Thumb Safety for Glock Pistols.

arover2 · December 3, 2004, 08:33 PM

I have been reading information about the Cominolli thumb safety, for Glock auto pistols.
This aftermarket thumb safety has been given approval by Glock itself, and is offered by www.tenring.com
Joe Cominolli is a gunsmith in Texas, and installs these himself.
Glock owners, and some in law enforcement, are very satisfied with this thumb safety for the Glock.
The pistol performance is not hampered in any way, and operates in all functions.
My polymar framed Steyr M-9 auto pistol has a standard, very well designed safety as well. And I just purchased a new Glock model 22, .40 caliber, and I'm planning later to have a Cominolli safety installed.
I realise there are Glock owners that say there is no need for one, and I can agree with them. But I very much like this option when I feel I need it.

9x19 · December 3, 2004, 10:32 PM

To each, according to their tastes... for me it'd be like putting a screen door on a submarine.

magsnubby · December 4, 2004, 09:17 PM

Why complicate a perfectly good design? Just so you can say "look at my neat gadget"? That's one of the things i like about the Glock, no external safety to manipulate.

Seems like just one more thing to worry about if the SHTF.

michael t · December 4, 2004, 09:26 PM

If you want a good pistol with a thumb safety, then buy a 1911 you know that what you really want.

esldude · December 4, 2004, 10:46 PM

Me too, screen door on a submarine. The reason I own Glocks and not Sigs, is the grab it and shoot it anytime ability. No change from SA to DA, no safety. Nothing, like a revolver, have it in your hand, pull the trigger if needed. Why would you want a safety?

Handle it safely and it is safe. Handle it otherwise and neither is safe.

U.F.O. · December 4, 2004, 11:25 PM

Quote:

"The reason I own Glocks and not Sigs, is the grab it and shoot it anytime ability. No change from SA to DA, no safety. Nothing, like a revolver, have it in your hand, pull the trigger if needed. Why would you want a safety?"

Maybe to make the pistol safer? If your "caught you fooling around", gun ignorant, soon to be ex-wife grabs your "safety on" 1911 while you're asleep and points it at your nads while trying to pull the trigger, she might make enough noise to wake you and allow you to end the assault with your manhood intact.....merely because she couldn't figure out how to arm it. With your Glock, you'll be singing Freddie Mercury falsetto at all the local karaokes in your berg. Sometimes it's not so much what "we" can do with the weapon. We can train to quickly remove a safety when needed. It's what "they" can't do.....quickly.

U.F.O.

bad_dad_brad · December 4, 2004, 11:32 PM

Is a modern DAO revolver less safe because it does not have a manual safety? I don't hear anyone questioning a hammerless modern snubbie because it does not have a manual safety.

Same as a Glock. It is just a modern pistol equivilant of said DAO revolver. No manual safety is required.

Passive safeties keep the firearm totally safe, until the operator deliberately pulls the trigger.

U.F.O. · December 4, 2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

"until the operator deliberately pulls the trigger."

That's fine as long as you're the operator. IMO, handguns with a manual safety are.....more safe. I own DAO (Kahr PM9) and SA (1911). Which one do I feel is the most safe? The 1911, hands down.

U.F.O.

Ignition · December 5, 2004, 12:01 AM

what if what if what if...... what if your ex knows how to turn off the saftey, boom goes your nads, only 1sec later that normal because of a small fraction of time to turn the saftey off.

U.F.O. · December 5, 2004, 12:08 AM

If I were out "fooling around", I certainly wouldn't teach my ex how to turn off the safety. Isn't that one of Jeff Cooper's pistol defense rules?

U.F.O.

Ignition · December 5, 2004, 12:33 AM

still doesnt make them unitelligent. it would only be a matter of seconds that they either turn off the saftey or release the mag.... 50/50 either way i keep my pistol stored at night near the nightstand in a small safe. so i dont have to worry about her shooting me, just going to the kitchen and getting a knife... better put a blade saftey on one of those too

Chiram2003 · December 5, 2004, 01:17 AM

Quote:

If your "caught you fooling around", gun ignorant, soon to be ex-wife grabs your "safety on" 1911 while you're asleep and points it at your nads while trying to pull the trigger

Speaking from personal experience? :barf:

jdthaddeus · December 5, 2004, 01:57 AM

I've been an avid Glock shooter since 1989 and owned a pile of them.

I put a Cominoli safety on my Carry Glock last week. I have my own good reasons.

I like it. It is a good design. I spoke with Joe Cominolli after I installed it, in order to fine tune it. He is a great guy and he helped me out.

Anything else you want to know about it?

juliet charley · December 5, 2004, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Is a modern DAO revolver less safe because it does not have a manual safety? I don't hear anyone questioning a hammerless modern snubbie because it does not have a manual safety.

Same as a Glock. It is just a modern pistol equivilant of said DAO revolver. No manual safety is required.

