Unclear on the Concept...

[Seeker]

Handled and fired a Glock for the first time yesterday. It wasn't a bad experience but I will stay with my FEG PJK 9HP.

I am a little confused by the trigger safety. It seems to me that, for the most part, all guns are safe until you pull the trigger.

My FEG has the thumb safety near the back of the pistol which prevents the trigger from dropping the hammer and the slide from sliding, M-1 carbine has lever near the trigger guard that prevents trigger pull, My Remington pump actions (30.06, .35 and .22) all have a button that pushes from left to right (and visa versa) side of the trigger guard that prevents trigger pull. These all make sense to me - they prevent the trigger from being pulled accidently.

It seems that with the Glock that if something hooked inside the trigger guard and against the trigger an AD may well result.

What am I missing?

[RWK]

Seeker,

I believe you are not missing a thing. If a Glock has a round chambered and both the trigger safety and the trigger are depressed, the striker will actuate and a round will be fired.

[JMBrowning]

Recently read an article about a police officer who picked up his toddler when he got home from work-toddler's toe caught in the trigger guard of his holstered Glock-POW.

Safe action?Yeah,right.

[dsk]

That is why you NEVER carry a Glock in a holster that doesn't cover the trigger completely. It sounds to me like that police officer had the wrong holster.

BTW I agree all this talk that Glocks are safe and SA designs are dangerous is a bunch of :barf: !

[Watch-Six]

Seeker, you are not missing anything. In this case things ARE as they appear.

[ddt4free]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Glocks and clones do not have any ACTIVE safety. They only have PASSIVE protections. This is a bad thing in my book.

I define a safety as anything that, when the trigger is pulled, will prevent the gun from firing. Most all revolvers suffer from this as well.

I think they could be sued for misrepresentation and maybe someday they will.

They are reliable guns with no safety, crappy triggers and only moderate accuracy.

I would own a glock but would consider it less safe than even a .25 raven etc. but only slightly safer than the S&W model 19 I used to have.

I started this out thinking it was yet another opportunity to slam Glock but realized that many of us own handguns without ACTIVE safeties. -ddt

[PreserveFreedom]

I love the Glock Safe Action system. On my handguns, onless it is a SA pistol that's cocked and locked, or a SA derringer with no internal safety, I usually turn my maunal safeties off when I am carrying. I know enough not to yank the trigger with the muzzle pointed at my groin. If you don't feel comfortable carrying a holstered Glock, you shouldn't feel comfortable carrying any DA or DAO wheelgun.

[lonegunman]

The trigger pull on a DA revolver is much heavier than the trigger pull on the Glock, making the revolver "safer" in my opinion.

The trigger "safety" on a Glock will only prevent accidental discharges from partial snags of the trigger.

Some (?Jeff Cooper) have compared the Glock trigger safety to writing the combination on the front of a safe.

The bottom line is, keep the trigger covered with a holster, and dont pull it unless you are trying to make the gun go bang, and you will do fine. If you are uncomfortable with Glocks, dont tote 'em.

[rugerfreak]

That is why I no longer own a Glock or a 1911-----both are accidents waiting to happen------all my carry guns have the hammer in the "down" position.

[Redlg155]

Less safe than a raven?

If I'm not mistaken a Raven .25 is basically the same as the Jennings and Davis type Autos. In this case these weapons have no firing pin block safety and can be fired by accidently dropping the weapon on the ground causing enough inertia to disengage the sear from the firing pin. Field strip one and look at the sear/firing pin engagement and you will see what I mean.

The Glocks do have a firing pin block, and although the stiker is in a "preset" position, there is no way possible for the weapon to fire unless the trigger is deliberately pulled whether by accident of on purpose.

So I guess if we label pistols without "active " safeties unsafe...we need to include all revolvers of course, Kel Tecs, Sigs, Smith and Ruger DAO's, Beretta and Taurus DAO's, and a host of other weapons.

I for one believe that if proper procedures are taken, such as using a holster with a covered trigger guard, a Glock can be perfectly safe. If you aren't comfy with one..so be it. Don't carry one.

I've carried Glocks for about five years with no problems whatsoever. Safety devices such as the Saf T Blok can also be useful for those who like Glocks, but aren't 100 percent comfortable. With that you can pretty much be assured of no AD's from pulling the trigger with the device in place.

Good Shooting
RED

[croyance]

I'd also point out that a revolver's trigger pull is considerably longer than a Glock's.

And with the grip safety as well as an external safety, I think the 1911 design is safer than a Glocks.

[blades67]

At least there's no bias in this thread.:rolleyes:

[AndABeer]

If you rely on mechanical devices instead of your mind to keep your firearms safe, you WILL eventually have a negligent discharge.

