No Safety on a Glock!
OK, with over 50 years of owning and shooting guns,here is my unsolicited opinion about the so-called trigger safety on a Glock.
THERE IS NO TRIGGER SAFETY ON A GLOCK!
Here is why. Supposely, with that goofey little lever sticking out of the trigger on a Glock, that is pawned off as being a "safety", this is supposed to mean that the gun is safe. Reason being that the firearm will not fire unless the trigger is actually pulled.
Quess what. That is how ALL quality firearms work. They won't fire unless the trigger is pulled.
Try other firearms you own that DON'T have the Glock "safety". Will they fire WITHOUT the trigger being pulled? NO, so that makes them just as safe as the Glock with that goofy lever sticking out of the trigger.
In addition it is ONLY safe to carry a chambered Glock in a HOLSTER. Reason being that at least the trigger is covered and cannot accidently be pulled or "triggered.". Especially do not let a woman carry a chambered Glock in her purse because that goofy trigger lever cannot tell if it is being pulled by a finger or by a tube of lipstick that somehow got tangled inside the triggerguard and as the woman desperately tries to draw her Glock to fend of an attack the trigger gets pulled.
The reason a revolver is usually safe to carry in a pocket or purse is because it takes about TWICE as much pressure as well as about as twice as much movement to pull/activate the trigger on a revolver as it does to activate the trigger on a glock.
Sorry for the rant, but that trigger safety on a Glock is vastly over rated and in some cases (Chambered Glock in purse) is just plain unsafe.
BTW I own and sometimes carry a Glock compact model 30 in .45 ACP so I am not just a Glock hater like some.
THERE IS NO TRIGGER SAFETY ON A GLOCK!
Here is why. Supposely, with that goofey little lever sticking out of the trigger on a Glock, that is pawned off as being a "safety", this is supposed to mean that the gun is safe. Reason being that the firearm will not fire unless the trigger is actually pulled.
Quess what. That is how ALL quality firearms work. They won't fire unless the trigger is pulled.
Try other firearms you own that DON'T have the Glock "safety". Will they fire WITHOUT the trigger being pulled? NO, so that makes them just as safe as the Glock with that goofy lever sticking out of the trigger.
In addition it is ONLY safe to carry a chambered Glock in a HOLSTER. Reason being that at least the trigger is covered and cannot accidently be pulled or "triggered.". Especially do not let a woman carry a chambered Glock in her purse because that goofy trigger lever cannot tell if it is being pulled by a finger or by a tube of lipstick that somehow got tangled inside the triggerguard and as the woman desperately tries to draw her Glock to fend of an attack the trigger gets pulled.
The reason a revolver is usually safe to carry in a pocket or purse is because it takes about TWICE as much pressure as well as about as twice as much movement to pull/activate the trigger on a revolver as it does to activate the trigger on a glock.
Sorry for the rant, but that trigger safety on a Glock is vastly over rated and in some cases (Chambered Glock in purse) is just plain unsafe.
BTW I own and sometimes carry a Glock compact model 30 in .45 ACP so I am not just a Glock hater like some.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by us55840
No argument here ..
However, possibly discharging a firearm without pulling the trigger is why Ruger "upgraded" the old model Ruger revolvers with a safty block so they would not discharge when dropped on the hammer.
Just a thought - not looking for an argument....so please offer a correction if so warranted.
That was done because the old style allowed the hammer to rest directly on either the firing pin or, in the case of the old Colt single action revolvers, rest on the primer.0 -
I have been preaching this for years. But the glock 'worshipers' will have a fit. Right after glock first came out an officer from a neighboring agency shot himself in the butt because he was use to sticking his gun in is pants w/o a holster.
YOU CAN NOT DO THAT WITH THIS CLASS OF WEAPON! It has NO active safety, and it behaves the same as any SINGLE ACTION w/o a safety!!!!![xx(]
Would you carry a 1911 or a Browning Hi-Power cocked and unlocked (off safe)?????[?] Well a grock and similar platforms are the same as doing this!!!![:0]0 -
Your just beating a dead horse, this subject has been discussed and argued over since the mid 80's when the Glock first came on the market.
Stirring over here on the experts forum is pointless. Post your rant over on general discussion where it belongs.0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
Your just beating a dead horse, this subject has been discussed and argued over since the mid 80's when the Glock first came on the market.
Stirring over here on the experts forum is pointless. Post your rant over on general discussion where it belongs.
Correct, but there are new posters here and on other sites daily, and this is worth repeating for their benefit, is it not???
Safety first!!!![;)]0 -
With the way I clearly titled it, no one should be surprised with what they would find if they decided to open and read my posts. If such a person thinks I should have not made the topic post, they are free to not bother to open and read it. In addition, they don't need to waste even more of their time by taking the time to post complaints. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
Your just beating a dead horse, this subject has been discussed and argued over since the mid 80's when the Glock first came on the market.
Stirring over here on the experts forum is pointless. Post your rant over on general discussion where it belongs.
