View Full Version : Safe Action Trigger...
Answer me this. What exactly is the Glock "trigger-in-a-trigger" supposed to prevent ? Same with the M&P and other triggers similar in function. I have run many, many scenarios through my head trying to establish what this trigger inside the trigger ma-bob is supposed to stop from happening and how it is supposed to contribute to a safer gun but, I just can't seem to I.D. any valid contribution.
Anything that can depress the trigger can depress the trigger safety as well. Any inertia from dropping the gun on the rear of the slide or butt can cause the trigger safety to go rearward as it would the trigger itself. My opinion is, it's simply a feel good device to sooth feelings about the gun not having a manual safety.
They say sometimes you can't see the forrest for the trees. I love my Glocks but for the life of me... Am I missing something here ? Ideas ? Fresh thoughts ? :dunno:
Dropping the firearm wont cause the trigger to pull itself. Its meant to prevent anything but direct pressure on the center of the trigger from allowing the gun to fire. Its not exactly a safety in my mind but it also costs them next to nothing to put on and does not effect reliability so why not throw it in?
Its meant to prevent anything but direct pressure on the center of the trigger from allowing the gun to fire. Its not exactly a safety in my mind but it also costs them next to nothing to put on and does not effect reliability so why not throw it in?
So, you can't ID any potential issue (example) that this is designed to overcome either ? They tout it as a safety feature.
So, you can't ID any potential issue (example) that this is designed to overcome either ? They tout it as a safety feature.
Since the trigger bar is directly connected to the trigger, I can picture two scenarios where it's effective, though I'll admit theoretical.
1. a non-committed finger position, such as someone that's got a lazy trigger finger and hasn't fully kept it out of the guard. TIes that with a light pull, and unless you have the pivoting lock in the middle of the trigger as on the Glock, you could slide it enough that the trigger bar cycles the striker and fires.
2. Since the trigger bar is tied directly to the trigger and pivots on the trigger retention pin, any high force action that could move the trigger bar without a finger on the trigger is prevented by the lock-out. Dropping it would be one scenario - the trigger bar is held from cycling the striker by the striker spring as well as the trigger bar spring. A strong enough force, such as dropping a Glock from a high distance and hitting on the back of the slide could possibly create enough force to overcome the spring strength, so the mechanical lock-out would be the fail-safe. This is the one I would think is the most probable of the two scenarios.
Are you only talking about the trigger safety on the Glocks? Or all three safeties? There are three distinct safeties in the system, the trigger itself is only one of them. There are also a firing pin safety and a "drop safety."
Drop a Glock and it will never fire. It's physically impossible for a Glock to fire unless the trigger is pulled from its center. This is because the firing pin is physically blocked by a steel pin in the firing pin channel (firing pin safety) and the trigger bar is locked out and only deflected when the trigger is pulled (drop safety), as mentioned in GAbubba's post.
Do some googling and check out information on the SAT system. There are a lot of people who have done durability/safety testing on their Glocks. One guy even chucked a loaded Glock out out of an airplane with one in the pipe, picked it up, and shot the whole magazine. No accidental discharge on "landing." :)
Arc Angel
01-26-2008, 00:45
Answer me this. What exactly is the Glock "trigger-in-a-trigger" supposed to prevent ? Same with the M&P and other triggers similar in function. I have run many, many scenarios through my head trying to establish what this trigger inside the trigger ma-bob is supposed to stop from happening and how it is supposed to contribute to a safer gun but, I just can't seem to I.D. any valid contribution.
Anything that can depress the trigger can depress the trigger safety as well. Any inertia from dropping the gun on the rear of the slide or butt can cause the trigger safety to go rearward as it would the trigger itself. My opinion is, it's simply a feel good device to sooth feelings about the gun not having a manual safety.
They say sometimes you can't see the forrest for the trees. I love my Glocks but for the life of me... Am I missing something here ? Ideas ? Fresh thoughts ? :dunno:
:shocked: Hmmm .... You seem to have some trouble spelling things correctly; however, you are, nonetheless, a very clever man. Now, shut-up or it's no more free Kool-Aid for you! ;)
PS: Have you heard about what Dean Speir is reporting over at TGZ? Apparently somebody has noticed that Gaston Glock, himself, carries his own Glock pistol in (Ready?) C-3!
(Here it comes!) :supergrin:
Snesley Wipes
01-26-2008, 00:47
Prevents little fingers from firing the gun. Little fingers cant reach the center line of the trigger easily.
Yeah....uh....ya know, Glocks have been around for over 20 years now. They've been put through some of the most rigorous and extensive testing of any service pistol, by militaries, LEO agencies, and governments. There is NO flaw in the Glock safety systems.
The Trigger Safety absolutely does what it's supposed to do. One thing it prevents is the pistol firing by being dropped on the back end of the slide; the triggerbar myght have enough inertia to move rearward, firing the pistol--but AHA! The Trigger Safety, that small piece in the middle of the trigger, has very little mass, therefore very little inertia--it STAYS PUT and keeps the trigger from moving rearward.
Also keeps the trigger from being pulled by being snagged by something on the side of the trigger, just inside the triggerguard.
It works--Glocks have really been put through the ringer over the years. They wouldn't be in so many holsters all over the world if they didn't work and weren't "safe".
:shocked: Hmmm .... You seem to have some trouble spelling things correctly; however, you are, nonetheless, a very clever man. Now, shut-up or it's no more free Kool-Aid for you! ;)
PS: Have you heard about what Dean Speir is reporting over at TGZ? Apparently somebody has noticed that Gaston Glock, himself, carries his own Glock pistol in (Ready?) C-3!
(Here it comes!) :supergrin:
LOL. You caught my forest error. No, I'm not up on ole Dean. I'd better get briefed. :wow:
AustinTx
01-26-2008, 00:55
Glocks have 3 safeties. The only one you can see, is on the trigger. Might as well promote it.
I'm still not seeing a likely scenario that would make this little "safety" so important. You are gonna have to drop that Glock from way up to get that trigger to overcome 5 pounds of resistance and fire the gun.
Still not sold. Anybody else ?
There is NO flaw in the Glock safety systems.
Never implied there was. Just wondering what the heck the trigger on the trigger is supposed to prevent.
The Trigger Safety absolutely does what it's supposed to do. One thing it prevents is the pistol firing by being dropped on the back end of the slide.
How high up will you have to drop that gun to get inertia to overcome 5# of trigger resistance ? I'm thinking over 5 feet.
Also keeps the trigger from being pulled by being snagged by something on the side of the trigger, just inside the triggerguard.
I'm not convinced this is the case. Take the M&P articulated trigger, for instance. Side pressure will activate it if applied right.
It works--Glocks have really been put through the ringer over the years. They wouldn't be in so many holsters all over the world if they didn't work and weren't "safe".