[BB]

AndaBeer wrote:
If you rely on mechanical devices instead of your mind to keep your firearms safe, you WILL eventually have a negligent discharge.

Well said, and worth repeating.

The ONLY REAL SAFETY is the one between your ears.

There is no such thing as a foolproof safety in a world so rife with fools.

[CastleBravo]

If you are too dumb to not pull the trigger when you don't want it to shoot, you shouldn't own ANY firearm. Glocks are very safe from the point of view of everything that DOESN'T involve pulling the trigger, which IMHO is the proper purpose of firearm safties.

And how the heck can a 1911 be unsafe? To fire the wapon cocked-and-locked, you must:

1. Move the manual safety to the "fire" position,
2. Grip the weapon so as to depress the grip safety,
3. Pull the trigger.

If you can do all that and not mean to fire the weapon, you probably already have an extra hole in your head anyway. Of course, C&L *LOOKS* scary, so if inanimate objects scare you then of course you should carry something else. :rolleyes:

[Clemson]

A local police department has had two accidental discharges involving officers reholstering a Glock. They changed holster vendors.

[Onslaught]

Ignoring the "subtle" :rolleyes: anti-Glock bias lurking here, let me add this for you Seeker, just in case you might actually WANT a Glock, but wish it had a Safety...

http://members.aol.com/saftblok/

Hey, I don't even OWN a Glock, don't really plan to own a Glock, but I don't feel a need to BASH 'em either. Don't own a 1911, don't really plan to own a................ :)

[Bandit]

If you rely on mechanical devices instead of your mind to keep your firearms safe, you WILL eventually have a negligent discharge. Ditto


That is why I no longer own a Glock or a 1911-----both are accidents waiting to happen------all my carry guns have the hammer in the "down" position. :rolleyes:




Rick

[DougB]

I also have never been able to see the benefit of the Glock's trigger safety button. I suspect it is 99.9% marketing ("Safe Action?" - compared to what?). I also think that a Glock is more likely to be fired accidentally than a double-action revolver or traditional (true) double-action semi-auto because the Glocks trigger pull is much shorter and lighter.

I also get a little tired of the endlessly repeated comment that "the only real safety is between your ears." I don't think anyone suggests that a mechanical device replaces safe gun handling. But MY brain tells me that if I can select a gun that is less prone to accidental discharges, maybe that's the smart thing to do (depending on my own needs, training, experience, etc.).

All handguns are a compromise between two opposing goals. We want them to:

1) Be very difficult to fire accidentally, but

2) Be very fast and easy to fire intentionally.

Almost no one wants to carry a cocked single action pistol with a 1.5 lb trigger around stuck in his belt without a manual safety engaged (regardless of how much "safety" they carry between their ears). At the other extreme, almost no one would want a DAO pistol with a long 20lb trigger pull, a manual safety, and a grip safety. Most handguns fall somewhere between these extremes. I'm not criticizing Glock shooters for their choice of a pistol - if they are willing to buy appropriate holsters and practice a little extra care in their gun handling, I'm sure Glocks are a great choice for many. But I think it is a little myopic of them to suggest that Glocks, even in the hands of experienced shooters, are not at least a little more prone to accidental discharges than handguns with manual safeties and/or longer, heavier trigger pulls.

Doug

[JohnKSa]

I've owned at least one pistol with a manual safety that would fire when the trigger was pulled--even with the manual safety engaged.

[Deadman]

Although I plan on one day buying a Glock17 (ie here in Australia there are no mag restrictions for pistols, surprisingly, so 17+1 9mm rounds in one gun definatley appeals to me.), all you Glock detractors will get a good laugh out of this -

" Funny things happen sometimes. In D.C., we got a call: drive-by. We got to the scene and found a black guy bleeding from the crotch. Yeah the guy said, he didn't know who but somebody went by and fired. The cop thought it sounded fishy. It was. The guy had been carrying a Glock in his wiastband and wanted to show it to someone. He pulled it out by the trigger, oops, and removed himself from the gene pool. "

This came from a Soldier of Fortune article (March 2000) detailing life as a police officer and the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] that they have to deal with. Although in this case it wasn't a problem for them.

What I don't get is how did the poor son of a b*tch talk after castrating himself?

[orlando5]

" Funny things happen sometimes. In D.C., we got a call: drive-by. We got to the scene and found a black guy bleeding from the crotch. Yeah the guy said, he didn't know who but somebody went by and fired. The cop thought it sounded fishy. It was. The guy had been carrying a Glock in his wiastband and wanted to show it to someone. He pulled it out by the trigger, oops, and removed himself from the gene pool. "



There are a lot of dumb people that I think should not be carrying a gun. The above statement is one of them.



How hard is it to fellow these three basic rules?

