sanding down safety on trigger

RM686 · 10-02-2012, 23:49

Have a new G19 4 gen. changed out trigger for G17 rounded version. Did polish, job 3.5 connector wolf, 6 lb trigger spring. Trigger pull is 4.25 lbs. I still hate the trigger. The safety lever in the trigger cuts into my finger and after 300 rounds this gun is not fun to shoot. Has anyone tried filing the safety on the trigger so when it is pressed it is flush with the trigger. I see Clockworks sells such a trigger with a wider safety and flush when engaged but for $150.00. All my 20 guns both revolvers and semi autos have smooth triggers. WTF was Glock thinking.
Any suggestions?

Comedian · 10-03-2012, 00:30

If you file it, the gun probably wont shoot. Since you will no longer be able to depress it.

RM686 · 10-03-2012, 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comedian

If you file it, the gun probably wont shoot. Since you will no longer be able to depress it.

I would depress it and file off the part still sticking up above the rest of the troger.

Comedian · 10-03-2012, 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM686

I would depress it and file off the part still sticking up above the rest of the troger.

Gotcha. I wouldn't do it, but they are cheap to replace if it goes bad.

wingspar · 10-04-2012, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM686

I would depress it and file off the part still sticking up above the rest of the troger.

This is exactly what I did with my first G17. Trigger hurt my finger just after a couple of shots. The second G17 I bought used, and it has never bothered me.

In the photo below, you can see a little ramp like place in the trigger. That shows how much I took off. When the trigger is all the way back, the safety is flush with the trigger. Pain went away. I did it with a Dremel, and was very careful about it.

SJ 40 · 10-03-2012, 01:23

I do on the ones that offend.I usually start out at round 220 grit and finish off with 600 grit. Mind you I am just taking off the amount that doesn't lay flush with the main body of the trigger,in doing so I have never taken off any more that would prevent the safety from functioning in any way other than designed. SJ 40

MNBud · 10-03-2012, 07:19

Do exactly as RM686 suggested, it is usually the second thing I do to my Glocks after installing TruGlo sights. I put the trigger in the fired position and then use a half round jewelers file to bring the tab flush with the rest of the trigger and then sand it and the ribs with 400 grit emery and then 600 grit. The sanding takes the sharp edges off but doesn't remove a noticeable amount of material. This is a huge improvement and will not affect the operation of the safety. (which in my mind is a joke to start with).

Slackinoff · 10-03-2012, 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNBud

Do exactly as RM686 suggested, it is usually the second thing I do to my Glocks after installing TruGlo sights. I put the trigger in the fired position and then use a half round jewelers file to bring the tab flush with the rest of the trigger and then sand it and the ribs with 400 grit emery and then 600 grit. The sanding takes the sharp edges off but doesn't remove a noticeable amount of material. This is a huge improvement and will not affect the operation of the safety. (which in my mind is a joke to start with).

Great post, thanks.

English · 10-03-2012, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNBud

Do exactly as RM686 suggested, it is usually the second thing I do to my Glocks after installing TruGlo sights. I put the trigger in the fired position and then use a half round jewelers file to bring the tab flush with the rest of the trigger and then sand it and the ribs with 400 grit emery and then 600 grit. The sanding takes the sharp edges off but doesn't remove a noticeable amount of material. This is a huge improvement and will not affect the operation of the safety. (which in my mind is a joke to start with).

Only thing to add is that it is easier to start by scraping the trigger safety down with a small sharp knife with the blade at right angles to the surface. The design is indeed very poor ergonomics.

English

Opie 1 Kenopie · 10-03-2012, 07:16

What was Glock thinking? They thought "We just designed a super-safe pistol with an innovative trigger that could only hurt Cousin Arnold's girlie mans!"

I would NEVER dick with the trigger since its a safety also. For some reason millions of Glock owners aren't injured by their triggers, so maybe you just need a different pistol platform.

sciolist · 10-03-2012, 12:11

+1 for scraping.