Safety is between the ears. Again though, I never said they weren't safe. Just curious about their line of thinking in regards to that particular mechanism.
How high up will you have to drop that gun to get inertia to overcome 5# of trigger resistance ? I'm thinking over 5 feet.MUCH higher than 5 feet. If dropping it off of a barn and then out of an airplane didn't do it, 5 feet won't. I need to find that website where the guy did this...
I'm not convinced this is the case. Take the M&P articulated trigger, for instance. Side pressure will activate it if applied right.Do you own a Glock? Take it out and try to depress the trigger from every direction without depressing the middle safety switch. Won't do it.
Safety is between the ears. Again though, I never said they weren't safe. Just curious about their line of thinking in regards to that particular mechanism.Indeed. Finger out of the guard, you're safe. Finger in, you're hot. It's that simplicity that makes the Glock so appealing.:cool:
I'm not giving up yet. Somebody here has to be able to educate me on the practical purpose of the trigger-in-the-trigger thingy. This has really bothered me for a long time. I just never posted it before because I thought I was just missing something obvious.
The reason I'm posting it tonight is because an officer at work told me that he really doesn't care for Glocks because he feels the safety aspect is lacking. When I explained to him how safe they are, I could not for the life of me explain what the trigger safety is supposed to prevent. I gave him the possible "dropping it on the pavement" scenario but in reflection, I really can't buy that a drop from the average height of 3 feet would be enough to overcome the trigger spring and striker resistance (approx. 5.5# stock).
I may get a wild hair and call Glock on Monday, just to see what their guru's tell me as far as the primary consideration for incorporating the device.
MUCH higher than 5 feet. If dropping it off of a barn and then out of an airplane didn't do it, 5 feet won't. I need to find that website where the guy did this...
Do you own a Glock? Take it out and try to depress the trigger from every direction without depressing the middle safety switch. Won't do it.
Indeed. Finger out of the guard, you're safe. Finger in, you're hot. It's that simplicity that makes the Glock so appealing.:cool:
I agree. Much more than 5 feet. You don't need the trigger safety for that reason then. I know the trigger won't depress if you don't touch the safety but if that is the intent of the device I think it is poorly thought out. Preventing a trigger from being accidentally depressed by putting another trigger on that one ?
Dog ain't huntin' yet.
Going to bed for now. I'll probably dream this thing tonight (grin).
The main reason for that is to prevent an AD if the trigger is snagged by any glancing blow, like when holstering. Where some triggers might be sensitive to such a thing on a sloppy reholstering, the Glock isn't. That's just one of many scenarios I'm sure exist. But alas, I'm tired, and it's time to grab a drink and hit the sack!
Arc Angel
01-26-2008, 02:22
:) So, ahhh .... before we start rewriting history, what about the DEA's, so-called, 'Frisbee Tests'? Anybody remember the results? :freak:
:) So, ahhh .... before we start rewriting history, what about the DEA's, so-called, 'Frisbee Tests'? Anybody remember the results? :freak:What does the old slide rail problem have to do with the trigger safety, especially the modern Glock SAT? All of those rail problems were fixed well over a decade ago, early in the 2nd gen design (April 1991 in fact), and even more permanently with the 2.5 redesign. New Glocks have none of the problems the DEA found way back then. Don't see the relevance of the tests to the OP's question.
Ok, I'm really gonna go sleep this time, I promise...:supergrin:
I am with you Sarge45 no reason for that stinky trigger-in-a-trigger
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/foxhunter2/glocknosafety.jpg
Well, after sleeping on it I can buy one consideration was your (CMBF117) suggestion of the consideration of the glancing pressure during holstering. Heck, maybe that's it, I dunno. Makes sense. It just seems so unlikely an event with all the good holsters out there. OK, there's one reason. Any others ?
Arc Angel
01-26-2008, 10:45
What does the old slide rail problem have to do with the trigger safety, especially the modern Glock SAT? All of those rail problems were fixed well over a decade ago, early in the 2nd gen design (April 1991 in fact), and even more permanently with the 2.5 redesign. New Glocks have none of the problems the DEA found way back then. Don't see the relevance of the tests to the OP's question.
Ok, I'm really gonna go sleep this time, I promise...:supergrin:
:upeyes: Nothing! The point is that, contrary to what you've said, (and apparently believe to be true) a Glock CAN be made to fire when dropped. If you don't believe me: Load up your Glock pistol with a full magazine, stand over a hard surface, chamber a round and repeatedly loft the pistol. Then report back to us on what you discover.
You need to get some rest. When you wake up read ALL of this:
The Glock Frisbee Test (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/upgrade-faq.html) ;)
danielsand
01-26-2008, 11:09
There is ONLY ONE legitimate reason for "trigger safety" on the Glock pistol. And I know the answer since they came out in the mid eighties. :tongueout:
Glock is a safe weapon. Internal safeties work well, and as they were designed. But you can't see them!!!
How do you sell a plastic pistol (a 9mm too!!), with no safeties, (what Bubba can't see and feel, he doesn't believe it's there,.....well except for Jesus!) to a PD or SD run by a redneck, whose officers can barely sign their names (not to mention something like "training"!), twenty some odd years ago!?
How do you import a handgun like that in this country, where Brady Bunch (supported by SOME local firearms makers!!) and lefties are watching every weapon like hawks!?
Answer: You put a "thingy" on the trigger, and say "see it has one you can feel and see!".
Sure,.... it prevented some snags, maybe some kids could not reach the "thingy", but "show" was the primary reason for it.
I apologize if I offended anyone's belief system, and/or heritage with this post. (been getting PMs from offended people today!) :rofl:
I'm offended. :tongueout:
And I think you are correct Daniel. More show than anything. For the life of me I can't remember where I got this but I heard a quote saying, "putting a trigger safety on the trigger is like printing the combination to your safe on the door of the safe." It just don't make sense. :dunno:
There is ONLY ONE legitimate reason for "trigger safety" on the Glock pistol. And I know the answer since they came out in the mid eighties. :tongueout:
Glock is a safe weapon. Internal safeties work well, and as they were designed. But you can't see them!!!
How do you sell a plastic pistol (a 9mm too!!), with no safeties, (what Bubba can't see and feel, he doesn't believe it's there,.....well except for Jesus!) to a PD or SD run by a redneck, whose officers can barely sign their names (not to mention something like "training"!), twenty some odd years ago!?
How do you import a handgun like that in this country, where Brady Bunch (supported by SOME local firearms makers!!) and lefties are watching every weapon like hawks!?
Answer: You put a "thingy" on the trigger, and say "see it has one you can feel and see!".
Sure,.... it prevented some snags, maybe some kids could not reach the "thingy", but "show" was the primary reason for it.
