Glocks new trigger safety! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Glocks new trigger safety!


stuntjake912
01-28-2013, 03:55
Was at the gun show this weekend after helping with range duty. And I noticed a new trigger safety for glock models. It's a metal replacement trigger that has a button safety on it. $65 and all of the Indy police force are using them. It's made by a company owned by glock. Very easy to disengage and engage. And it still has the standard glock split trigger safety.

carpboy
01-28-2013, 04:02
Bad Idea!It will not replace proper training and trigger discipline.When you really need to use your Glock it can be a stumbling block if you were to forget to disengage it!An answer looking for a question.

markerbeacon
01-28-2013, 04:28
Was at the gun show this weekend after helping with range duty. And I noticed a new trigger safety for glock models. It's a metal replacement trigger that has a button safety on it. $65 and all of the Indy police force are using them. It's made by a company owned by glock. Very easy to disengage and engage. And it still has the standard glock split trigger safety.

Siderlock? $49 at Amazon

misunderestimated
01-28-2013, 04:32
Was at the gun show this weekend after helping with range duty. And I noticed a new trigger safety for glock models. It's a metal replacement trigger that has a button safety on it. $65 and all of the Indy police force are using them. It's made by a company owned by glock. Very easy to disengage and engage. And it still has the standard glock split trigger safety.

What was the name of the company do you remember ?

Welcome to the forum

DannyR
01-28-2013, 06:07
Good thing you did not buy any real estate from that salesman.:rofl:

ron59
01-28-2013, 07:41
One post. Sounds like a troll?

There is no "company owned by Glock". There is JUST Glock when it comes to parts.

You were reeled in hook, line, and sinker.

FL Airedale
01-28-2013, 08:04
I don't like the concept.

When I'm carrying my Glock it is in a holster. The holster completely covers the trigger.

There is no chance the Glock will discharge while holstered.

If I need to draw my pistol, I don't need another safety to slow me down.

Paul53
01-28-2013, 10:15
Tried the siderlock. Worked as advertised, can't complain. Once my comfort level increased, took it off and now like the stock setup.

SCC
01-28-2013, 10:44
Junk ...



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

SCC
01-28-2013, 10:46
I would not put that thing on any of my glocks ..


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Vincent Black
01-28-2013, 11:02
I think I will stick to keeping my trigger finger on the side of the frame until ready to fire, kthnx.

HalfHazzard
01-28-2013, 13:52
I think I will stick to keeping my trigger finger on the side of the frame until ready to fire, kthnx.

Oh you can't teach that... Or can you?

ignantmike
01-28-2013, 14:07
yeah, i'm thinking sliderlock

PhotoFeller
01-28-2013, 14:37
Long guns and hand guns have had safety mechanisms for decades (many still do), and the objection to them didn't surface until folks on the Internet started justifying the absence of a safety on their Glock pistols. Revolvers didn't have safeties, but that wasn't an issue because most who carried them relied on the long, hard trigger pull to prevent ND.

The Siderlock safety may in fact be "junk", but trashing the concept of a safety on firearms is denying practical, safe operation in favor of 'popular' SD theory.

Since Glocks don't have a safety, anyone who carries one with a round in the chamber damn well better learn to keep his finger off of the trigger.

I try not to run my fingers into my table saw blade, but many well trained, experienced, professional woodworkers do. Hmmmm. Looks like using a saw every day for years would provide the practice and awareness one needs to avoid making that mistake.

xRUSTYx
01-28-2013, 15:23
Long guns and hand guns have had safety mechanisms for decades (many still do), and the objection to them didn't surface until folks on the Internet started justifying the absence of a safety on their Glocks pistols. Revolvers didn't have safeties, but that wasn't an issue because most who carried them relied on the long, hard trigger pull to prevent ND.

The Siderlock safety may in fact be "junk", but trashing the concept of a safety on firearms is denying practical, safe operation in favor of 'popular' SD theory.

Since Glocks don't have a safety, anyone who carries one with a round in the chamber damn well better learn to keep his finger off of the trigger.

I try not to run my fingers into my table saw blade, but many well trained, experienced, professional woodworkers do. Hmmmm. Looks like using a saw every day for years would provide the practice and awareness one needs to avoid making that mistake.

A VERY intelligent and thought out post!

I've learned VERY smart trigger discipline through practice and experience, BUT, I think this is a great option for those still not comfortable carrying a firearm without a safety.

Just sticking one of these on without practice won't do you much good. But just like other modifications, practice makes perfect :)

flw
01-28-2013, 15:33
There are plenty of guns out there that have a safety of one kind or another. Glock has a corner on the point and bang gun. Want a safety then there are plenty of other choices.