M 7 · 10-03-2012, 12:37

I just use one of my wife's fine emory boards to remove the sharp edges and very slightly reshape the trigger safety. Takes about 15 seconds.

scccdoc · 10-03-2012, 12:43

I have soft hands, and this is not an issue for me. GEESH..................now I'm gonna think about it!......DOC

RM686 · 10-03-2012, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by scccdoc

I have soft hands, and this is not an issue for me. GEESH..................now I'm gonna think about it!......DOC

Great fix posted by MNBud. It only becomes an issue after maybe 200 to 220 rounds of ammo fired. I have been shooting pistols and revolves for over 50 years usually about 300 or more rounds per range session. I have never had this problem before buying a Glock. Have no problem with accuracy either.When you look at something like Fulcrum triggers which solve this problem starting at $150.00 and do nothing more for this price, I think Glock could have come up with a better design.
If you go to the range and shoot 2 or 3 boxes of ammo then there is no problem.

dhgeyer · 10-03-2012, 16:23

I have never understood the Glock safety trigger concept. It is designed so that you can't pull the trigger unless you pull the trigger. Makes no sense to me.

OK, you can't pull just one side of the trigger, and this might save someone getting it caught in clothing or something. I wonder if it has ever done any good.

What is the thought process really?

F106 Fan · 10-03-2012, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhgeyer

I have never understood the Glock safety trigger concept. It is designed so that you can't pull the trigger unless you pull the trigger. Makes no sense to me.

OK, you can't pull just one side of the trigger, and this might save someone getting it caught in clothing or something. I wonder if it has ever done any good.

What is the thought process really?

Glock talks about having multiple safeties. But they aren't independent safeties; every one of them is released as the trigger is pulled.

So Glock added a 'master' safety to the trigger to prevent NDs.

Richard

dhgeyer · 10-03-2012, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by F106 Fan

So Glock added a 'master' safety to the trigger to prevent NDs.

Richard

Right. So you can't deactivate all the dependent safeties by pulling the trigger unless you pull the trigger.

RM686 · 10-03-2012, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhgeyer

Right. So you can't deactivate all the dependent safeties by pulling the trigger unless you pull the trigger.

look at the M&P pistols. You pull the bottom half of the trigger to fire? All these triggers were designed by lawyers.
Most discharges occur when holstering a fire arm with your finger in the trigger guard or by some how placing your finger on the trigger and pressing it.
There was a funny story a couple of months ago about a hunter who was shot by his dog. The guy had his rifle leaning against a tree and the dog knocked it over. The trigger got caught on a branch or twig and BOOM shot his master

.
Wonder if a dog can shoot a Glock?

dhgeyer · 10-03-2012, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM686

look at the M&P pistols. You pull the bottom half of the trigger to fire?

I have an M&P, and it isn't the bottom half, it's more like the bottom 2/3 or 3/4, which makes even less sense than the Glock. At least with the Glock you have the fig leaf of logic that the trigger must be pulled in the middle. With the M&P you don't even have that. But, the M&P doesn't hurt your finger after a few hundred rounds.

Oh God, let's not start another M&P vs. Glock thread hijack.

English · 10-04-2012, 05:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhgeyer

I have never understood the Glock safety trigger concept. It is designed so that you can't pull the trigger unless you pull the trigger. Makes no sense to me.

OK, you can't pull just one side of the trigger, and this might save someone getting it caught in clothing or something. I wonder if it has ever done any good.

What is the thought process really?

The Glock trigger safety is widely misunderstood. It is in fact one of three drop safeties. Without it, if the pistol was dropped on the rear of the slide the acceleration could make the trigger bar heavy enough to release the firing pin and fire the pistol as though the trigger had been pulled. In the same direction of acceleration, the trigger safety is ballanced about its mid point pivot and so is unaffected and continues to block the weight of the trigger bar, thus preventing the pistol from firing.

The trigger safety has no function or design intention to prevent the trigger being pulled back by anything -finger, jacket toggle, shirt and so on - that is pressing against the trigger except in the rare event that something is pressing just against the trigger without pressing on the trigger safety.

English

dhgeyer · 10-04-2012, 07:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by English

The Glock trigger safety is widely misunderstood. It is in fact one of three drop safeties. Without it, if the pistol was dropped on the rear of the slide the acceleration could make the trigger bar heavy enough to release the firing pin and fire the pistol as though the trigger had been pulled. In the same direction of acceleration, the trigger safety is ballanced about its mid point pivot and so is unaffected and continues to block the weight of the trigger bar, thus preventing the pistol from firing.

That's an interesting idea, and it makes mechanical sense. I really wonder, though, how realistic it is. Given how much pressure it takes to pull the trigger (overcoming the striker spring at its most compressed, compressing the striker block plunger against its spring, and the friction of the sear sliding off the striker under tension) and given the fairly small mass of the stamped trigger bar, could the sear actually be released this way even if the gun were to achieve terminal velocity and land squarely on the back of the slide on a concrete surface? Has it ever been tried? Or is it a lawyer mandated design feature to satisfy some import requirement or an imagined legal scenario?