I apologize if I offended anyone's belief system, and/or heritage with this post. (been getting PMs from offended people today!) :rofl:
I believe in my heart that you have nailed this question. Bravo! I believe that this will satisfy the original poster.
NYC Drew
01-26-2008, 11:33
Well, after sleeping on it I can buy one consideration was your (CMBF117) suggestion of the consideration of the glancing pressure during holstering. Heck, maybe that's it, I dunno. Makes sense. It just seems so unlikely an event with all the good holsters out there. OK, there's one reason. Any others ?
I saw a guy (NYPD officer, off duty) reholster at the range, with his shirt in the trigger guard.
I was in the booth next to him, and so help me GOD, as I looked down over to my left, maybe another second delay on my part and I'd be telling you about a silly guy who shot himself in the leg, and got a ricochet in mine.
That's all I got! :)
Drew, that guy should have bought you a whole case of beer. Good example of what my quandry.
Arc Angel
01-26-2008, 12:06
OK, then, how about just answering the question from now on. That seems to be something you're good at! :thumbsup:
PS: Go ahead and insert, 'UFO' yourself! ;)
danielsand
01-26-2008, 12:08
Sorry Angel. (I sincerely mean it)
I am Catholic, (obviously not a good one!).... feel free to make fun of it.
danielsand
01-26-2008, 12:11
One more thing,....I REALLY am sorry if I offended ANYONE with my "Jesus" joke. Please substitute the word "UFO" (or any other belief in supernatural) in my original post.
It was a tasteless attempt to be funny. :crying:
If you want to use a loaded glock to hammer in a nail, as you do from time to time, the rear sight gets in the way of the most natural position. So the best option is to use the back end of the slide. When you do this the G forces are remarkably high and the mass of the steel trigger bar tends to drive the trigger bar back. There is then a danger of the gun firing in an uncontrolled direction. For the amateur carpenters amongst us, Glock have put in the trigger safety. Because it is pivoted in its middle the G forces of hitting the nail don't take it off safe.
If you throw it like a frisbee (holding the barrel and trailing the grip) at a wall, as you do, then when it hits, the abrupt change in rotational inertia will take the trigger safety off safe. If you manage to hit the wall with the tail of the slide then the combination of the two things can fire the gun. If you are really unlucky, you will shoot yourself.
The moral of this story is that you should not throw a frisbee at a wall but that it is quite safe to use it as a hammer.
I am sure that it was never intended as a replacement for a thumb operated safety but just as protection against an unlikely rather than extremely unlikely event. If they had just called it a drop safety or a trigger drop safety all this misunderstanding might have been avoided. Anything that could get into the trigger guard to pull the trigger inadvertently would almost certainly depress the trigger safety as well.
If only Glock had put in a "proper" grip safety we could have avoided a large number of reholstering accidents. Unfortunately hordes of ignorant 1911 gun writers had managed to persuade the world that grip safeties were a waste of time. Such a grip safety would have served the same purpose as the trigger safety and would have withstood the frisbee test as well. Perfection? What perfection?
English
The main reason for that is to prevent an AD if the trigger is snagged by any glancing blow, like when holstering. Where some triggers might be sensitive to such a thing on a sloppy reholstering, the Glock isn't.
"I'm the only one professional enough to.......BANG!"
:whistling: make sure you don't have this on the side of your jacket's that your gun will snagg it ! i will not be good for you
GlockArmed
01-26-2008, 20:39
"I'm the only one professional enough to.......BANG!"
Exactly what I was thinking of. :supergrin:
NYC Drew
01-26-2008, 21:01
:whistling: make sure you don't have this on the side of your jacket's that your gun will snagg it ! i will not be good for you
Just DAMN!
TommyTomTom
01-26-2008, 21:40
Arc,
You told me 4-days ago, that you're not particularly fond of the founder of TGZ. Here's what you said:
"Speaking personally, even though I'm not fond of Dean Speir....."
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=813538&page=6
And yet, you seem to point people to (imo) an anti-Glock website. Are you an anti-Glockite? ;o)
This thread amazes me, because now we have Glocks firing when dropped (so much for the drop safety) and slides falling off when they're skipped on the ground. Of course in other threads, we have exploding Glocks and Glocks going full-auto because of a poorly designed firing pin block; so much for the firing pin block.
I've said it before, but I'm wondering out loud how Glock continues to have success in this country with such an inferior design. We Americans must be the biggest bunch of dumb asses in the Western Hemisphere!
And since what I just wrote oozes with sarcasm, I'm going to buy the first 30SF I see.
:upeyes: Nothing! The point is that, contrary to what you've said, (and apparently believe to be true) a Glock CAN be made to fire when dropped. If you don't believe me: Load up your Glock pistol with a full magazine, stand over a hard surface, chamber a round and repeatedly loft the pistol. Then report back to us on what you discover.
You need to get some rest. When you wake up read ALL of this:
The Glock Frisbee Test (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/upgrade-faq.html) ;)
TommyTomTom
01-26-2008, 21:43
Sucks to be him. A Springfield XD and any Kahr would have fired too. Mostly likely any Sig or H&K would have fired too in DA mode.
Did the poor soul live through that?
:whistling: make sure you don't have this on the side of your jacket's that your gun will snagg it ! i will not be good for you
AustinTx
01-27-2008, 01:23
I suspect that Glock accumulated some extra import points, for the trigger safety. If anyone knows, please speak up.
greenlead
01-27-2008, 02:22
According to the GLOCK website (http://www.glock.com/english/index_safety.htm):
TRIGGER SAFETY
As the first of the three GLOCK “Safe Action” safety features, the trigger safety prevents inadvertent firing by lateral forces on the trigger. Releasing the trigger will automatically reactivate the safety.
Arc Angel
01-27-2008, 05:26
Arc,
You told me 4-days ago, that you're not particularly fond of the founder of TGZ. Here's what you said:
"Speaking personally, even though I'm not fond of Dean Speir....."
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=813538&page=6
And yet, you seem to point people to (imo) an anti-Glock website. Are you an anti-Glockite? ;o)
This thread amazes me, because now we have Glocks firing when dropped (so much for the drop safety) and slides falling off when they're skipped on the ground. Of course in other threads, we have exploding Glocks and Glocks going full-auto because of a poorly designed firing pin block; so much for the firing pin block.
I've said it before, but I'm wondering out loud how Glock continues to have success in this country with such an inferior design. We Americans must be the biggest bunch of dumb asses in the Western Hemisphere!
And since what I just wrote oozes with sarcasm, I'm going to buy the first 30SF I see.
:upeyes: Yeah, and I also said that I'm grateful to him, too! Why don't you stop trying sooo .... hard! It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong; but, apparently, you'd rather argue. Perhaps a course in, 'Basic Reading Comprehension #101' might help? ;)
PS: Gee, it doesn't take an MIT math major to figure out which one of us is more interested in Glock pistols or has more of his own money invested in Glocks: I'll put my Glocks and my 4,000 + board posts up against your diddle squat offerings anytime.