1. Handle all firearms as if they were loaded!

2. Always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction!

3. Keep your finger out of the gun's trigger guard! Finger out of the tigger!!

How hard is it? I would like to know. Glock is a safe weapon.

[Deadman]

Orlando5 I wouldn't worry to much about the black guy in that article. He probably was a gang member or drug dealer/user......

[E.T.]

Glocks are definitely no safe guns to use. The term "safe action" was invented by their commercial dept. and surprisingly proved very successful (as an excuse) because many law enforcement depts. simply do not have the time or the budget for proper fire arms training (like here in Belgium). Basically all Glocks remain single action guns with nothing whatsoever to prevent the gun from firing once the trigger is depressed.

Most shooters in Europe only consider guns safe if they have a double action lock with decocker (or manual safety), thus turning the light trigger pull of the single action into a "more safe" and harder trigger pull for the double action (like CZ75B, Walther P99, SIG P226 etc.).

My P99 also has the stupid so called "trigger safety" which I consider completely worthless but at least it doesn't impede the proper handling of the gun and I choose the gun for it's other qualities.

I would like to finish with a quote from Murphy that says it all :

BUILD A SYSTEM THAT EVEN A FOOL CAN USE AND ONLY FOOLS WILL USE IT !!

[BB]

DougB wrote:
I also get a little tired of the endlessly repeated comment that "the only real safety is between your ears." I don't think anyone suggests that a mechanical device replaces safe gun handling. But MY brain tells me that if I can select a gun that is less prone to accidental discharges, maybe that's the smart thing to do (depending on my own needs, training, experience, etc.).

All handguns are a compromise between two opposing goals. We want them to:

1) Be very difficult to fire accidentally, but

2) Be very fast and easy to fire intentionally.

Ok, but there is a difference between a accidental discharge (gun is screwed up) and a negligent discharge (shooter screwed up). Guns dont just go off without help. If they do, they are 1) broken or 2) of unsafe design. The Glock pistol will not just "go off". "Safe-action" is a marketing gimick, it's true; but the ARE safe. The firing pin/striker is blocked and not under tension untill the trigger is pulled.


E.T. posted this bit of enlightened wisdom:
Glocks are definitely no safe guns to use. The term "safe action" was invented by their commercial dept. and surprisingly proved very successful (as an excuse) because many law enforcement depts. simply do not have the time or the budget for proper fire arms training (like here in Belgium). Basically all Glocks remain single action guns with nothing whatsoever to prevent the gun from firing once the trigger is depressed.

It is fairly evident that you have zero knowledge on the inner workings of the Glock pistol. Safe-action refers to exactly that...the action is safe. It WILL NOT go off unless you pull the trigger, period. "Basically all Glocks remain single action guns..." Glocks are not even cocked untill you pull the trigger, how in the hell can it be single action??? "...with nothing whatsoever to prevent the gun from firing once the trigger is depressed" Gee, here's me thinking that is what a gun is supposed to do. :rolleyes:

[E.T.]

I'm afraid BB can't stand hearing other opinions than his. In my humble opinion a single action (striker fired) gun can only be cocked by racking the slide and not by pulling the trigger, as is the fact for all Glock pistols. Once released the striker can not be cocked with a double action trigger pull like the double action striker fired Walther P99 (better check and upgrade your basic knowledge on inner workings of various guns BB !).

You may explain me in time the exact technical motivation of the so called "safe action". As far as I know the "trigger safety" prevents the trigger shoe to pivot around its ax as long as there's no finger pulling the trigger rearwards and this is the fundamental issue : since when can guns fire as long as there's no pressure from the trigger finger on the trigger ? (forget the stories about cheap holsters).

P.S. : how much did you invest in Glock ?

[BB]

