Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Manual safties with glocks?

"Install thumb safety $ 115.00 plus $7.00 shipping."

cube

11 comments:

John Clifford said...

Yet another example of a solution for a non-existent problem.

Anyone who would put an external active safety on a Glock is either: (a) totally clueless when it comes to understanding the proper utilization of a DAO self-defense handgun, or (b) counting on the fact that there are a large number of potentially ignorant customers who do not understand the proper utilization of a DAO self-defense handgun.

The beauty of the Glock design is that it was the first innovation in defensive handgun actions since the 1911. How many people know that the 1911 was originally designed and intended to be carried with the thumb safety OFF? That's why Browning added a grip safety to the design. Browning (and Glock) wanted to offer a handgun that was protected against inadvertent discharge yet allows the user to fire without any action besides gripping the gun and pulling the trigger. John Browning lived in an earlier, less litigeous time... and the grip safety was prone to failure (it would not protect against accidental discharges if the trigger was pressed) by reasons of relaxed tolerances, incorrect fitting and adjustment, or external factors like tight holsters or leather retaining straps. Another negative: the firing pin floated and the sear notch could be sheared off a brittle hammer by sufficient force, so if the gun fell either directly on the muzzle or on the hammer from more than a couple of feet off the ground (say, shoulder high) it would often fire. (Don't get me wrong; I love 1911s and often carry one, a beautifully-customized version designed to my specs and built by my gunsmiths in-house -- we sold lots of them as our "Ultimate Carry" package.)

The Glock design gets rid of all of these problems and is as safe to carry with a round in the chamber (the best way to carry for most defensive shooters) as a revolver. I don't think the gun would survive the force of an impact that would possibly cause a round to fire (nor would the shooter).

In short, if you decide to buy a Glock spend that $115 on a good defensive class and get a return on your investment in yourself. Don't waste it on a "safety" that does nothing to make either you or the gun safer, will void your warranty, will kill any resale value, and will likely make the gun less reliable.

Cubicle said...

"The Glock design gets rid of all of these problems and is as safe to carry with a round in the chamber (the best way to carry for most defensive shooters) as a revolver."

What it the average trigger pull of a revolver?
What is the average trigger pull of a glock out of the box?

If they are they same, then i would have to concur, BUT if they are different then one will be safer to carry than the other in my humble opinion.

Cubicle said...

though i agree on these points.

"I don't think the gun would survive the force of an impact that would possibly cause a round to fire (nor would the shooter).

...will void your warranty, will kill any resale value, and will likely make the gun less reliable."

John Clifford said...

What the average double-action weight of a revolver's trigger is doesn't matter. No properly-functioning gun (and especially a Glock) can fire unless you pull the trigger. The point is, keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

The standard 5 lb trigger on a Glock means that you can't pick up the gun by the trigger and make it go off. Sure, if you yank hard enough on the trigger it will fire... but what are you doing yanking on the trigger if you don't want the gun to fire?

One thing I do (and recommend others do) to any Glock meant for self-defense is to install a "New York trigger" spring (all of my Glocks have 'em). (This part got it's name because it was spec'd by the NYC Port Authority... too many of their officers were evidently having ADs because they weren't keeping their finger off the trigger while running around.) The polycarbonate-reinforced leaf spring is much more reliable than the standard, failure-prone coil spring. And there is almost NO WAY you are going to accidentally fire the gun with the 8 lb. trigger spring installed. The other thing I do (and recommend) is to install night sights on ANY gun intended for self-defense. (Tritium inserts can even be installed on fixed-sight, steel-frame revolvers.)

Guns are like computers; they do what you tell them to do, not necessarily what you want them to do. Putting pressure on the trigger is telling the gun you want it to fire. Don't confuse your gun! KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF OF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET!

Cubicle said...

"The point is, keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

The standard 5 lb trigger on a Glock means that you can't pick up the gun by the trigger and make it go off. Sure, if you yank hard enough on the trigger it will fire... but what are you doing yanking on the trigger if you don't want the gun to fire?"

You forgot to include, keeping shrit tails, ends of belts, belly fat, and flaps of holsters out of the trigger gaurd also on a glock out of the box.

What if the gun is falling and you (as an automatic reflex) reach for the gun and have an AD.

A glock trigger out of the box is to light for my tastes mainly for the two situations above.

As an inexpericed user i would feel more comfortable putting a gun in my pants with either a manual saftey or a heavier trigger pull.

"What the average double-action weight of a revolver's trigger is doesn't matter. No properly-functioning gun (and especially a Glock) can fire unless you pull the trigger."

Actually it does, when you are an in expericned user and you are praticing holstering and un holstering you weapon. Which it should be done empty, i know, but one day you will have to grow up and start praciting with the gun in the manner in which you plan to carry it.

Glocks are fine guns out of the box, but not for me.

Of course my concerns are fixed by either installing a manual saftey (which i agree is a bad idea) or a New york trigger (to make the trigger heavier).