The idea of putting a safety on a Glock is like putting a governer on a race car. It defeats one of the advantages of the Glock gun.

HGxyz
01-28-2013, 15:37
...
Since Glocks don't have a safety, anyone who carries one with a round in the chamber damn well better learn to keep his finger off of the trigger.

...

Glocks do have safeties - three of them. Combined with a good holster, that's just right for those of us who want the gun to fire if and only if we pull the trigger.

A safety on the trigger (like sider lock) seems like a really bad idea to me. If you really feel the need, there are companies that will modify the gun with a thumb safety on the rear of the slide.

Joshhtn
01-28-2013, 15:40
Good thing you did not buy any real estate from that salesman.:rofl:

:rofl:

samurairabbi
01-28-2013, 16:08
The Siderlock trigger safety is not new; it has been around for about five years. It was developed by a South American company. Glock itself is a customer when a large customer wishes to have an external applied safety on the issued guns. Unlike the.Comminoli safety, and the safety put on some Australian Glocks, the Siderlock requires no machining or permanent modification of the gun.

PhotoFeller
01-28-2013, 16:28
Glocks do have safeties - three of them. Combined with a good holster, that's just right for those of us who want the gun to fire if and only if we pull the trigger.

A safety on the trigger (like sider lock) seems like a really bad idea to me. If you really feel the need, there are companies that will modify the gun with a thumb safety on the rear of the slide.

HG - When I say Glock doesn't have a safety, I mean there isn't a device that prevents the trigger of a cocked pistol from being pulled. Thus, any force that pushes the trigger rearward will cause a Glock to fire unless that force is applied only to the side of the trigger. You already know that, but some folks may take Glock literature about safe operation literally.

I agree that a thumb safety on or adjacent to the slide is a good idea for anyone who prefers a manual safety.

tonyparson
01-28-2013, 16:32
Glocks do have safeties - three of them. Combined with a good holster, that's just right for those of us who want the gun to fire if and only if we pull the trigger.

A safety on the trigger (like sider lock) seems like a really bad idea to me. If you really feel the need, there are companies that will modify the gun with a thumb safety on the rear of the slide.

This ☝☝☝☝☝☝

tonyparson
01-28-2013, 16:34
Get a good holster and keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire and you will be just fine.

Paul53
01-28-2013, 18:26
Junk ...



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Mine was high quality and worked flawlessly, what problem did you have with yours?

Paul53
01-28-2013, 18:32
Each to his or her own comfort level. Keep your minds open to new ideas. People who think they know everything can't learn anything new and get left behind.

The telescope was around for some time before Galileo did what others hadn't. Instead of looking at far off people and landscapes, Galileo used his telescope to look up into the heavens! The rest is history.

dkf
01-28-2013, 18:35
IMO sticking your finger inside the trigger guard to turn the safety on and off has be one of the worst ideas ever thought up.

elijah58
01-28-2013, 18:47
You need to think about this a little, don't you think if there was really an issue with the Glock trigger safety that Glock would have addressed it by now. I love the way all of mine work and would not change them unless it was to make them lighter. Also if you draw your weapon with your finger. Inside the trigger guard then the problem is on your end, maybe you need to have your finger removable then you could have 50 Glocks and wouldn't have to change all of those triggers. :rofl: :rofl:

Eli

PhotoFeller
01-28-2013, 20:15
"...don't you think if there was really an issue with the Glock trigger safety that Glock would have addressed it by now. I love the way all of mine work..."
Eli

Eli- Just for the record, how does the trigger safety work on your Glocks? Will the safety stop the trigger from being pressed rearward to fire? Or, is the safety designed to prevent firing if the pistol is dropped?

johnson8861
01-28-2013, 20:16
Whats the need of yet a 4th safety? The 4th safety is to prevent harm to an officer or civilians adversary. News Flash: Officer found shot to death, still had after market safety on his Glock.

PhotoFeller
01-28-2013, 21:50
Whats the need of yet a 4th safety? The 4th safety is to prevent harm to an officer or civilians adversary. News Flash: Officer found shot to death, still had after market safety on his Glock.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you saying the Glock safety system will prevent accidentally depressing the trigger so another safety isn't needed? Please explain.

I think its important to be clear about what the Glock safety system is designed to accomplish.

Thanks.

D.S.Brown
01-28-2013, 22:01
Since Glocks don't have a safety, anyone who carries one with a round in the chamber damn well better learn to keep his finger off of the trigger

This goes for any weapon, safety or no safety. The above bolded and underlined are based off firearms safety rules, i.e. all guns are ALWAYS loaded ALL the time, and keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

I stress to my students that a firearm is a HIGHLY specialized tool, that REQUIRES the development of a heightened sense of awareness while even in the presence of said tool. The reality is the person who cluelessly manipulates any gun with their finger on the trigger, even only occasionally is UNDISCIPLINED and UNSAFE! I am very blunt with my students and flat out tell them that if they can't train themselves to acquire the discipline of carriage of a gun(s) by following the firearms safety rules religiously, then I would highly recommend they use a chemical defense spray. At least with the latter they are not likely to kill anyone if they have a criminally negligent discharge with said spray.