I'm afraid BB can't stand hearing other opinions than his.
The mechanics of the inner workings of the Glock pistol are facts, not opinions.
In my humble opinion a single action (striker fired) gun...
Single action and striker fired are two totally unrelated things.
...can only be cocked by racking the slide and not by pulling the trigger, as is the fact for all Glock pistols. Racking the slide simply chambers a round and resets the trigger. The firing mechanism is blocked and under no load until the trigger is depressed, the act of depressing the trigger draws the striker back on it's spring (cocking). Hence, it is not a single-action trigger. The action in a Glock can not be considered single action, nor double action. Hence safe-action.
Once released the striker can not be cocked with a double action trigger pull like the double action striker fired Walther P99 (better check and upgrade your basic knowledge on inner workings of various guns BB !).
What does a Walther have to do with it? I made no comment in regard to a P99, as I know nothing about them. I don't make statments about things I don't understand. I do understand Glock pistol design, which it is clear you do not. Safe-Action is made up of three seperate safeties, not just the trigger safety. The three safeties are-
1. Trigger Safety:
This is incorporated into the trigger in the form of a lever and in the untouched state it prevents the trigger from being moved rearward. If the weapon is dropped or if the trigger is subjected to an off center lateral pressure; the trigger will remain in the forward locked position. The trigger safety can only be released by pressure being applied directly to the lever on the trigger. This type of safety, in conjunction with the other two, offers a minimum fire ready time with a maximum level of safety for the user.
2. Firing pin safety:
In the secured position, the spring loaded firing pin safety plunger projects into the firing pin channel. This prevents the firing pin from moving forward, until the trigger is depressed.
3. Dropped gun Safety:
The firing pin pushes the trigger bar onto the safety ramp of the trigger mechanism housing under the power of the firing pinspring. This action places the left side extension of the trigger bar cruciform (the gun oriented with the muzzle down range) on the trigger mechanism housing ramp until the trigger is fully depressed. This safety prevents the trigger bar from releasing the firing pin without the trigger being depressed. If the trigger bar does not drop, the firing pin is not released.
So, in answer to your question "...and this is the fundamental issue : since when can guns fire as long as there's no pressure from the trigger finger on the trigger?" I would say in the case of a Glock, it can't. Fire that is. There MUST be pressure on the trigger, it CAN"T fire if there isn't deliberate, centered, rearward pressure on the trigger.

PS-The only money I've invested in Glock is what I've spent on the ones I own. I realize there are limitations to the design, and improvments can be made. I am not a "Glockhead", as I do realize that they are far from "Perfection". What I can't stand is when people who have no knowledge of a subject making false and uninformed statements on that subject. If you can't handle the responsibility of owning a Glock, great, don't buy one. But I would seriously wonder about the competence of an individual that couldn't handle said responsibility as it pertains to any other firearm out there.

[ddt4free]

Get it?

I have seen some interesting points mad since I last posted.
Here are few more points that seem to have fallen off my head.

Yes, the best safety is between my ears....

But, I do have to sleep and leave home and take showers etc. This means that I am not in control of all of my firearms at all times. If someone besides myself were to somehow come into possesion of one of my guns. I think the glock "safety" mechanism would be the most dangerous of all the safeties in my small collection.

BB.

My understanding is that glocks are always partially cocked after the slide has cycled and the trigger only completes the cocking proccess and then releases the sear. Isn't this how they manage to have a "double action" trigger pull of only five pounds? Can anyone reading this confirm this for me? I believe I have heard this from glock owners/experts before. I'm just making sure FACT's are FACT's -ddt

[orlando5]

ddt4free:

I can only speak for myself. I have a gun safe and the only person that have the key to it is me. I am in total control of my collection. No one is allow to even touch the safe without my permission. Every gun in that safe is unloaded and is attach to the safe wall, making it impossible for someone to steal it without cutting the chain link. I do think that I have total control over my collection.

The only gun that is loaded at all time is my Glock 19 and is my carry weapon. I keep it by my side at all time.

[E.T.]

I have followed above discussions with great interests.

However I have to stick to my opinion (yes, opinion) that Glocks basically are SA guns because although the striker type firing pin is indeed partially cocked after the slide returns into battery, there is no possibility to fire the same round again after a misfire by simply pulling the trigger again i.e. the cocking work of the trigger alone is not sufficient to recock the striker and subsequently release it (= DA); thus giving the gun the handling characteristics of a SA gun.

The trigger pressure of the glock is somewhere between a DA and SA pull but considering the fact that a safe DA cocking work needs about 500 Nmm at least (against 100 Nmm for SA cocking work) and Glock's trigger work is less then 500 Nmm, I have my doubts about the safety aspects.

Also BB's vivid explanation of the Glock's trigger safety is questionable : Any object - be it a trigger finger or something else - hooked onto the trigger and pulling rearward will cause the gun to fire (if cocked and loaded). The argument that it has to be considered a drop safety makes no sense because nowadays guns have trigger parts made of such a light materials that you need to launch the pistol with a rocket against a concrete wall in order to create forces of inertia sufficient to provoke an accidental discharge.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Glock pistols. In the past I fired Glock 17 and 19 and found them not bad at all. Also my P99 is not perfect.

Nowadays gun manufacturers seem to feel the need to follow the latest fashion by incorporating a stupid Glock alike trigger safety (Walther, Steyr) for commercial reasons only.

Although BB gave us a nice explanation that safe-action should be understood as the combination of three separate safeties (my Walther P99 has exactly the same combination of safeties with an additional decocking device) the term "Safe Action" is misleading because it gives a false sense of safety and guess who's already payed for this misunderstanding (right, Glock hasn't while some shooters payed with their life).

I apologize if people were hurt by my comments but this never was my intention. I only hope that shooters and manufacturers will look at the Safe Action from a different point if view. We live in a free world and I hope we will keep our freedom to choose whichever guns that suits our personal needs and interests the best.