In red above.
Yes, and since those mid-eights, and even today, the Glock is advertised to have a trigger safety. It does not and should not be advertised or described that way since it is a misleading term. Such a misleading term can cause the unknowing to perhaps hurt themselves or somebody else. You woulndn't want that to happen would you?
Would you?0 -
TR.... Glad you got that off your chest. I hope you feel some relief.
I agree with you. I would be perfectly happy if none of my Glocks had the trigger sefety. My feeling is Glocks are like revolvers in that they have no decockers or manual safeties but hold more ammo and have light trigger pulls.
We are in the middle of running another academy class right now and are constantly yelling at the recruits "FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR ON TARGET" If gun owners follow that rule there would be a lot less AD's.0 -
quote:OK, with over 50 years of owning and shooting guns,here is my unsolicited opinion about the so-called trigger safety on a Glock.
THERE IS NO TRIGGER SAFETY ON A GLOCK!
And with your 50 years experience, you've just noticed this now? [;)][:p]
I remember hearing shooters saying the exact same thing when Glocks came out in the 1980s.
Its the same thing I thought the first time I picked up a Glock. (The next thing I thought "boy this trigger is spongy!").
Ultimately, the gun won't go off unless you pull the trigger.
The question comes down to *how hard* you have to pull the trigger to make it go off, and whether or not you need anything else to stand in your way first.
If you scrupulously follow the rules of gun safety (eg keep the muzzle in a safe direction, finger off the trigger until the sights are on target), then Glocks are perfectly safe.
A Glock functionally CANNOT go off unless the trigger is pulled.
The problem is that human beings are flawed, and in the real world, there are plenty of people who do NOT follow the rules of gun safety all the time or even most of the time. In the real world, people do things without thinking, and people make mistakes, and it only takes a split second error to have a VERY bad accident with a loaded gun.
So my view on this is that perhaps the Glock pistol is "perfect" (cough cough), but human beings are not, and given this imperfection let's just say that there are more "idiot proof" designs out there than the Glock.0 -
Unadulterated horsepucky! Why aren't you bellyaching and whining about all the S & W, Colt, Taurus, Charter Arms etc. Revolvers on the market, that don't have manual safetys. Their sameo, sameo as the Glock in that respect, if you haven't noticed by now. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
Unadulterated horsepucky! Why aren't you bellyaching and whining about all the S & W, Colt, Taurus, Charter Arms etc. Revolvers on the market, that don't have manual safetys. Their sameo, sameo as the Glock in that respect, if you haven't noticed by now.
To answer your question.
There is no comparison between the safe use of a DOUBLE action revolver and a glock, unless you are comparing the revolver with the hammer COCKED (back). The LONG heavy pull of a double action revolver is totally different than the trigger pull on a glock, which is the same as a 1911 style single action pistol. Apples and oranges, as they say!!![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
Unadulterated horsepucky! Why aren't you bellyaching and whining about all the S & W, Colt, Taurus, Charter Arms etc. Revolvers on the market, that don't have manual safetys. Their sameo, sameo as the Glock in that respect, if you haven't noticed by now.
Simple answer. Most (not all) of the guns you mentioned do not advertise having a safety they in actual fact do not have.
A safety is not even needed on a modern double action revolver because the trigger pull is approximately 10 pounds and is a very, very long (compared to semi-auto like a Glock, S&W M&P, etc.) In other words, the only way you will fire a modern double action revolver is if you make a concentrated determined effort.
In short, the so-called "safety" on the Glock, S&W M&P, Ruger SR9, etc could be disabled or removed and there would be no significent difference in the safety factor of the firearm. This is worth repeating often so that new shooters are not fooled and lulled into thinking the have a safe firearm just because of the so-called "trigger safety.".0 -
One of my pet peeves, i.e. When one of the General Discussion nose pickers gets run off because of his smoke blowen and stirring. Feels the need to come over here for one his meaningless braindead rants. 0 -
Hey, TR..I agree with you on the improper use of advertising in the case of Glocks. Now, moving away from the advertising aspect, and focusing on hardware..how 'bout
..the P7 H&K's? You like? Here are my reasons in favor. No. 1 I already knew, No. 2 you've just exposed to many casual non-member viewers here (news to me, too!)
1. Goes into safety and decocks when not being handled. All you have to do is "put the damn thing down"
2. No advertisement on something that is misleading, or doesn't exist.
Best, Joe0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
One of my pet peeves, i.e. When one of the General Discussion nose pickers gets run off because of his smoke blowen and stirring. Feels the need to come over here for one his meaningless braindead rants.
Looks like some anger management is needed here as well. As well as a lesson in manners.0 -
quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
One of my pet peeves, i.e. When one of the General Discussion nose pickers gets run off because of his smoke blowen and stirring. Feels the need to come over here for one his meaningless braindead rants.
An 'expert' when it comes to personal attacks and insults, right????[;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments