rapidly be replaced by conditioned reflexes, physiological alert responses, and instinct. In a self-defense emergency, we can expect to experience tunnel vision, hearing compression, time dilation, loss of fine muscle coordination, exaggerated muscle tone, etc. We can expect to be extremely frightened and excited and in one heck of a desperate hurry. We can expect to soil our drawers and not notice it until later. The likelihood of an accidental discharge (with unintended and possibly tragic consequences) increases dramatically in such circumstances. This can also happen to anybody and a manual safety can help here, too.

If the idea is that a manual safety is one more device that has to be mastered and that is likely to interfere with the reliable function of the pistol, then the only rational response is, "Master it!" I don't see how the same people who can't be trained to operate a manual safety can be expected to "keep their booger hook off the bang switch".

Please don't call that little lever on the face of the Glock's trigger a "safety". It is trigger block that is disengaged by pulling the trigger (intentionally or not), and it is some special kind of stupid. It has essentially no function.

My Glock is getting a thumb safety.


*

 

[Jonathan]

John,

I'm not under the impression that people who keep their finger on the trigger can be helped with a simple safety: that's a serious violation of basic safe practice.

I was referring to the standard technique of a straight index finger along the slide. Here's some quick quotes from one review:

...33 male and 13 female officers of different ranks and years of service, were sent into a room to arrest a "suspect" and to "act in a way they thought appropriate" while doing so. The officers were armed with a SIG-Sauer P226 that was rigged with force sensors on the trigger and grip. All the officers were instructed that if they drew the gun during the exercise, they were to keep their finger off the trigger unless they had made the decision to shoot, per their training and department regs.

As the role-play evolved, 34 of the 46 officers drew the gun and one officer actually fired, intentionally. Of the 33 others who drew, all insisted that they had followed instructions to keep their finger outside the trigger guard, because they'd not made a decision to shoot.

The sensors told a different tale.

Seven of the 33--more than 20 per cent--had in fact touched the trigger hard enough to activate the sensor. Even the officer who eventually fired his weapon "not only touched the trigger twice before actually firing and once again afterwards, but also had his finger on it long before actually firing," Heim notes. Yet he too maintained he'd kept his finger well clear of the trigger until the very split-second before he fired.

They also discussed how easy it is to fire when the finger is actually kept on the trigger, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. The two other factors that could be applicable to the insufficiency of conscious trigger control are "sympathetic contraction" and "hand confusion". The first involves an unintentional action as the result of some intentional motion, and the second is when you effectively confuse one hand for the other for an intentional action.

In my opinion, both of these are inherently less of a threat, and in addition, both should be more avoidable with training.

 

[nitesite]

I own a S&W 442 Airweight Centennial .38-Spl revolver and have pocket carried it numerous times without any kind of holster. The long and fairly heavy trigger pull makes me feel quite safe with this unprotected handgun in a pocket, even when drawing it from a concealed location.

Would you carry a SubCompact Glock in the same pocket sans holster or whatever protects the trigger?

I carry the G29 but would never carry it unprotected in a pocket like I do with a hammerless J-frame. For me it requires a good holster to feel comfortable.

 

[JohnKSa]

Jonathon,

I addressed the possibility that a person would put his or her finger on the trigger when the situation didn't warrant it in my earlier answer. Keeping your finger off the trigger is a very simple thing to do/not do. Simpler than manipulating a manual safety. If a person can't learn when to put/not put a finger on the trigger, it's a stretch to believe they can learn to operate a manual safety reliably.

While you say that you aren't talking about people putting their fingers on the trigger by mistake, the quoted study in your post clearly is speaking about exactly that.

Please don't call that little lever on the face of the Glock's trigger a "safety". It is trigger block that is disengaged by pulling the trigger (intentionally or not), and it is some special kind of stupid. It has essentially no function.

It is a snag safety designed to prevent the trigger from being accidentally snagged. It actually works quite well. It is NOT intended to prevent a person from firing the gun when they pull the trigger. Saying it won't do that as if that is an indictment is sort of like saying that seatbelts don't prevent accidents and therefore they have no function.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

Are you guys ready for this? Are you really?

"Safe", and ,"Safety", are relative terms! If you don't FEEL safe with a certain type of firearm, or carrying a certain type of firearm a certain way, THEN DON'T BUY IT ....Move along, nothing to see here, just more gun hate:banghead: !