;)

[WESHOOT2]

My guns are not safe; that's why I own them.

[IamNOTaNUT]

Well done, BB.

The safety lever on the trigger simply prevents the striker from moving forward from it's partially cocked position if the gun is dropped, slammed on a hard surface, or otherwise abused. IIRC, the 1911 system is suspect in this regard, though I may be mistaken.

If you want to rely on a manual safety, such as a 1911, or a decocker, such as a Sig, that is fine. They are both good systems in trained hands. If you don't want to spend the time training with a Glock, don't buy one.

[Rainbow Six]

This post is about as useless as 95% of the other content of this thread, but...

The BATF lists Glocks as Double Action, FWIW. Who cares? Probably nobody. While not a "traditional" DA, they definitely fall closer to DA than SA in that the trigger pull "cocks" the striker and releases it.

Someone has already posted elsewhere the correct response to the "Glocks should have safeties" arguement.

No amount of engineering will foolproof a fool from himself!!

That just about covers it, I think...

R6

[Will Beararms]

A reasonably-priced, rust-impervious, reliable semi-auto defense mechanism capable of rapid depolyment in the hands of a trained user. A well-made pistol exhibiting a high level of consistency from pistol to pistol with no need for aftermarket alterations to be effective in it's intended role.

[ddt4free]

When it comes to firearms a little hyperboli can be dangerous. I have found a beautiful animated graphic on the kahr site that show's how this type of "glock" action in action. It clears up alot. The firing pin is clearly under some pressure when the gun at rest and "SAFE". I think some of the contributors to this thread would gain alot of understanding from looking at it. later -ddt

[Hard Ball]

I'm afraid that Glocks are accidents waiting to happen. Whether it is an AD or a Ka-boom you are going to be very unhappy when it happens,

[Wild Romanian]

Your right on the money E.T. I agree with you 100 per cent.
Also did you happen to read the lastest issue of Gun Week in regards to the Glock unsafe action. More accidental discharges by the elite royal guards of Britan, the unit that guards the Queen, using (you guessed it) the unsafe Glocks. One Glock even went of twice in a row and another once.. Mechanical defect or human error? Matters not , either way it proves that in the human hand the Glock has time and time again proven to be a very unsafe weapon. W.R.

[orlando5]

What do you expect from the brits? Gun experts? Hell I'm surprise they allow guns in the UK. The queen needs to get some new guards that can read and understand the three simple rules I posted on this thread. "Elite royal guards", I am surpise that they know what a gun look like. What a joke.

[BB]

I was wondering who those little girls were at the range who squeeled and wet their panties when I loaded up my Glock last weekend, now I know;)

[Wild Romanian]

There is a simple solution to all these needless injuries and deaths. And to make this even crazier Glock has the ability to remedy it because they themselves furnish the Glock to other countries like Australia with a manuel safety.
Now think a minute before everyone starts yelling and screeming. Suppose that you purchased a glock with a manuel safety. If you did not want to use it and were naive enough to think that you are a superman who never makes a mistake because you never become physically tired or mentally exhausted or are never distracted not even in a minor imergency then you could just not ever use the manuel safety and guess what, the pistol will function just as it did before the safety was ever added. In other words you grab it and pull the trigger and shoot it. NOW ON THE OTHER HAND, if you want to play it sensible and safe you have the choice of putting the safety on and simply flipping it off when you intend to fire it. IN OTHER WORDS BOTH TYPES OF POEPLE HAVE THE OPTION OF USING IT OR NOT USING IT BECAUSE THE SAFETY WOULD IN NO WAY CHANGE HOW THE PISTOL WAS ORGINIALLY DESIGNED TO WORK.
I think that anyone who would not agree to this compromise really cares not about other peoples safety. Not all people are alike and some may find the safety really may someday indeed save their lives or the lives of someone close to them. Think about it awhile before you go beserk after reading this. W.R.

[BB]

Yeah WR, you do that. and while youre at it, go on a crusade to have manual safties installed on all revolvers.

You can do whatever you want. You can have a manual safety installed if you want, it's availible. You want to force others to HAVE to have it, you can KMA.

[E.T.]

I'm afraid this discussion is running out of hand. Get a grip and behave civilized please ?:cool:

[BB]

Sure, as soon as you all start thinking before you post.

To ask ALL Glock owners to be FORCED to accept a manual safety is wrong. If you don't LIKE glocks (for whatever reason), then please, PLEASE don't buy, touch or otherwise envolve yourselves with them. You may wet yourselves in fear.