I just thought it was intresting that an entire market has sprung up making glocks safer. It would seem to me that glocks could capture some of that maket by providing guns with manual safties and heaver trigger pulls.

John Clifford said...

Cube, all of your "what-ifs" can be summed up as "What if the Glock owner has insufficient training?"

Proper training teaches you how to draw a gun from the holster without ANY chance of pulling the trigger. Proper training teaches you to how to dress, and how to reholser your pistol, in order to preclude having stuff hang up between your gun and your person while holstering. Proper training teaches you what to do if you drop your gun (I wouldn't grab for ANY loaded gun that was falling) and better yet teaches you that proper handling prevents things like dropping guns.

The Glock (or any semi-auto pistol, or any gun for that matter) is not designed to be perfectly safe in the hands of an uneducated or inexperienced and perhaps careless shooter; it is designed to be a rugged, reliable, quick-to-deploy, fight-stopping pistol that is perfectly safe when handled appropriately. There is no such thing as a foolproof gun. Safety is ENTIRELY the responsibility and the function of the user. Your questions point out why I recommend double-action revolvers for inexperienced shooters (the hammer is visible, the chambers are visible, there are no active safeties to fool with before the gun can be fired, there is no reciprocating slide to cut you if your grip is improper, the trigger is heavy enough to forgive some carelessness although that in no way justifies carelessness). More important, your questions illustrate why I so strongly recommend taking proper training from a reputable and experienced instructor (not found at most gun shops) prior to carrying a handgun.

I agree that there is a market for add-on safety devices for Glocks. However, the market is driven not by a genuine need but instead by a genuinely shocking level of ignorance among the majority of the gun-owning public. As someone said, "No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the consumer."

I salute Gaston Glock for having the intelligence to study a century of handgun design, the willingness to consult authorities on handgun use, the engineering ability to put everything he learned together to design the Glock pistol, and the courage to refuse to bow to pressure from the uninformed masses and attach unnecessary and useless devices that would only detract from a superior product. The Glock design is to pistols as Unix is to operating systems -- no more complicated than it has to be to do the job, and therefore elegant in its simplicity.

Cube, you strike me as an intelligent person. I'm sure that with more experience and training you too will eventually understand why the Glock cannot be made safer but it can be made less suitable for its intended purpose.

Cubicle said...

"The Glock (or any semi-auto pistol, or any gun for that matter) is not designed to be perfectly safe in the hands of an uneducated or inexperienced and perhaps careless shooter; it is designed to be a rugged, reliable, quick-to-deploy, fight-stopping pistol that is perfectly safe when handled appropriately"

i do not care how well trained you are, no person is perfect. Glocks are much less forging than other guns.

while i agree that glocks are simple to operate and that is one of there main pros, that pro is a cone in SOME situations. my presonal view is that while do not want a gun that is complicated, there is a middle ground to be found betweem saftey and ease of operation.

"Cube, you strike me as an intelligent person. I'm sure that with more experience and training you too will eventually understand why the Glock cannot be made safer but it can be made less suitable for its intended purpose. "

I do not have anything against glocks, they are some of the worlds best handguns, i just do not feel they offer the level of saftey that i am comfortable with. There are to many "what ifs" for me.

I would not buy a car with out a seatbeat, and i probably will not by an autoloading pistol without a saftey.

rosignol said...

[quote](This part got it's name because it was spec'd by the NYC Port Authority... too many of their officers were evidently having ADs because they weren't keeping their finger off the trigger while running around.)[endquote]


The version of the story that I heard was that the cop would draw, pumped up on adrenaline, and then re-holster once the situation was under control... but still have their finger on the trigger. Pressure from the holster would push the finger, the finger would push the trigger, and BAM- negligent discharge (sometimes into the cop's leg).

Glocks are safe guns, by the standards by which firearms are measured. Think of firearms as being akin to cars in one particular respect: just as you would not expect to get in a car and drive on the freeway safely without training, you should not expect to carry a firearm safely without training.

JR said...

A handgun is only as safe as:
1) the operator
2) the holster

If you're inclined to stick a gun in your pants, well...I've got important stuff in there, so I've never really thought about pointing a gun at it. Go to Comp-tac.com, and order a good, safe, Kydex holster from them. "Good and safe" holsters keep the trigger covered until the gun is drawn. Kydex is fast. Comp-tacs are extremely comfortable and concealable, and are used by the majority of competitive IDPA shooters, as well as a large percentage of the Texas CHL community.

A good holster helps to render this argument of trigger pull moot. Also, doesn't anyone know there's a safety ON the Glock trigger?

Merry Christmas, all!

Cubicle said...

by "in my pants" i mean an IWB holster.

I do not think a good holster renders the trigger pull arugement moot (it goes along way), but it does not solve the shirt tails or belly fat getting in the way problem.

Of couse training will help those issues but what if you are reholstering after a stressful situation?

Tim said...

Good Job! :)