I can safely say that the only times I've ever used the trigger as a "finger rest" is only after my students and I confirm the gun is unloaded, so that I may demonstrate the unsafe habits of unsafe and undisciplined "shooters" as a "what not to do."

In the end, safety or no safety the undisciplined and unsafe weapon bearing fool, with his finger on the trigger not intending to shoot is a criminally negligent discharge away from tragedy. If your finger is on the trigger and you fire the gun without intending to do so, that's not an accident, that's being criminally negligent.

Sorry but 32 years of safe trigger control and being criminally negligent discharge free just makes me call it like I see it.

Best,

Dave

samurairabbi
01-28-2013, 22:10
You need to think about this a little, don't you think if there was really an issue with the Glock trigger safety that Glock would have addressed it by now.

There is a demand by a noticable portion of the international handgun market for an external applied safety. Glock has adapted to this part of the market by having the Siderlock system available as a "sanctioned" aftermarket addition to its guns.

The same motive applied when the US market demanded drop-free mags instead of the original concept non drop free mag. Glock adapted to the peculiarities of an important market segment.

BillyGlock
01-28-2013, 22:13
Glocks do have safeties - three of them. Combined with a good holster, that's just right for those of us who want the gun to fire if and only if we pull the trigger.

A safety on the trigger (like sider lock) seems like a really bad idea to me. If you really feel the need, there are companies that will modify the gun with a thumb safety on the rear of the slide.

:laughabove:

Get ready, here it comes.....

nraman
01-28-2013, 22:53
Sometimes you have no choice other than to have a device that prevents trigger movement. In such a case, the Siderlock is a good way to comply instead of using the factory lock or any lock that requires a key.
I tried it for a while and didn't like it.
I had to damage a good trigger bar assy by driving the pivot pin out. I found out that the Siderlock pivot pin would move out with very little shooting and I stopped using it.
If it was made a little better it would be nice to have it in areas that require a trigger lock.

samurairabbi
01-28-2013, 23:04
I will throw a little-known trigger construction item into the mix.

On the standard Glock trigger safety, the "spring force" that keeps the trigger safety in the forward "locked" position until pressed by a finger is NOT exerted by a "spring". Rather, it is provided by a polymer flashing that is part of the molded trigger safety. If that flashing breaks off the trigger safety, the trigger safety can become non-functional. It is a common occurrence for Glocks to show up with this problem at a gunshow armorer operation.

The Siderlock setup replaces this flashing with a metal coil spring and plunger cap assembly. Many Siderlock users don't use the.setup as an external applied safety;.they just want a more durable trigger safety than the factory part gives them!

stuntjake912
01-28-2013, 23:16
One post. Sounds like a troll?

There is no "company owned by Glock". There is JUST Glock when it comes to parts.

You were reeled in hook, line, and sinker.

Suck my barrel bud, been a member on here since 2007. And I read the forums every week. I just never post. seen this and thought it would be up someone's road that has a major issue with "no true safety" I have 12 glocks and none of them will have this safety on it. My safety is my trigger finger.

I've been on the forum weekly or bi-weekly since 2007. I read a lot and never post, mainly because I see one person post and half of the replies are folks thinking they know everything and calling the OP a idiot, directly or indirectly. I understand that it's your right to your opinion. I have been in the military for 5 years and a private contracted protection personnel for 3 years. I am very familiar with all guns and long range rifles. I just got back to the states from 9 years in Kuwait.

Also I'm not stating that this company that makes this is owned by glock. I seen this at my first gun show since being back in the states. I was simply told that and asked a question about it, felt the operation of it on a demo gun and kept walking. It's seemed very well built but I say again I'll never own this modification. Just another fail point in the time of need.

samurairabbi
01-28-2013, 23:26
The outfit producing the Siderlock is not OWNED by Glock. The story that I accept is that it did the Siderlock development with a Glock "promise" to be a customer if the setup worked. Having a guaranteed customer for your product is a favorable position for a startup company.

Most of the parts in a Glock are OEM by independent outside suppliers.

Bill Lumberg
01-29-2013, 05:50
Not new, and comically bad.

bac1023
01-29-2013, 05:56
Sounds like trouble

HexHead
01-29-2013, 05:57
I agree that a thumb safety on or adjacent to the slide is a good idea for anyone who prefers a manual safety.

if someone prefers a manual safety, then a Glock isn't the right pistol for them in the first place. There are other fine pistols out there that will better suit their needs.