If you MUST have a crutch (ie manual safety) to keep disregarding safe gunhandling, please inform the forum when you will be visiting the range, so I know when not to be there.:rolleyes:

[AndABeer]

the problem with your solution WR is that for those of us who do not want a manual safety on our Glocks (or other guns) is the possibility that the safety could inadvertantly become engaged the pistol would not fire when we expected it to, i like Glocks because when i pull the trigger it goes "bang" every time and when i do not pull the trigger it does not go "bang" every time, tedious to be sure but comforting, i do not want more levers and dohickies mucking up the works and/or possibly snagging on draw, though ugly the GLock has relatively smooth surfaces and whispers out of the holster with little effort, i for one will not give that up

[Gottagetme1]

I consider my Glocks just as safe, as my 1911's, Sigs, etc. A Glock will only fire when you pull the trigger. PERIOD. Works for me! Why? Because that is what I want a gun to do, and because my finger NEVER goes inside that guard until I'm READY TO FIRE!
Dave

[Rich Lucibella]

-Sigh-
This thread is about to be abrubptly closed unless we can all learn to play well with others.

Rich

[Wild Romanian]

to Andabeer:
Thanks for your response it was well thought out and intelligently put. I respect and understand your viewpoint on the subject of safeties that may accitdently be brushed on. I have owned many handguns in my life and the only problem I have had with safeties is when a poorly designed one often gets brushed off. I have never had a poorly designed safety get brushed on but I suppose it could happen. A well designed safety is unobtrusive but yet is still easily dissengaged when the moment arrives to fire the weapon. Life is often a double edged sord but the advantage of having a safety if needed on a weapon often far outweighs the tragic consequences of not having the option of using it when needed. Just my thoughts. W.R.

[biganimal]

I have owned and used Glocks since 1988 and have never had an accidental discharge. WHY? because I am smarter than the gun!! All guns MUST be handled as if they are loaded!!!never put the finger or any other appendage inside the trigger guard until ready to fire the darn thang!!! this is simple gun safety ! I carry a glock because it IS ready when I want or need it and I am comfortable with this knowledge. Some folks like revolvers as carry guns but one incedent I witnessed cured me of that idea.....we were riding motorcycles thru the Great Smokies one afternoon and we stopped for lunch. when my buddy got off the bike his revolver slipped out of the holster and fell to the ground and went off !!!! lucky thing is it missed everything and everyone . we all know that he should have had the hammer down on an empty chamber but he didn't. I won't carry a revolver as it is only safe when loaded with 5 or 4 rounds when my glock is loaded for bear and will not discharge if dropped !!!

[MLP]

It seems that with the Glock that if something hooked inside the trigger guard and against the trigger an AD may well result.This is true, However, IMHO somewhat irrelevant. Let me explain why I feel this way.

A Glock should be kept holstered in an appropriately/correctly designed holster. This would securely retain the weapon and prevent anything from "Getting Hooked" inside the trigger guard causing an AD. The loaded weapon should only "Not Be" in the holster when it has been drawn with the intent to fire it. Therefore, since you should at that time be in immediate and authoritive control of the weapon, nothing should be able to become "Hooked in the trigger guard" except your trigger finger. Furthermore, your finger should not be on the trigger till you are ready to fire.

For those that want to try and side step what I have said above I will add:
The weapon will also be out of the holster during maintenance and for some when stored. So when the loaded weapon is first removed from the holster, ALL gun handling safety rules should be being followed, and the first thing that is done is the weapon is "Unloaded", with the magazine removed and the slide locked back, Before it is even set down. With the magazine removed and the slide locked back, you remove that chance that the fool has an AD with a supposedly unloaded weapon.

So like I said, It is kinda irrelevant as if proper handling is exercised and a proper "well designed" holster is used, nothing should ever get hooked in the trigger guard.

I have owned and fired Glocks since the late 80's and never had an AD. I have owned and fired 1911,s since the early 80's and never had an AD. To me they are both equally safe in the hands of a competent/trained/observant person.

For those that do not like Glocks. Why bash them?? If you choose not to own one, more power to you. If you feel the need to say, "I personally don't like them", great share that, but isn't that all that is really necessary to say?? I don't like Beretta's, but you do not see me going around bashing them. It has been my experience that for the most part, those that choose to bash something, do so because of lack of understanding or they are simply jealous?

I will add this:
For those that would like to own a Glock and the main thing stopping you is the lack of a manual safety, then you are in luck as they are available in the aftermarket.
G L O C K MANUAL SAFETY KIT- - $75.00 (http://www.cominolli.com/glocksafety.htm)
For those wanting to purchase a Glock with a factory installed manual safety, well they are only available in a few countries (US is not one of them) and in some of those countries they are only available to LEO's and Military.
Glock with optional external 1911 style safety (http://www2.dynamite.com.au/tbaldock/)

However, please leave my Glocks as they are, without a manual safety. Thank You Very Much!! ;)

One thing I would like to add about manual safeties:
They must me "Manually Activated". If someone can't remember to keep their finger off the trigger of a loaded gun unless they are ready to fire it, What makes people think they will remember to manually activate the safety?????? Furthermore, once activated, it is completely possible for it to be inadvertently and unknowingly deactivated, causing an AD because of poor gun handling practices from someone relying on a manual safety to keep them from firing their weapon instead of relying on good gun handling practices????