I'm almost tempted to go down and see if I can get the sear to release by pounding the back of the slide on my workbench with the trigger safety taped out of the way and (of course) the gun unloaded. But I'd rather not abuse my gun that way.

Arc Angel · 10-04-2012, 08:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by English

The Glock trigger safety is widely misunderstood. It is in fact one of three drop safeties. Without it, if the pistol was dropped on the rear of the slide the acceleration could make the trigger bar heavy enough to release the firing pin and fire the pistol as though the trigger had been pulled. In the same direction of acceleration, the trigger safety is ballanced about its mid point pivot and so is unaffected and continues to block the weight of the trigger bar, thus preventing the pistol from firing.

The trigger safety has no function or design intention to prevent the trigger being pulled back by anything -finger, jacket toggle, shirt and so on - that is pressing against the trigger except in the rare event that something is pressing just against the trigger without pressing on the trigger safety.

English

Yup! (Beat me to it!)

MNBud · 10-04-2012, 08:17

Wasn't there a video posted a short while back showing that the Glock would discharge every time the guy dropped it squarely on the back end of the slide or the backside of the grip I don't remember which.

dhgeyer · 10-04-2012, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by English

The Glock trigger safety is widely misunderstood. It is in fact one of three drop safeties. Without it, if the pistol was dropped on the rear of the slide the acceleration could make the trigger bar heavy enough to release the firing pin and fire the pistol as though the trigger had been pulled. In the same direction of acceleration, the trigger safety is ballanced about its mid point pivot and so is unaffected and continues to block the weight of the trigger bar, thus preventing the pistol from firing.

The trigger safety has no function or design intention to prevent the trigger being pulled back by anything -finger, jacket toggle, shirt and so on - that is pressing against the trigger except in the rare event that something is pressing just against the trigger without pressing on the trigger safety.

English

Well, being a curious sort I just had to know. I took my Glock 19 Gen 4 down into the shop, taped the trigger safety to disable it, checked 5 times to make sure it was empty, set the trigger, and whacked the back of the slide with a mallet (rubber face on one side, plastic face on the other). I tried several times. To my surprise, if I hit it hard enough with the plastic face of the mallet I was able to get the trigger to pull and striker to fall. I got it to do it several times.

I consider myself educated. Yes, the Glock trigger safety is needed and is good design. Thank you, English, for correcting me on this.

As a side note, and more relevant to this thread, I would never modify the trigger safety or any other safety on any gun, especially one I keep in the nightstand or carry. Even if I thought the safety was a total waste (which up until a few minutes ago I did), I still would not touch it. I would be too concerned about legal issues in case of an AD or even an intentional self defense shooting. Even if it were just a range gun or competition gun I wouldn't do it. You can have an AD at the range or in competition as well as anywhere else. Even knowing that what is being discussed here will not affect the function of the trigger safety, and I do believe that, I still wouldn't do it. Once you have made any modification to a safety mechanism the deed is done, and you have given some slimy lawyer all he/she needs to crucify you.

JBS · 10-04-2012, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhgeyer

Well, being a curious sort I just had to know. I took my Glock 19 Gen 4 down into the shop, taped the trigger safety to disable it, checked 5 times to make sure it was empty, set the trigger, and whacked the back of the slide with a mallet (rubber face on one side, plastic face on the other). I tried several times. To my surprise, if I hit it hard enough with the plastic face of the mallet I was able to get the trigger to pull and striker to fall. I got it to do it several times.

I consider myself educated. Yes, the Glock trigger safety is needed and is good design. Thank you, English, for correcting me on this.

As a side note, and more relevant to this thread, I would never modify the trigger safety or any other safety on any gun, especially one I keep in the nightstand or carry. Even if I thought the safety was a total waste (which up until a few minutes ago I did), I still would not touch it. I would be too concerned about legal issues in case of an AD or even an intentional self defense shooting. Even if it were just a range gun or competition gun I wouldn't do it. You can have an AD at the range or in competition as well as anywhere else. Even knowing that what is being discussed here will not affect the function of the trigger safety, and I do believe that, I still wouldn't do it. Once you have made any modification to a safety mechanism the deed is done, and you have given some slimy lawyer all he/she needs to crucify you.

Gaston is not so silly after all. Opened your eyes didn’t it. I wonder which engineer dropped the prototype and shot a hole in the ceiling.