(How's that for sarcasm; and, I could care less what you do or don't buy? If you shoot like you post, it isn't going to matter anyway.) :tongueout:
nestrapez
01-27-2008, 05:38
There is NO flaw in the Glock safety systems.
Never implied there was. Just wondering what the heck the trigger on the trigger is supposed to prevent.
The "trigger on the trigger" is not supposed to prevent but enable. :faint:
Enabllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..........................what ?
TommyTomTom
01-27-2008, 10:06
Ah, man - that was brutal. The smilies cancel out the stinging words, correct? They didn't seem to be of equal power!
Granted, you have more posts and apparently lots of Glocks that you like. However, you appear to be pimping for TGZ and warning people about Glock slides falling off and Glocks firing w/o the trigger being pulled by a human being. Are these *current* concerns of yours? If not, why are you forwarding people to TGZ? If they are current concerns, why do you own Glocks?
For me, if I thought that my Glock could fire w/o the trigger being pulled or that the slide could fall off due to a faulty design, I would bail out and use my XDs, Sig, and Kahr.
:upeyes: Yeah, and I also said that I'm grateful to him, too! Why don't you stop trying sooo .... hard! It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong; but, apparently, you'd rather argue. Perhaps a course in, 'Basic Reading Comprehension #101' might help? ;)
PS: Gee, it doesn't take an MIT math major to figure out which one of us is more interested in Glock pistols or has more of his own money invested in Glocks: I'll put my Glocks and my 4,000 + board posts up against your diddle squat offerings anytime.
(How's that for sarcasm; and, I could care less what you do or don't buy? If you shoot like you post, it isn't going to matter anyway.) :tongueout:
kgain673
01-27-2008, 12:53
There is ONLY ONE legitimate reason for "trigger safety" on the Glock pistol. And I know the answer since they came out in the mid eighties. :tongueout:
Glock is a safe weapon. Internal safeties work well, and as they were designed. But you can't see them!!!
How do you sell a plastic pistol (a 9mm too!!), with no safeties, (what Bubba can't see and feel, he doesn't believe it's there,.....well except for Jesus!) to a PD or SD run by a redneck, whose officers can barely sign their names (not to mention something like "training"!), twenty some odd years ago!?
How do you import a handgun like that in this country, where Brady Bunch (supported by SOME local firearms makers!!) and lefties are watching every weapon like hawks!?
Answer: You put a "thingy" on the trigger, and say "see it has one you can feel and see!".
Sure,.... it prevented some snags, maybe some kids could not reach the "thingy", but "show" was the primary reason for it.
I apologize if I offended anyone's belief system, and/or heritage with this post. (been getting PMs from offended people today!) :rofl:
I agree with this statment, everyone who I have taught a few friends and my wife how to shoot with glocks. And the trigger saftey causes many people to grasp the simple concept of don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. It sounds stupid but it's true, I've only had one friend who could not grasp this concept, and he will never shoot with me again. I dont see much of a reason for this trigger safety other then a visual reminder of proper gun handling for most amateurs ( all accidental snags aside, many revolvers dont have safeties). For example when I informed my wife ( who never shot before in her life) there are no safeties, once you put your finger on the trigger it will go bang she never broke rule #1.
PEC-Memphis
01-27-2008, 16:20
Answer me this. What exactly is the Glock "trigger-in-a-trigger" supposed to prevent ? Same with the M&P and other triggers similar in function. I have run many, many scenarios through my head trying to establish what this trigger inside the trigger ma-bob is supposed to stop from happening and how it is supposed to contribute to a safer gun but, I just can't seem to I.D. any valid contribution.
Anything that can depress the trigger can depress the trigger safety as well. Any inertia from dropping the gun on the rear of the slide or butt can cause the trigger safety to go rearward as it would the trigger itself. My opinion is, it's simply a feel good device to sooth feelings about the gun not having a manual safety.
They say sometimes you can't see the forrest for the trees. I love my Glocks but for the life of me... Am I missing something here ? Ideas ? Fresh thoughts ? :dunno:
It is supposed to keep "brushing" the trigger NDs from occuring, as well as straps, strings, etc. from causing a ND. Probably 19 times out of 20 the trigger safety will keep a strap (string. etc.) from causing a ND, but not everytime. Most of the time a strap will slide to the top of the trigger rather than depress it. Just because it is not 100% does not indicate that it is not beneficial.
nestrapez
01-27-2008, 22:48
Enabllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..........................what ?
enable you to pull the trigger... thread ignored from now on.
Another safety that I had put on my G26 is the siderlock. I love and it is on the trigger not the side of the gun. Go to www.siderlock.com to see what I am talking about.
www.siderlock.com is the best way to go. I have one on my 26 and love it.
Thanks for bringing up this topic Sarge45......
It's funny, because I ran across this thread when researching information on the "safe action trigger". I had exactly the same feelings about the validity of the little trigger device.....and I intended to start a thread similar to this one!
I guess I won't need to now.
The only thing that really makes any sense......is the need for some visual safety you can point at.......Now, that makes sense when you consider all the "hand wringing" that'd probably take place without it!
hog
You bet Hog. Funny sometimes how we just accept things as necessary without really questioning why. From what I can tell too it seems the little "safety" is more visual that anything.
It must work, eh ? Most have never questioned it. :whistling:
BrandonR
02-02-2008, 08:16
www.siderlock.com is the best way to go. I have one on my 26 and love it.
Oh sheesh. Hasn't the siderlock caused enough argument in this thread (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=818887)? We certainly don't need it to take over two posts! :faint:
And basically, the purpose of the trigger safety is to ensure that the trigger is pulled only when direct equal pressure is put on the trigger. Even if it's not 100% (it COULD still get snagged on something causing it to pull the trigger), it still improves the safety of the pistol by making it more difficult to fire with anything but direct perpendicular pressure. Glancing lateral forces are a lot less likely to be able to pull the trigger. That still sounds like the job of a "safety" to me.
Wooddogg
02-02-2008, 08:35
I did.
Mine won't fire unless the middle of the trigger is depressed.
I can't fire it by pulling the sides, (left or right) of the trigger.
I like the feature & glads it's there.
BTW, it looks like 2 triggers from the side, side by side triggers, but upon closer inspection, the safety feature is in the middle of the wide trigger, not on the side.
I hope this helps 45, Wooddogg.:supergrin:
You are gonna have to drop that Glock from way up to get that trigger to overcome 5 pounds of resistance and fire the gun.
Still not sold. Anybody else ?
You've missed the toss from a plane video? It's on the net somewhere. I know cops who've done it, in an attempt to get the pistol to fire a primed case.