JM2¢W

__________________
Shoot Strait,
Michael http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smokin.gif

"Before a standing army may rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by force because the whole body of the people are armed." - Noah Webster, 1787

[bad_dad_brad]

Gee Whiz folks! This discussion has become very emotional for sure! I own Glocks, DAO semi-auto's, SA semi-auto's, and DA revolvers. The only one that really makes me nervous is a hammer cocked DA or SA revolver. I have no problem with a cocked and locked SA semi-auto.

All that said, the closest I ever came to shooting my privates was one day when I shoved my Kahr MK9 in my waistband, and soon after retrieved it to put it away and my shirt got bunched up in the trigger and almost went boom! Ouch!!!

At that time, I became a true fan of the holstering of any gun without a safety.

A chambered Glock with a manual safety would just about be perfect in my mind.

[orlando5]

I bought my Glock because it doesn't have a manual safety. It's probably one of the main reasons why people bought Glocks. I turn my manual safety off if I carry a gun that has manual safety. If you're not comfortable with a gun that do not have manual safety then don't buy one. No one is forcing you to buy a Glock.

Question:
Is there more semiauto model that don't have manual safety (not a decocker) then those that do?

[Seeker]

Jeez, People!

I didn't mean to bash Glocks - the one I fired functioned fine and the bullets went where I wanted them too.

I was just wonderin' about the tigger safety. Certainly, a responsible firearms owner/user only puts a finger (and no other appendage, I hope :eek: ) inside the trigger guard and on the trigger when ready to fire at something you mean to put a hole in to. but, what's the point of the trigger safety? If your finger is in the guard and on the trigger then you have decided to fire, why have a safety there. A grip safety on a 1911 makes sense to me - make sure the user has a firm grip before introducing recoil. I jist don' savvy the extra stramus on the Glock trigger.

I fyou like it and it works for you, use it- if not don't. I was just lookin' fer a good reason fer the thing. The best answer I saw was 'marketing'.

Now, I maybe mistaken or only heard a one sided comment, but it seems I saw an artiicle somewhere that said PD's using Glocks have experienced m ore ADs/NDs than with previous sidearms. IIRC it had somethin' ta do with the reholsteng process.

And I guess this may be considered a jab by some Glockers - but sayin' the pistol needs to be carried in an 'A-pproved' holster to be safe seems a little weak,. Unless they come witrh an approved holser from the mfg. It's like saying water don't leak outta my squirt gun as long as I keep the barrel from pointing down.

[MLP]

I didn't mean to bash Glocks I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was making that statement in general. Never seems to fail, You can start a thread about Glocks and someone that doesn't like them has to jump in and start bashing them. They don't seem to be adult enough to just steer clear of the thread. They for some reason feel the need to jump in and start bashing it one way or another. I can understand constructive criticism, but that is usually not the case nor the way it is presented. Oh well, enough on that.

I was just wonderin' about the tigger safety. ........ but, what's the point of the trigger safety? If your finger is in the guard and on the trigger then you have decided to fire, why have a safety there. Here is my take on why it is there:
When doing certain things, like re-holstering for instance, it is entirely possible for the edge of the trigger to be brushed of caught on something. This little lever on the trigger prevents the trigger from moving rearward if it is caught on the edge/side of the trigger. If enough of the trigger is being engaged by something other than the trigger finger, then something incorrect is being done or used. This is one of the reasons it is always suggested that when a new holster is purchased, (for any weapon) to practice drawing and re-holstering the "Unloaded" weapon from it till you are comfortable with it and sure it will properly function with your particular weapon.

A grip safety on a 1911 makes sense to me - make sure the user has a firm grip before introducing recoil. Actually when the grip safety first got introduced it was a passive safety just like the lever on the Glock trigger. Back then there was no such thing as a firing pin block or anything other than the manual safety. So if a 1911 had the manual safety disengaged and was dropped, the passive grip safety aided in preventing an AD due to the impact of the weapon on the ground.