HexHead
01-29-2013, 06:01
If it was made a little better it would be nice to have it in areas that require a trigger lock.

where would that be?

bac1023
01-29-2013, 06:34
I never understood why people who want a manual safety buy a Glock in the first place.

I don't get it.

ron59
01-29-2013, 07:41
Suck my barrel bud, been a member on here since 2007. And I read the forums every week. I just never post. seen this and thought it would be up someone's road that has a major issue with "no true safety" I have 12 glocks and none of them will have this safety on it. My safety is my trigger finger.

I've been on the forum weekly or bi-weekly since 2007. I read a lot and never post, mainly because I see one person post and half of the replies are folks thinking they know everything and calling the OP a idiot, directly or indirectly. I understand that it's your right to your opinion. I have been in the military for 5 years and a private contracted protection personnel for 3 years. I am very familiar with all guns and long range rifles. I just got back to the states from 9 years in Kuwait.

Also I'm not stating that this company that makes this is owned by glock. I seen this at my first gun show since being back in the states. I was simply told that and asked a question about it, felt the operation of it on a demo gun and kept walking. It's seemed very well built but I say again I'll never own this modification. Just another fail point in the time of need.

In YOUR post, you very clearly say, "it's made by a company owned by Glock". That is so untrue it's not even funny. Which was why I said there ARE NO companies that are "owned by Glock" making Glock products. There is only Glock. Saying that a company is "owned by Glock" implies that their products are therefore endorsed by Glock.

That is not the case here.

Keep your facts straight, or maybe just keep lurking.
Cuz you're fulla crap.

Bill Lumberg
01-29-2013, 07:46
In a couple of decades of carrying personal and issued glocks, and working for agencies where they were the issued sidearm, we've never ever had, nor even heard a report of this. What sort of special mouth breathers are able to induce this breakage, and what do you suppose attracts them to gun show armore operations?.................... I will throw a little-known trigger construction item into the mix.

On the standard Glock trigger safety, the "spring force" that keeps the trigger safety in the forward "locked" position until pressed by a finger is NOT exerted by a "spring". Rather, it is provided by a polymer flashing that is part of the molded trigger safety. If that flashing breaks off the trigger safety, the trigger safety can become non-functional. It is a common occurrence for Glocks to show up with this problem at a gunshow armorer operation.

The Siderlock setup replaces this flashing with a metal coil spring and plunger cap assembly. Many Siderlock users don't use the.setup as an external applied safety;.they just want a more durable trigger safety than the factory part gives them!

samurairabbi
01-29-2013, 07:46
Siderlock threads usually degenerate, and get closed.

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: It's deja vu all over again.

PhotoFeller
01-29-2013, 10:07
:laughabove:

Get ready, here it comes.....

So far, so good.

Because there are differences of opinion, this topic always receives lots of comments.

If we can keep the name slingers (idiot, moron, stupid, etc.) on the sidelines, people can judge for themselves what makes sense for their particular circumstances.

Some Glock owners don't take classes or know much about handling handguns. Some buyers are fooled by Glock's safe system claims and don't realize the safety is actually the shooter's trigger finger discipline. They need to hear the debate.

Some folks would be well served by trading their Glock on a pistol equipped with a manual safety. That's where I am. My Glocks will become range toys when I decide what to buy in their place. Until I get a replacement, I'll continue to carry C3. Thats my choice based on my skill level, despite the shortcomings of C3

This is a good topic for folks that are thinking about buying a Glock, uninformed about manual safety pros/cons, on the fence about a manual safety, or are just uncomfortable with C1. I don't know anything about the Siderlock safety, but I do understand the Glock trigger operation; if you are new to carrying a handgun or if you don't have the well-conditioned discipline to keep your finger off of the trigger, you need to read carefully and think about how to carry a Glock safely.

GTlight
01-29-2013, 12:29
Almost every time I see my gunsmith, he says, "Parts left out rarely break."

Fear Night
01-29-2013, 14:42
This is right up there with adding an internal lock a la S&W.

PhotoFeller
01-29-2013, 17:22
This is right up there with adding an internal lock a la S&W.

Some would say the Siderlock has practical value for some people while the S&W lock actually detracts somewhat from the guns desirability.

Siderlock could serve as 'training wheels' for people new to handgun carry. The lock can be eliminated any time without leaving a trace.

These threads on manual safety vs. no safety have caused me to realize that (1) I want the manual safety for C1 carry, (2) other brands offer fine alternatives with a safety and (3) Glock pistols should be carried C1 only by people who follow the training and practice regimen necessary to become highly proficient in safe handling techniques.