The first known pitch in the US from on high, a helicopter, took place in Onondonga County, New York.
Also, the testing found here: http://www.ptooma.com/products.asp?Prod=Book
....failed to cause the pistol to "fire" a primed case.
I'm not giving up yet. Somebody here has to be able to educate me on the practical purpose of the trigger-in-the-trigger thingy. This has really bothered me for a long time.
Hopefully not to the exclusion of other important things in one's life.
The reason I'm posting it tonight is because an officer at work told me that he really doesn't care for Glocks because he feels the safety aspect is lacking.
What did he think of revolvers? Does he have other competent firearms experience on which to base his opinion? Remember, most cops are cops in order to have a job. Many would just as soon not have a gun, much less be knowledgeable about them.
I gave him the possible "dropping it on the pavement" scenario but in reflection, I really can't buy that a drop from the average height of 3 feet would be enough to overcome the trigger spring and striker resistance (approx. 5.5# stock).
Consider that it's part of a system. The Glock can be described as a trigger cocking, self de-cocking system. Refer to the factory cutaway for a very clear demonstration of what goes on inside. Newer offerings (XD, M&P) mimic the Glock system in appearance, but not operation. They've elected to be a single action pistol, without manual safety.
Hopefully not to the exclusion of other important things in one's life.
Not any more. I am on step 11 of the 12 step program. I sleep better now.
What did he think of revolvers? Does he have other competent firearms experience on which to base his opinion? Remember, most cops are cops in order to have a job. Many would just as soon not have a gun, much less be knowledgeable about them.
He doesn't compare the Glock to a revolver because the revo has about a 12 pound DA pull whereas the Glock is in the neighborhood of 5 pounds (and partially cocked). While not your average, unknowledgable officer, he is a recreational shooter on the side.
Consider that it's part of a system. The Glock can be described as a trigger cocking, self de-cocking system. Refer to the factory cutaway for a very clear demonstration of what goes on inside. Newer offerings (XD, M&P) mimic the Glock system in appearance, but not operation. They've elected to be a single action pistol, without manual safety.
I agree. While I still understand his concern, I like the Glock system, even if they use the trigger in a trigger more for look and mention than for function.
Arc Angel
02-02-2008, 10:21
:) Sarge, That's amazing! I'm not used to reading the sort of sage and unexpected comments you make about Glock pistols and the Glock's trigger system.
I honestly believe you have one of the finest understandings of how a Glock works and exactly what its principal differences are with other pistols - and especially revolvers - on this board. :thumbsup:
Really could have used your input, like, 4 years ago when everybody had an opinion that was either, by degree, partially or just plain flat-out wrong: e.g.; 'What the difference between a revolver, and a Glock?' 'One's just as safe as the other - right!'
(Man, did I get sick of hearing that one!) :clown:
My compliments! You are a breath of, 'fresh air'.
While I still understand his concern, I like the Glock system, even if they use the trigger in a trigger more for look and mention than for function.
Consider, if you will, that the actual use of the trigger safety is to arrest movement of the trigger (which cocks the striker and moves the firing pin safety) when the pistol takes a vertical fall directly on the back of the slide.
:) Sarge, That's amazing! I'm not used to reading the sort of sage and unexpected comments you make about Glock pistols and the Glock's trigger system.
I honestly believe you have one of the finest understandings of how a Glock works and exactly what its principal differences are with other pistols - and especially revolvers - on this board. :thumbsup:
Really could have used your input, like, 4 years ago when everybody had an opinion that was either, by degree, partially or just plain flat-out wrong: e.g.; 'What the difference between a revolver, and a Glock?' 'One's just as safe as the other - right!'
(Man, did I get sick of hearing that one!) :clown:
My compliments! You are a breath of, 'fresh air'.
LOL. Thank you for the compliments Arc. Firearms are a passion of mine and I spend a lot of time trying to learn about them and trying to help others in the hobby/field. I continually run across many things I haven't yet figured out and I know there are many others out there I can glean knowledge and experiences from. I seek those people out, and their thoughts and opinions and use their wealth of experiences to build my ability.
The trigger in a trigger is one of those areas that I wanted opinions and thoughts on so I could satisfy my own question about it as well as others questions about the Glock system. I think Glocks are safe if we do our part. They are not, however, for the inexperienced or complacent. They are a great fighting platform and defensive tool in the right hands. :wavey:
I am with you Sarge45 no reason for that stinky trigger-in-a-trigger
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/foxhunter2/glocknosafety.jpg
Kahrguy,
Unlike the Kahr, the Glock is partially cocked. Since it is possible for the force available from the partially cocked firing pin to fire a round in the chamber, this needs to be guarded against by a drop safety or safties since a severe shock is the most likely thing to release the firing pin without intent to fire. This is precisely what the so called trigger safety does. The idea that the trigger safety will stop something other than a trigger finger pulling the trigger is pretty silly. It just might do so in a very small proportion of the ways that this could happen.
You have removed this safety without understanding its purpose. It is very unlikely that you will drop your Glock in such a way that it goes off and it is very unlikely that the bullet so fired will do any significant damage since it will be fired upwards. So you can feel pretty safe but if these two very small probabilities come together and if the legal side against you has the wit to understand what you have done, you will pay a very high price. Are you sure that this is a risk worth taking?
Hogship,
I refer you to the above and to an earlier post explaining the way in which the trigger safety works.
I do, incidentally, think that there is a far superior way in which this aspect of safety could have been achieved but we have what we have.
English
English
Darth Sion
02-03-2008, 08:13
I just wanted to add my two cents....
As many have already written, the purpose of the Safe Action Trigger is to prevent discharge due to lateral forces on the trigger. There is, however, another reason: to quickly disengage the other internal safety mechanisms of the weapon, especially in a hot situation. This may seem counterintuitive to a "traditional" safety, but this is not a "traditional" safety. A "traditional" safety is intended to prevent negligent discharge from unintended depression of the trigger, but the Glock safeties are intended to prevent negligent discharge from unintended impact to the weapon, such as what might occur as a result from dropping the firearm or when someone attempts to kick it out of your hand.
Like the good Sarge says: the most important safety is the one between the gunner's ears. After all, when we hold a firearm, we make it the center of our universe. We're not chit-chatting with others. We're not allowing ourselves to become distracted. We all keep our fingers away from the trigger until we intend to fire, and we always take care not to snag the trigger while holstering and pulling the weapon. Is the absence of a "traditional" safety on a Glock more dangerous to the mindful user? No. And it's certainly no more dangerous than pulling a weapon that features the "traditional" safety, trying to squeeze the trigger before disengaging the safety, and then having the pistol kicked out of your hand or getting stabbed or shot first.
Sorry to preach, but I've given this a great deal of thought, and the "non-traditional" safety is one the many reasons that I trust my life to Glocks.