Now, I maybe mistaken or only heard a one sided comment, but it seems I saw an artiicle somewhere that said PD's using Glocks have experienced m ore ADs/NDs than with previous sidearms. Keep in mind that many LEO's have never handled, let alone fired a handgun, prior to doing so at the academy. Many do not like guns and guns are not the reason the became an LEO. However, due to their chosen profession, guns are a necessary evil. Many officers have a very hard time qualifying. They only practice when forced to do so by their department. And many (by all means not all) are all thumbs every time they get a gun in their hand. Many LEA's are trying to correct this by additional and better training. However, there are some people that will simply never become comfortable and proficient with a handgun. When you take a person like this and force them to carry and handle a gun every day, Accidents happen. Usually due to lack of knowledge and/or respect of the weapon, by the person suffering the AD.

And I guess this may be considered a jab by some Glockers - but sayin' the pistol needs to be carried in an 'A-pproved' holster to be safe seems a little weak,. Unless they come witrh an approved holser from the mfg. Actually Glock does/did?? sell holsters for their weapons. Any quality holster from any of the quality holster mfg.'s. will work very well with a Glock when the holster in question is designed specifically for the Glock being holstered in it. (Note: A $20 nylon holster is not a quality holster, IMHO) DeSaints, Kramer, Galco, Safariland etc. all produce quality leather holsters that work very well and are very safe with a Glock. If the holster chosen uses a thumb-break retention system, (like most LE holsters do), a little time and care spent learning how to properly re-holster the weapon is not only important, but a wise move. I have carried a G20 in a Galco Fed-Paddle holster since 91 and never had any kind of problem either drawing or re-holstering it. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, many of the AD's experienced by LEO's during re-holstering have been linked to the fact that the trigger finger was inside the trigger guard and on the trigger when the weapon was put back in the holster. If someone feels that this is a concern that they personally need to be concerned with, then one of three things can be done.
1) Don't buy/own a Glock
2) Use the Saf-T-Block
3) Install the aftermarket manual safety on the weapon.
Pretty simple??

__________________
Shoot Strait,
Michael http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smokin.gif

"Political correctness is just tyranny with manners. I wish for you the courage to be unpopular. Popularity is history's pocket change. Courage is history's true currency." - NRA President Charleton Heston

[Seeker]

Right-o!

Makes sense to me.

[Wild Romanian]

to MLP:
It was refreshing to read your well thought out comments about the Glock. I agree with much of what you had to say but I hope you will not be offended if I add a few of my own thoughts about your comments. No flame is intended.
On your reholstering comments I pretty much agree with you. I just would hope that people do not place much faith in the little safety located in the middle of the Glock trigger. A lot can happen while a Glock is being holstered or after it has been unholstered. And of course there have been to many people who attempted to place to much faith in that little safety and have actually carried the glock without a holster resulting in their being shot with their own weapon.
Your comments on the 1911 grip safety are very well thought out indeed.
Now for the comments on law enforcement officials. You again are very correct in your assessment of the training and mental attitude of some Law enforement people. The only comment that I will add is that most of them are definitely better off with the double action only automatic pistols. A pistol like the glock is just to dangerous for them to use. I think history has proven this without any doubt. A lot can happen in law enforcement and even the elite forces of the world when chosing a pistol must chose one that will be safe to the user and to people being taken into custody under stressfull conditions. Often these conditions are rough and tumble entries like the British SAS swinging on ropes and diving into apartments to rescue hostages. The British wisely choose the 1911 when they rescued a number of hostages during an incident that took place a number of years ago.
Judging from some of the less than educated responses that other people on this thread made against the professionalism of the British. The facts are these: They do have some of the best trained people in the world. The people who made these disparaging comments should pray we never have to go to war with these people. Their performance in the Faulklan Island's war and later in Desert Storm was first class in every way. I should have not been surprised by these comments. Many of the questions put to me after the recent movie entitled "Pearl Harbor" has shown me the average American knows little of his own history and absolutely none about foreign people or their capabilities. My apologies to any British person who happend to read any of these threads. Not all Americans harbor prejudicial views towards foreign people's of other countries. After all a large percentage of us came over hear from other countries at some time back in our ancestory. W.R.

[Wild Romanian]

to Mlp:
Sorry but I forgot to mention you comment on the aftermarket manuel safety. This is one topic that I have mixed emotions on. I think that many times aftermarket items often prove less than ideal solutions to serious problems. If a person would install or have installed one of these after markets safeties he lets himself wide open to a lawsuit if the safety ever failed and someone was injured or killed. Also the warrenty of the Gun is voided and the manufacture also would have tremendous leverage on avoiding any responsiblity in a lawsuit that may indeed be proven in court that was part of the defective or less than safe design of the firearm.
On the other hand if the after market safety did work it could and probably would at sometime after it was installed save a life or avoid serious injury. This is certainly a tough one to call. But the best solution in my opinion is if the gun came from the manufacture with one to begin with.
I seriously think that sometime in the future Glock will either make this available as an option or they will be forced to put this on all of their models due to the outcome off a large future lawsuit. W.R.