Anyone order the Glock "gadget"

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, to keep it simple (KISS), just observing the safety rule of keeping the trigger finger off of the trigger while either drawing or holstering would do nicely.
Click to expand...

Sadly that does help in situations where whatever (clothing/drawstrings/lose clothing threading/deformed holster as example) inside the holster pulls the trigger and discharges the pistol while holstering causing a "Glock leg" or much much worse if using AIWB.
 
I've been using this device daily for years. I've never met one naysayer that wasn't impressed with it in person.
Click to expand...
You mean days? or weeks?
Really?

From their very website!

1 year ago

Gadget Status Update

You gave us your money. Now what happens next?

The tooling for the Gadget ran a little behind and should be completed this week. We’ll get First Articles by the end of the month and put them through dimensional, material, reliability, and durability testing. Once that is completed, production should take about a month.

So we’re hoping to have them in your hands, delivered, in January. Maybe earlier if the stars align, but right now you should be thinking January.

For those who were counting on them sooner, we genuinely apologize for the delay but our #1 priority is making sure everything is done right the first time.

Stay safe! Tom & Todd
Click to expand...
9 months ago

I apologize for the lack of communication recently. I'll be posting a weekly update from here on out to keep everyone informed.

What's been going on for the past few months? We've been through a few tooling revisions to address minor issues and we are now very close to signing off on the full production run. There is one, very small, issue left and we expect that to be resolved very soon.

Our campaign wrapped up almost 8 months ago. That's a very long time and many of you may have moved or have a new shipping address. Please take the time now to review and update your shipping information so that there will be no delay in receiving your Gadget Striker Control Device when they are ready.
Click to expand...
5 months ago

Hello Gadget Backers!

Due to the production delays and quality control issues I've detailed in other updates, I made the difficult decision to find a different manufacturer. I realize this decision will further delay the release but I believe it is the best path forward.
Click to expand...
3 months ago

During the past two months things have been moving rapidly forward. I submitted a purchase order for 200 Striker Control Devices with the shop/manufacturer several weeks ago. The quote and PO list a delivery date in early November for all 2000 units, so all orders should be fulfilled and delivered prior to Thanksgiving. However, since they will be delivered to me in batches, I will be able to start fulfilling some orders much sooner.
Click to expand...
1 month ago

Happy Thanksgiving!

Good news, everyone! I've received the first partial shipment of Striker Control Devices! I will be shipping out this batch of ~400 SCDs this weekend and another 400-500 every couple of weeks after that (or as they come in). Orders will be shipped in the order they were received and shipping notifications will be automatically sent out when I prepare the shipping labels. month ago

Happy Thanksgiving!

Good news, everyone! I've received the first partial shipment of Striker Control Devices! I will be shipping out this batch of ~400 SCDs this weekend and another 400-500 every couple of weeks after that (or as they come in). Orders will be shipped in the order they were received and shipping notifications will be automatically sent out when I prepare the shipping labels.
Click to expand...
 
Cheapshooter I don't know a thing about the development of this device, but don't you think it is very likely that there has been prototypes around for more than a few days? Why assume otherwise?
 
don't you think it is very likely that there has been prototypes around for more than a few days? Why assume otherwise?
Click to expand...
Absolutely....Used by people with a vested interest in the business. Not hardly an independent, and unbiased review. Just saying.:D
Wouldn't it just be easier if you don't trust yourself, or the design of a Glock, to buy another make of gun. Not to reinvent the wheel.
 
Cheapshooter,

I suspect the "contraption" could become standard with Glocks if enough government agencies say they want it. I don't see Glock saying "oh hot fudge, we ain't donna do it and we'd rather lose contracts to Smith."
 
I suspect the "contraption" could become standard with Glocks if enough government agencies say they want it. I don't see Glock saying "oh hot fudge, we ain't donna do it and we'd rather lose contracts to Smith."
Click to expand...
Hasn't been the case at all. Glock did offer a G17 with manual safety for certain governments that required it. I don't think they do any more, and aren't all that concerned about adding some Rube Goldgerg contraption to their signature Safe Action Pistol design.
 
Sadly that does help in situations where whatever (clothing/drawstrings/lose clothing threading/deformed holster as example) inside the holster pulls the trigger and discharges the pistol while holstering causing a "Glock leg" or much much worse if using AIWB.
Click to expand...

All of that is true. That's why clearing clothing away from the holster, and being aware of how your clothing choices might interfere with your holster, are essential parts of holstering.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a good idea myself. I don't understand any negativity towards it... installed it doesn't even have to be used and will not affect the regular use of the pistol. It gives you more options for safety if one decided they wanted that.
 
This "Rube Goldberg," "contraption" is certainly not for everyone, and I doudt that Glock will incorporate it into their proven design. As far as adding this device to a Glock instead of buying a different make pistol, it makes sense to me. There are many ( I believe) who like Glock for good reason, but would be more comfortable with the additional safety. If this "contraption" fills that niche, it seems like a win for both Glock and the consumer.
 