_____________
I carry a weapon for the same reason that I play an active role in the governing of my country: I'm a citizen, not a subject.
Arc Angel
02-03-2008, 08:15
Unlike the Kahr, the Glock is partially cocked. Since it is possible for the force available from the partially cocked firing pin to fire a round in the chamber, this needs to be guarded against by a drop safety or safties since a severe shock is the most likely thing to release the firing pin without intent to fire. This is precisely what the so called trigger safety does. .....
English,
:upeyes: I don't think so!
OK, I understand that the trigger safety can play an auxillary role in preventing a Glock from firing IF it's dropped on the back of the slide; however, I've yet to discover that a FULLY LOADED Glock is immune to going off when dropped in this manner. As far as I know the effective contribution of Glock's, 'trigger safety' is absolutely minimal. You're just as immune from a FULLY LOADED AND DROPPED Glock going off with one installed as without.
I'm been told by others on this board that Glock's actual, 'drop safety' is located on the opposite opposing ends of the trigger bar's cruciform; and, as far as I'm concerned, Glock is going to have to go some in order to convince me that the existing drop safety is 100% effective. Personally, and as of this morning, I do not think so.
Right now, I really have to agree that Glock's, 'trigger thingy' is about as useful as, 'teats on a bull'. A great marketing and PR tool - Not much else. Glock pistols would benefit greatly from a manually applied safety; until they get one I'll continue to think of my own Glock pistols as, 'Hitler's revenge' and carry them accordingly. ;)
AustinTx
02-03-2008, 23:32
Has everyone forgotten that the Glock has a firing pin safety. This should prevent a discharge if dropped. The Colt Series 80 firing pin safety was added to the Govt. Model to prevent a discharge, when dropped. In the late 1960's, a Houston LEO was carrying a 1911. A citizen engaged him in conversation, at a service station, and they were examining the 1911. Well, one of them dropped it. The citizen was killed. Lawsuit followed and Colt started installing the Series 80 firing pin safety. Believe it or not. AT
palladen1331
02-04-2008, 00:51
SARGE 45, take your glock slide off. look at the trigger bar at the back end it rests on the frame. unlessthe trigger bar is moved to the rear and drops down it cannot release the fireing pin it is designed that way. the trigger safety is under spring tension it will not move unless you move it
Arc Angel
02-04-2008, 01:04
:upeyes: No, not forgotten. We've been talking about Glock's trigger and drop safeties. A firing pin safety is not, specifically, a drop safety; but, yes, it certainly contributes to the overall safety equation.
It's an historical fact that all 3 of Glock's safeties have been reported to fail - and, all, at the same time too! More than this I recently found out that Gaston Glock, himself, carries - or has been known to carry - his own personal Glock pistol in C-3. (Reported at, 'You know where') :supergrin:
Personally I take this subject VERY seriously: 'Why' doesn't matter; but, about 2 years ago I tripped and fell, headlong, on my face. As I fell the butt of my G-21 became caught by the arm of a chair. It was levered out of my OTB holster from a height of about 2 1/2 feet up and landed, about, 2 feet away on a hard linoleum floor. (Right inside the parameters of the infamous DEA Frisbee tests!) :wow:
This accident was the result of a set of extraordinary (read, 'freak') circumstances: Usually I carry IWB; but, this afternoon, I had just come from the range, hadn't taken the time to change, and was still wearing an expensive, well-made, and tight-fitting OTB Kydex holster.
Because I had just come off the firing line, I was still carrying my Glock in C-1 - Something I almost never do in public. As I hit the floor my fully charged G-21 landed, diagonally, across from my right shoulder. The pistol hit, flat, on it's right side and slid forward with the muzzle pointing at a large black woman who was standing, wide-eyed, across from me.
Happily, the pistol did NOT fire; and, God bless that woman! She saw the whole thing happen: Me falling, the arm of the chair yanking the pistol out of my holster, and the gun landing on the floor with the muzzle pointing at her feet. All she did was ask me if I was all right! The man behind her, however, was incensed and tried to start a scene.
I got up, picked up my pistol, apologized, and slunk out of the building - dazed and confused ???
In 50 + years of gun handling this is the most embarrassing moment I've ever had with a gun! I've read about Glock pistols firing under these conditions; I'm very very glad that mine did not. Whether it would have been directly my fault, or not, if that woman had been hit, I would never have forgiven myself!
Since that day I have not carried a pistol in an OTB Kydex holster in public. Neither have I carried my pistol in C-1 in public. It's just not worth it! Between me being unexpectedly attacked, and an accident of some sort suddenly taking place, I am convinced that an accident is the much more likely event.
Admittedly some people are going to say; 'Look! The Glock's safety system worked.' Yeah, it did; my point is that it - just as easily - might not have. Where one person will see, 'mechanical perfection'; I see, 'The Hand Of God'.
Everyone needs to understand that, sometimes, your safety is NOT between your ears. If I've learned anything from what's been said, so far, English's comments have reminded me that, 'Every little bit helps!' As minimal as the contribution of Glock's trigger safety is, I'll concede that it belongs there. So, yes, upon reflection this thread has caused me to change my mind.
(NOT an easy thing to do at my age!) ;)
SARGE 45, take your glock slide off. look at the trigger bar at the back end it rests on the frame. unlessthe trigger bar is moved to the rear and drops down it cannot release the fireing pin it is designed that way. the trigger safety is under spring tension it will not move unless you move it
I gotcha. I'm not understanding what this has to do with the mini-trigger centered on the main trigger though ? My point was whatever force it takes to move the main trigger can also move the mini-trigger and consequently unlock and move the main trigger. My only guess(es) for original intent are for grazing pressure on the side of the trigger and for PR purposes. It sure won't stop a direct impingement or general direct pressure.
Wow Arc. Scary read there. I'm glad you and the others were ok. That's enough to make you appreciate your guardian angel.
Arc Angel
02-04-2008, 01:24
:) Yeah, Sarge. I thought long and hard before I posted that; but, I finally went with what I believe others might actually benefit from hearing. (I'm still embarrassed!)
You're right, by the way, I do believe in Guardian Angels. ;)
dinggaling
02-04-2008, 01:30
:upeyes: No, not forgotten. We've been talking about Glock's trigger and drop safeties. A firing pin safety is not, specifically, a drop safety; but, yes, it certainly contributes to the overall safety equation.
It's an historical fact that all 3 of Glock's safeties have been reported to fail - and, all, at the same time too! More than this I recently found out that Gaston Glock, himself, carries - or has been known to carry - his own personal Glock pistol in C-3. (Reported at, 'You know where') :supergrin:
Personally I take this subject VERY seriously: 'Why' doesn't matter; but, about 2 years ago I tripped and fell, headlong, on my face. As I fell the butt of my G-21 became caught by the arm of a chair. It was levered out of my OTB holster from a height of about 2 1/2 feet up and landed, about, 2 feet away on a hard linoleum floor. (Right inside the parameters of the infamous DEA Frisbee tests!) :wow:
This accident was the result of a set of extraordinary (read, 'freak') circumstances: Usually I carry IWB; but, this afternoon, I had just come from the range, hadn't taken the time to change, and was still wearing an expensive, well-made, and tight-fitting OTB Kydex holster.