Not hardly. I suggest you pull the trigger on a few DAO revolvers paying particular attention to the resistance of the trigger and distance you have to pull the trigger. You will find out there is a signficant difference between a Glock and a modern DAO revolver.

Here's a link to a recent thread on the same subject on THR:

Cominolli safety for Glocks

eka · December 5, 2004, 09:34 AM

Simple as this. If you would like one on your Glock, why not? Just like night sights or some of the other modifications. I think if it makes you happy, go for it. I'm sure it makes Comonolli very happy. As for me, I wouldn't consider it at all for my Glocks. I don't want a safety on my defense pistol. But, I'm all for customizing your firearms to give them a personal touch.

U.F.O. · December 5, 2004, 01:09 PM

Quote:

"Speaking from personal experience? "

I'll never tell. Let's just suffice to say I'm a F-I-R-M believer in manual safeties.

U.F.O.

Chiram2003 · December 6, 2004, 01:22 AM

Quote:

I'll never tell. Let's just suffice to say I'm a F-I-R-M believer in manual safeties.

ROFL

I am glad to say that I have never been in THIS situation, but I my ex-wife did point an AR15 at me right before she left. Sure am glad I never taught her to tell if there was a bullet in the chamber or not.

gudel · December 6, 2004, 01:33 AM

abomination of a perfectly good design. get a 1911 man.

OBIWAN · December 6, 2004, 08:13 AM

I don't know that I would want a Glock if a manual safety was important to me

But...to each his own!

arover2 · July 2, 2006, 11:40 AM

Thaddeus thanks for your input here.
I had a Cominolli Glock safety installed after my first post here, and it works just fine.
I have fired over five hundred rounds through this Model 22 of mine since my post here.
I use my "modified" Glock, just as I use my 1911-A1 .45acp on the pistol competition courses.
When drawing my Glock from my belt holster up to the firing stance, my Glock is as natural as using my 1911-A1 to thumb the safety off and comence firing.
So far no malfunctions or hang ups in any way. I'm well satisfied with the Cominolli Glock thumb safety.
Just a few years ago I witnessed one accidental firing of a Glock model 22, when a fellow shooter on the course was re-holstering his pistol, after a string of a rapid fire match he was in.
I happened to look his way as he was slowly re-holstering his weapon. His finger was off the trigger and as he inserted his Glock it fired into the dirt through the bottom of his holster next to his foot, missing his leg completly. He was using his Galco open top leather holster.
A few months later this same thing happened to two other Glock shooters, using quality made open top holsters. Witnesses verified they saw that the shooters did not have their fingers inside the trigger guard.
These pistols must have fired from contact inside the leather while inserting the pistols.
In all three of these firings, a range officer gunsmith present, examined the three Glocks, and they were in perfect conditions.
Yes, I can agree with those Glock owners who say a thumb safety is not really needed for the Glock. But I'm happy with mine.

dajowi · July 2, 2006, 12:31 PM

I put one on a Glock 36 a couple of years back. I liked the design and it in no way compromised speed of use. All the auto pistols I've owned, (with the exception of a new one I've just purchased) had manual safeties. In fact, the safety was an asset in that the Glock sold quickly because the buyer had never seen a Glock with a manual safety before.

Bullrock · July 2, 2006, 03:12 PM

Ignition

Quote:

what if your ex knows how to turn off the saftey, boom goes your nads, only 1sec later that normal because of a small fraction of time to turn the saftey off.

Yup! We're all faced with that kinda situation every day. I keep looking for the TFL membership to begin to show a sharp decline with all the "small fraction of a second" gun fights going on.

My carry is decocked, and it's been a long time since I've been challenged by a Glock totin youngster. Must have been back in '02 as in 1902.

I fully reconize that my post reply is about a mature as the average post I read concerning Glocks. Fast draw Mcgraw, and if it goes off in your pants it's because you didn't train properly.

Harry Potter once said, "safety is as safety does", or was that Forest Gump?

Ralph Nader wrote a book, Unsafe at any speed. I think it was about Glocks, or was it about Chevy Camero's...

December 3, 2004, 08:33 PM	#1
arover2 Member Join Date: September 21, 2004 Posts: 24	Thumb Safety for Glock Pistols. I have been reading information about the Cominolli thumb safety, for Glock auto pistols. This aftermarket thumb safety has been given approval by Glock itself, and is offered by www.tenring.com Joe Cominolli is a gunsmith in Texas, and installs these himself. Glock owners, and some in law enforcement, are very satisfied with this thumb safety for the Glock. The pistol performance is not hampered in any way, and operates in all functions. My polymar framed Steyr M-9 auto pistol has a standard, very well designed safety as well. And I just purchased a new Glock model 22, .40 caliber, and I'm planning later to have a Cominolli safety installed. I realise there are Glock owners that say there is no need for one, and I can agree with them. But I very much like this option when I feel I need it. Last edited by arover2; December 3, 2004 at 08:35 PM. Reason: mis-spelling

December 3, 2004, 10:32 PM	#2
9x19 Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 1998 Location: Sherman, TX USA Posts: 3,750	To each, according to their tastes... for me it'd be like putting a screen door on a submarine. __________________ Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!