Find me a professional armsman who uses one of these, much less an armed institution that does.

If I wanted a manual safety on the weapons I carry daily and/or for work, I'd have one. If the institution that issued me weapons wanted me to have one, I'd have one.

I have thousands and thousands of draw-present-holster reps with various Glocks, and I have never, not once, had a ND or anything close during re-holstering. I also look at my holster when I secure my weapon! Crazy! Fast to come out, slow to holster. Unless I have a compelling reason to not look, I visually guide the weapon back in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand any negativity towards it...
Click to expand...
Heres something to consider in this regard. It may be the best thing since sliced light bread, and you really like it and want it, but if you have a bunch of guns, and want it on all of them, its starts to become cost prohibitive. For me, if that were the case, just to keep things the same on all my Glocks, it would cost me $800 plus to do so.

Now right now, its costing me nothing not to have one, and I dont feel the need for it, nor do I have an issue with holstering without it, so Id rather just put that $800 towards more guns and ammo.
 
I don't see why some people are so upset over this thing. If you don't want it, nobody is forcing you to buy one and install it on your Glock. But for some people, they'll look at it as added protection and it's their money that they can spend as they please.

Personally, I feel that when re-holstering your gun (especially AIWB), your focus should be on safely doing so. If you don't fee you're safe enough to focus on the re-holster, then keep your gun in your hand. This is why I bought a holster made of kydex so it's not folding over on itself making re-holstering more difficult.
 
Absolutely....Used by people with a vested interest in the business. Not hardly an independent, and unbiased review. Just saying.
Wouldn't it just be easier if you don't trust yourself, or the design of a Glock, to buy another make of gun. Not to reinvent the wheel.
Click to expand...

Your assumptions are wrong. During the early development of this product, prototypes were offered to a number of high volume shooters in order to beta test the design for durability and any unforseen issues. The people who tested them had nothing to do with the business.

Secondly, it is hardly a "Rube Goldberg" device, it is extremely simple. It does not change the normal operation of the pistol, hardly reinventing the wheel.

An argument can be made that with safe gun handling while holstering, the gadget is not necessary, however, freak accidents sometimes occur. Adding a gadget as an added measure to prevent those instances is not a matter of not trusting oneself or the Glock design. It is simple to put on (or remove and return to factory parts if so desired) and really has no functional downside, so no, it isn't easier to buy another gun design if one prefers the Glock to begin with.

Some interesting tidbits from the website.
Quote:
$82,576 USD total funds raised
135% funded on August 24, 2015
135% of the money they neede to raise in order to make these gismos for the people who "donated" eighty bucks each!
Quote:
$79 USD + Shipping
1 Striker Control Device
Receive one Striker Control Device ("Gadget") as soon as they are available. $79 plus $5 shipping to anywhere in the United States.
1 claimed
So they sold 1 so far?
Click to expand...

The way the Indegogo campaign works is that you make a donation (for the Gadget, it was initially $50) towards a target amount that the inventor needs in order to start production- they can't really sell you something that isn't in production. If they achieve the goal, the contributors get a "gift" i.e. the item which goes into production. Hundreds of people wanted them and contributed above and beyond the initial start up cost- that is where the 135% comes from.

I carry appendix and practice with a live gun every time I go shooting too. Just another gizmo to forget and/or become too reliant on.

People seem to love to try to make up for their lack of skills by adding more complexity to things. Just seems a bit counterproductive to me.
Click to expand...

It really isn't an either/or. You still need to concentrate on safe gun handling, and you shouldn't rely completely on this or any other safety device.

I'm not sure how much complexity putting your thumb on the back of the slide when reholstering adds to the process. Could you forget to do it? Sure, but then you aren't any worse off than with a standard Glock. Of course, you could forget to make sure there are no obstructions inside your trigger guard before holstering your gun as well.

I think the biggest drawback is the $80 price.
 
Heres something to consider in this regard. It may be the best thing since sliced light bread, and you really like it and want it, but if you have a bunch of guns, and want it on all of them, its starts to become cost prohibitive. For me, if that were the case, just to keep things the same on all my Glocks, it would cost me $800 plus to do so.

Now right now, its costing me nothing not to have one, and I dont feel the need for it, nor do I have an issue with holstering without it, so Id rather just put that $800 towards more guns and ammo.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the cost (as I stated in my previous post). I picked one up to try out on my carry gun, if I were to switch to another one of my Glocks, I would simply swap out the slide cover plate.

I don't know that I NEEDED a Gadget, but I figured it can't hurt.
 
I wasnt referring to added complexity of motion, which, since you brought it up, is something it does add. More about added complexity in the sense of aftermarket parts, not part of the original design.