Because I had just come off the firing line, I was still carrying my Glock in C-1 - Something I almost never do in public. As I hit the floor my fully charged G-21 landed, diagonally, across from my right shoulder. The pistol hit, flat, on it's right side and slid forward with the muzzle pointing at a large black woman who was standing, wide-eyed, across from me.
Happily, the pistol did NOT fire; and, God bless that woman! She saw the whole thing happen: Me falling, the arm of the chair yanking the pistol out of my holster, and the gun landing on the floor with the muzzle pointing at her feet. All she did was ask me if I was all right! The man behind her, however, was incensed and tried to start a scene.
I got up, picked up my pistol, apologized, and slunk out of the building - dazed and confused ???
In 50 + years of gun handling this is the most embarrassing moment I've ever had with a gun! I've read about Glock pistols firing under these conditions; I'm very very glad that mine did not. Whether it would have been directly my fault, or not, if that woman had been hit, I would never have forgiven myself!
Since that day I have not carried a pistol in an OTB Kydex holster in public. Neither have I carried my pistol in C-1 in public. It's just not worth it! Between me being unexpectedly attacked, and an accident of some sort suddenly taking place, I am convinced that an accident is the much more likely event.
Admittedly some people are going to say; 'Look! The Glock's safety system worked.' Yeah, it did; my point is that it - just as easily - might not have. Where one person will see, 'mechanical perfection'; I see, 'The Hand Of God'.
Everyone needs to understand that, sometimes, your safety is NOT between your ears. If I've learned anything from what's been said, so far, English's comments have reminded me that, 'Every little bit helps!' As minimal as the contribution of Glock's trigger safety is, I'll concede that it belongs there. So, yes, upon reflection this thread has caused me to change my mind.
(NOT an easy thing to do at my age!) ;)
time to use a CQC Blackhawk serpa!!! good to know you're OK! :faint:
Arc Angel
02-04-2008, 01:51
:) Thank you; but, I don't think the Serpa was on the market - or, at least, not popularly known when this accident occurred. Besides, an IWB carry would have prevented the arm of that chair from levering the pistol away from me as I fell.
I normally carry in C-3 and, consequently, need to regularly practice with a Mossad draw. I'm quick, quicker than most; but I have no illusions: A fast man with a pistol, or any man with an already drawn gun is going to beat me to the first shot.
I strongly suspect that the Serpa design would only further slow me down; and, it introduces another move for me to have to work into my draw stroke. Frankly, I think that's going to be too much to have to attempt at the last moment! I'm not going to be changing my mind, anytime soon, about C-3 carry; so, it's better if I just stay with my IWB holsters. ;)
After far too long a time it has dawned on me that the mistake in this thread has been to consider the "trigger" safety in isolation. We should have considered the safeties of the Glock as a system.
First, the Glock is intended to fire if you pull the trigger with a round in the chamber. The weight and length of trigger pull adds a small margin of safety against a "twitch" of the trigger finger but not much in comparison to a cocked and unlocked 1911. It has no where near the margin of a revolver in double action mode. If your finger is on the trigger when you are startled enough you are very likely to pull the trigger hard enough to fire the piece. To this extent, as many keep saying, the primary safety is between your ears. Handle the gun sensibly and you won't have a negligent discharge.
Second, with the negligible exception of protecting against a push or pull against the side front of the trigger, all proper Glock safeties guard against drops, but not always as you might think.
A drop of a solid object onto a solid surface can produce remarkably high G forces. A drop where the pistol lands on the top of its slide could easily unsafe the firing pin safety as its inertia would easily overcome the spring loading. Fortunately the same G forces would push the trigger bar upwards, relative to the normal orientation of the pistol, and push it more firmly into engagement with the firing pin. So that is a safe drop orientation.
The most serious risk is from a drop onto the tail of the slide. Here the full mass of the trigger and trigger bar will be pushed back. If the impact is large enough then, without the trigger safety, this force could, in principle, push the trigger bar back far enough to act as though the trigger had been pulled. That is, it would disengage the firing pin safety, further cock the firing pin against its spring, cam the trigger bar down against the connector/disconnector and fire the pistol. The trigger safety stops this from happening because it is in neutral ballance agains this force and its spring holds it in place unless the pistol is spinning very rapidly, as in the infamous frisbee test.
Lastly we have the simply named drop safety. This provides a guide for the cruciform of the trigger bar which prevents it moving downwards until the trigger is pulled most of the way back. Ostensibly this guards against an upward impact on the but of the pistol forcing the trigger bar down and releasing the partly cocked firing pin. What would happen if it did? The gun would not fire because the firing pin would be blocked by the firing pin safety which would be held more strongly in its safe position by this direction of impact.
So what is the drop safety for? It protects you from the circumstance where you drop your Glock, perhaps in the course of a fight, then pick it up and try to shoot. Without the drop safety the result might not even be a click because the firing pin would have been disengaged from the trigger bar cruciform by the drop. That is, the firing pin would be fully forward against the firing pin safety. If it is not partially cocked it will not fire! So the drop safety protects you from the gun not firiing when you need it to fire rather than from firing when it shouldn't fire.
It should be clear from this that the PRIMARY mechanical safety of the Glock against accidental discharge when the gun is dropped is the trigger safety.
There is no safety against it being fired once it is in your hand with your finger on the trigger and nor should there be.
There is no safety worthy of the name against discharge when something other than your trigger finger snags the trigger and pulls it back. This is actually a major failing of what is an ingenious piece of engineering.
All mechanical systems can fail and in this case we are trusting a lot to a small engagement of two pieces of cheap molded plastic. Apart from that the firing pin safety can get stuck in the up position if it gets too dirty, the firing pin/cruciform engagement can be insecure if it has been modified and/or damaged so that there is a very small engagement but this combination would also probably need a soft primer to fire.
For what it is worth, I do not believe that any pistol design solves the reholstering/snagging problem in a reasonably fail safe manor. A manual or thumb safety will do so provided you remember to put it on safe every time you holster. The psychological fact is that the time you are least likely to do this is in the immediate aftermath of combat. This is also the time when you are most likely to be clumsy as you re-holster.
English
Arc Angel
02-04-2008, 07:47
:) Good reply, English; except are you certain that any force sufficiently strong to cause the trigger bar to withdraw would not also override or, 'chatter' the Glock's trigger safety?