December 4, 2004, 09:26 PM	#4
michael t Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2004 Location: Out back Ky Posts: 4,044	If you want a good pistol with a thumb safety, then buy a 1911 you know that what you really want. __________________ Certified Armed Infidel Colt Defender ,Colt Mustang ,Dan Wesson CBOB, PPK/S, American Classic 1911,Bersa Thunder 380 http://bersachat.comHome of Bersa http://www.metroarms1911forum.com

December 5, 2004, 09:34 AM	#15
eka Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2004 Posts: 235	Simple as this. If you would like one on your Glock, why not? Just like night sights or some of the other modifications. I think if it makes you happy, go for it. I'm sure it makes Comonolli very happy. As for me, I wouldn't consider it at all for my Glocks. I don't want a safety on my defense pistol. But, I'm all for customizing your firearms to give them a personal touch. __________________ EKA Sic Semper Tyrannis

December 4, 2004, 09:17 PM	#3
magsnubby Junior member Join Date: May 30, 2004 Posts: 276	Why complicate a perfectly good design? Just so you can say "look at my neat gadget"? That's one of the things i like about the Glock, no external safety to manipulate. Seems like just one more thing to worry about if the SHTF.

December 4, 2004, 10:46 PM	#5
esldude Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2004 Posts: 438	Me too, screen door on a submarine. The reason I own Glocks and not Sigs, is the grab it and shoot it anytime ability. No change from SA to DA, no safety. Nothing, like a revolver, have it in your hand, pull the trigger if needed. Why would you want a safety? Handle it safely and it is safe. Handle it otherwise and neither is safe.

December 4, 2004, 11:32 PM	#7
bad_dad_brad Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 866	Is a modern DAO revolver less safe because it does not have a manual safety? I don't hear anyone questioning a hammerless modern snubbie because it does not have a manual safety. Same as a Glock. It is just a modern pistol equivilant of said DAO revolver. No manual safety is required. Passive safeties keep the firearm totally safe, until the operator deliberately pulls the trigger.

December 5, 2004, 12:08 AM	#10
U.F.O. Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2004 Location: TN Posts: 513	If I were out "fooling around", I certainly wouldn't teach my ex how to turn off the safety. Isn't that one of Jeff Cooper's pistol defense rules? U.F.O.

December 5, 2004, 01:57 AM	#13
jdthaddeus Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 1999 Location: Az Posts: 470	I've been an avid Glock shooter since 1989 and owned a pile of them. I put a Cominoli safety on my Carry Glock last week. I have my own good reasons. I like it. It is a good design. I spoke with Joe Cominolli after I installed it, in order to fine tune it. He is a great guy and he helped me out. Anything else you want to know about it?

December 6, 2004, 01:33 AM	#18
gudel Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2004 Location: Golden State Posts: 589	abomination of a perfectly good design. get a 1911 man.

December 6, 2004, 08:13 AM	#19
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	I don't know that I would want a Glock if a manual safety was important to me But...to each his own!

July 2, 2006, 11:40 AM	#20
arover2 Member Join Date: September 21, 2004 Posts: 24	Thaddeus thanks for your input here. I had a Cominolli Glock safety installed after my first post here, and it works just fine. I have fired over five hundred rounds through this Model 22 of mine since my post here. I use my "modified" Glock, just as I use my 1911-A1 .45acp on the pistol competition courses. When drawing my Glock from my belt holster up to the firing stance, my Glock is as natural as using my 1911-A1 to thumb the safety off and comence firing. So far no malfunctions or hang ups in any way. I'm well satisfied with the Cominolli Glock thumb safety. Just a few years ago I witnessed one accidental firing of a Glock model 22, when a fellow shooter on the course was re-holstering his pistol, after a string of a rapid fire match he was in. I happened to look his way as he was slowly re-holstering his weapon. His finger was off the trigger and as he inserted his Glock it fired into the dirt through the bottom of his holster next to his foot, missing his leg completly. He was using his Galco open top leather holster. A few months later this same thing happened to two other Glock shooters, using quality made open top holsters. Witnesses verified they saw that the shooters did not have their fingers inside the trigger guard. These pistols must have fired from contact inside the leather while inserting the pistols. In all three of these firings, a range officer gunsmith present, examined the three Glocks, and they were in perfect conditions. Yes, I can agree with those Glock owners who say a thumb safety is not really needed for the Glock. But I'm happy with mine.

July 2, 2006, 12:31 PM	#21
dajowi Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2005 Posts: 1,196	I put one on a Glock 36 a couple of years back. I liked the design and it in no way compromised speed of use. All the auto pistols I've owned, (with the exception of a new one I've just purchased) had manual safeties. In fact, the safety was an asset in that the Glock sold quickly because the buyer had never seen a Glock with a manual safety before.