I would think if Glock thought it was an issue, they would have addressed it and it would come that way from the factory.

Im always skeptical of aftermarket parts, especially of things that can affect function.

Over the years, Ive seen guns with all manner of factory designed/built safeties reholstered with their safeties totally bypassed/forgotten when done so under stress and/or distraction. I doubt things would be any different here. Not saying the above is any different with a Glock either, but added gadgets arent always necessarily a positive thing.
 
1) If you want a thumb-on-hammer during holstering, carry a DA/SA hammer fired gun.

1a) If you aren't carrying an issue Glock, then you have zero reason to carry a Glock if you wanted this kind of functionality: you can just swap to another firearm.

2) If you are an armed professional, your agency/unit likely forbids modifications to your firearms, rendering this 'gadget' moot in the professional world.

2a) IF your agency/unit allows modifications, the firearm generally must be able to be returned to the factory status. This allows the gadget to work. However, most agencies take a dim view to modifications to the trigger group, so you never can tell.

3) Cost. $80 for a non-essential piece of kit is $80 better spent on ammo, mags, sights, etc.

4) One of the strongest reasons to carry a Glock-type firearm is the mechanical simplicity of the action: there are few, if any, ways to render the firearm unable to fire. Adding a mechanical method to render the weapon unable to fire is a no-go for anyone carrying for the above reasons.

4a) Do some grappling/ground fighting with your handgun, and you'll quickly find yourself shooting from very compressed and awkward positions. During training, I've been forced to take shots with the rear of the slide pressed hard against my body, and then had to rack the weapon manually to clear the spent round. The gadget would make such a shot impossible, or may otherwise prevent the shot. No. Go.

4b) Continuing on the above, there are times when grappling that you intentionally press the rear of the side forward to ensure the weapon is in battery during a contact shot. Again, this would engage the gadget, and I'd be in a pushing match against the mechanical action of the weapon, trying to get it to fire. No thanks.

As I said, this is a solution looking for a problem.

If you want it, have at it.

Articulate enough?
 
Last edited:
1) If you want a thumb-on-hammer during holstering, carry a DA/SA hammer fired gun.

Or a Glock with a gadget

1a) If you aren't carrying an issue Glock, then you have zero reason to carry a Glock if you wanted this kind of functionality: you can just swap to another firearm.
They only make them for Glocks, so OK

2) If you are an armed professional, your agency/unit likely forbids modifications to your firearms, rendering this 'gadget' moot in the professional world.

N/A

2a) IF your agency/unit allows modifications, the firearm generally must be able to be returned to the factory status. This allows the gadget to work. However, most agencies take a dim view to modifications to the trigger group, so you never can tell.

It is a replacement slide cover plate, so no biggie.

3) Cost. $80 for a non-essential piece of kit is $80 better spent on ammo, mags, sights, etc.

True for many people

4) One of the strongest reasons to carry a Glock-type firearm is the mechanical simplicity of the action: there are few, if any, ways to render the firearm unable to fire. Adding a mechanical method to render the weapon unable to fire is a no-go for anyone carrying for the above reasons.

Maybe

4a) Do some grappling/ground fighting with your handgun, and you'll quickly find yourself shooting from very compressed and awkward positions. During training, I've been forced to take shots with the rear of the slide pressed hard against my body, and then had to rack the weapon manually to clear the spent round. The gadget would make such a shot impossible, or may otherwise prevent the shot. No. Go.

The necessity to shoot in such a manner seems far fetched.
 
JN01, if you want them, have them.

Your statements about firing in such a manner as 'far fetched' flies in the sight of reason and reality. There was recently this year a highly publicized police shooting (never you mind the many others, many of which occur at the grapple or clinch ranges) in which an officer effected near contact shots during a grapple. A handgun, if not already drawn in a pro-active search for targets/work, is a reactive weapon. They are drawn when reacting to a threat, which means you are behind the initiative curve. Meaning, you are likely already losing. Further, if you believe that you won't use your firearm while fighting, and don't realize that grappling is an awful lot what fighting looks like/is, then I don't know how to address you.

When was the last time you had your firearm pointed at a human being? I have an answer to that question.

I am a student of the Way of the Gun for professional reasons. I've laid out my reasoning.

You can find it spurious if you want.
 
CheapShooter, let's try not questioning my integrity if you have no reason to, please?

I have no financial interest in this invention of any sort. None. Got it? There's precisely two people in this world that have a financial interest, Tom Jones the co-inventor and Todd Green's widow. That's it.

Furthermore, the device is a far cry from "Rube Goldberg" and no one who has seen it in person nor used it has ever used that descriptor. It is elegant, simple, reliable, and durable.
 
For those attempting to use the ground fighting excuse as to negate the idea of an invention they have never touched, much less seen, try asking Craig Douglas AKA "SouthNarc" about the SCD. Please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top