Would you be willing to stand in front of the pistol and feel 100% secure when it hit the floor? ;)
Just reread your post: What happens when other drop scenarios are introduced? Change the orientation and impact point of the drop and the result(s) change too - Correct?
I'm impressed with your explanation of Glock's, 'drop safety'. If I understand you, correctly, it's NOT really a, 'drop safety'. Instead it's, something of, a misnomer and actually works as a, 'function stabilizer' in as much as it, 'guarantees' the performance of the pistol AFTER it has been dropped.
Do you work for Glock, English?
:) Good reply, English; except are you certain that any force sufficiently strong to cause the trigger bar to withdraw would not also override or, 'chatter' the Glock's trigger safety?
Would you be willing to stand in front of the pistol and feel 100% secure when it hit the floor? ;)
Just reread your post: What happens when other drop scenarios are introduced? Change the orientation and impact point of the drop and the result(s) change too - Correct?
I'm impressed with your explanation of Glock's, 'drop safety'. If I understand you, correctly, it's NOT really a, 'drop safety'. Instead it's, something of, a misnomer and actually works as a, 'function stabilizer' in as much as it, 'guarantees' the performance of the pistol AFTER it has been dropped.
Do you work for Glock, English?
Arc Angel,
Thank you!
I don't know the weight of the trigger bar and firing pin but I would guess that it would need a force of about 200G or more to activate the release. That same force would pin the firing pin safety to the side of its channel for as long as it lasted. In the time that the firing pin is accelerating forward, if the trigger safety did not work to prevent this, it is possible in principle that a seconday impact or chatter might release it. A secondary impact would follow a bounce which would take far longer to come down than the firing pin would take to go forwards. Chatter would have to be very peculiar.
It is more a matter of standing above it rather than in front of it but with the trigger safety in place I would feel quite safe. Without it, I wouldn't. For enough money I would do it several times a day!
Other drop scenarios don't produce forces which tend to release the cocked firing pin. A drop on the front of the slide would push the trigger bar forward into the drop safety notch in the trigger unit for example. This would not be cocking the firing pin further and would prevent the cruciform from moving down relative to the firing pin. Any impact with a sizable component in this dirrection would do this.
Incidentally, any normal tail end drop would impact the beaver tail and so the G force would open the slide for the duration of the force since it requires much less acceleration than would be needed to move the trigger bar and firing pin. This alone would disable the firing mechanism until after the impact at which point the slide would go back intop battery as Glocks do. The above descriptions would need the tail of the slide to land on a raised edge with the beaver tail hanging over it.
Your function stabilizer idea of the drop safety is correct. Maybe function preserver would be better.
No, I don't work for Glock but maybe they should start paying me! I would enjoy a consultancy role and I think I could tell them how to improve their next generation. I have learned a lot about Glocks just by trying to explain these things. I have also gained an even greater admiration for the engineering flair and skill which went into the Glock pistol's creation. It deserves to be considered a classic of handgun design which is at least on a par with the designs of J.M. Browning.
English
Arc Angel
02-04-2008, 10:54
:upeyes: I don't know?
I'm starting to feel impressed; but, 'Right up there with John Moses Browning'? I'm not ready to go there, yet! I still have that old uneasy feeling caused by the DEA, 'Frisbee tests'; and, hard as I try, I haven't been able to forget about, 'Glock Leg' syndrome - either.
For reasons already stated, I do NOT believe, 'Your safety is between your ears;' and, until I'm able to develop outstanding powers of telekinesis, neither will I. Show me a Glock with a Browning-style manual safety; and, maybe, I'll change my mind.
Thanks, that was a good exchange of ideas. ;)
TommyTomTom
02-04-2008, 12:35
Arc,
I'm with you to a degree. My opinion is that everything can be improved upon and the Glock is no exception. Now, I will leave what needs to be improved to the engineers and the designers. Good companies will also listen to its customer base on potential improvements. I think the track-record to date is excellent.
For now, my opinion is that we have a solid design here. I carry all the time with a cartridge chambered so that is proof of my confidence.
It would be interesting to know what changes were made after the DEA failure. It would also be interesting to know how current iterations would fare in the DEA test.
I also carry an XD and a Kahr P9 and their cycle of operation is a bit different. Every time I think I understand each of the 3 - a guy like English comes along which makes me realize I need to learn more! I wonder how the XD and the Kahr would compare in a torture safety test, i.e., throw it down a mountain, frisbee, etc.
FWIW -- an XD45 has been announced which has a nice manual safety. There are pictures @ SA.
:upeyes: I don't know?
I'm starting to feel impressed; but, 'Right up there with John Moses Browning'? I'm not ready to go there, yet! I still have that old uneasy feeling caused by the DEA, 'Frisbee tests'; and, hard as I try, I haven't been able to forget about, 'Glock Leg' syndrome - either.
For reasons already stated, I do NOT believe, 'Your safety is between your ears;' and, until I'm able to develop outstanding powers of telekinesis, neither will I. Show me a Glock with a Browning-style manual safety; and, maybe, I'll change my mind.
Thanks, that was a good exchange of ideas. ;)
Arc Angel
02-04-2008, 16:57
:) You know, when we're not squabbling with each other, the variety and extent of information available from the membership of Glock Talk is, nothing short of, amazing! This is one of the most technology-rich firearms websites in the world!
I pride myself on knowing the answers to things; but there are, indeed, days around here when I feel very humble. Today is one of those days! ;)
(Now, back to your normal squabbling as usual!) :supergrin:
you all have probably seem this thread a million times. However, it was interesting and entertaining
www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item
TACTICAL_45
03-04-2008, 17:34
Great read. I was going to post a similar question, but did a search first, glad I did. You could throw away everything but the last page, and make it a sticky. As stated, a great exchange of facts and ideas. That can only be accomplished by leaving egos at the door. Congrats gentlemen. That will answer questions quicker in the future. Again, my vote for a sticky!!!!
I may be "new" here, but have been in the game for years............
AustinTx
03-04-2008, 21:11
I never gave the trigger safety much thought. It has appeared sort of silly, to me. Just think, "the safety is on the trigger" but that is what you operate to make it fire. I don't think there would be anymore ND's without it. I just wrote it off as being there for "import points". There is absolutely no way I could prove any of this, just my opinion. I always carry the Glock ready to fire. I carried a 1911 cocked and locked many years, without any sort of holster. Still have all my appendages.
At
:) You know, when we're not squabbling with each other, the variety and extent of information available from the membership of Glock Talk is, nothing short of, amazing! This is one of the most technology-rich firearms websites in the world!
I pride myself on knowing the answers to things; but there are, indeed, days around here when I feel very humble. Today is one of those days! ;)
(Now, back to your normal squabbling as usual!) :supergrin:
This is indeed a very good thread. It makes one think. Good responses folks. Very levied and thought out.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.