Anyone order the Glock "gadget"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Funny thing about us "gun nuts". We are some of the most opinionated, traditionalist, resistant to change folks around.

A Star Trek phasor could hit the market tomorrow that would reliably stun multiple people at 50 yards without any ill effects and the first thing we would all say was......what do you mean we need a battery source?????

I am the exact same way. And I chuckle at myself all the time because of it. I just think it's how most of us are wired.

Take care, shoot safe
Chris
 
AK103K said:
I carry AIWB and with Glocks.
Click to expand...

I have trained with Vickers, Defor, Todd Green, GreenOps, Pat Rogers and competed in USPSA using a Glock AIWB safely and without incident. I never once thought that I was trained to the point where the ricks of AIWB were completely mitigated by my training. Look weapon in as you reholster, go slow. I choose AIWB for most of my concealed carry (a lot of times I will choose IWB whilst working on my property for the obvious reasons and I often use the excellent Safariland GLS for outdoors work - I wrote a review about it), but for me AIWB's speed and vastly superior concealment outweigh the risks.

That being said, if there is a foolproof, passive, additional safety for the last dangerous part of AIWB; reholstering, why would the informed gunman not consider it?

If you were carrying a hammer fired gun AIWB, why would you not ride the hammer with your thumb as you reholster?
 
LittleLebowski said:
How many in this thread carry AIWB?
Click to expand...

I carry AIWB on my own time, and strong side retention holster when I punch the clock.

I do ride the hammer on the DA/SA pistols that I holster, though my P229 often rides at my 4 o'clock, because it is awful fat compared to the Glock 19 for AIWB.

That said, if I encounter any resistance, I immediately clear the weapon from the holster, clear the holster, then re-attempt to holster. The speed of draw, that my drawstroke occurs in my centerline (which I fight out of / am strong in), and the vastly superior concealability of AIWB carry outweigh the 'risks'. My holster also keeps the muzzle clear of my femoral and my balls, thanks.
 
HighValleyRanch said:
The glock is the favorite of many experts, so I think that qualifies it as an expert's weapon!
Click to expand...

Especially in the context of my previous reply, I think there is a distinction between a firearm designed for experts and a firearm used by some/many experts.
 
That being said, if there is a foolproof, passive, additional safety for the last dangerous part of AIWB; reholstering, why would the informed gunman not consider it?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, nothing is "foolproof". Ive seen experienced people reholster SIG's without decocking them, and 1911's without resetting the thumb safety, so relying on a mechanical safety isnt always a guarantee of safety.

Regardless the number or type of safeties a gun might have, its still up to the user to be diligent in their handling. Simply relying on a mechanical device is just asking for trouble.

Im not a fan of aftermarket gizmos that affect the normal function of a gun. I dont modify the internals on any of my Glocks, or most anything else for that matter. If it came from the factory with it installed and was on all my Glocks, I might have a different outlook on it. Right now, I dont see the need.
 
Is it really the fault of the design? Or the fact that there are so many of them, and so many in the hands of irresponsible people.
Click to expand...

Unless we are going to define a way that irresponsible people are drawn to Glocks, then it is a design issue. The design does not allow for typical human performance issues like "single error" modes to exist without an ND. There is just no redundancy in the design. I have heard the reasoning that somehow Glocks find their way into the hands of the incompetent more often, but replace the gun in the scenario and the nd's go way down. Wait until the military is in full deployment on these. ND's will go through the roof, depending on the pattern of deployment.

The worst part of all this......Glock knew their product was defective on day one. They decided to flood the market with USA, Ultra Safe Action information. Every salesman, every cop, every gun writer could say 2 things about a Glock in the beginning. 1) you have almost 0 maintenance....wash it in the dishwasher, just add oil, etc. 2) The ultra safe action has 3 safeties to keep you safe.

Besides who doesn't believe that he USA will keep you safe....what are you a communist?
 
That being said, if there is a foolproof, passive, additional safety for the last dangerous part of AIWB; reholstering, why would the informed gunman not consider it?

If you were carrying a hammer fired gun AIWB, why would you not ride the hammer with your thumb as you reholster?
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Well said.
 
The worst part of all this......Glock knew their product was defective on day one. They decided to flood the market with USA, Ultra Safe Action information.
Click to expand...
And exactly how many lawsuits against Glock have been won to prove your point?
Doing a pretty lengthy search I found the number to be 0.
 
If you do a thorough search you find that Glock settles in cases before risking the jury.

I personally know of such.

Here's one on a different issue but a settlement:

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...gligent-discharge-case-paralyzed-ex-lapd-cop/

Unless you have a quite thorough search of all the states, you may not see the settlements.

The idea that a Glock is poorly designed is a comment that could be made on almost every DA revolver out there. They have a lighter trigger pull but if you actually know human factors studies of handguns, the typical finger on trigger ND happens with such revolvers.

If you don't want it, don't buy it.

The level of argument here is descending into the same pit as the folks who rant against carrying extra ammo. If you don't see the risk, don't get it.
 
The level of argument here is descending into the same pit as the folks who rant against carrying extra ammo. If you don't see the risk, don't get it.
Click to expand...

I'd argue carrying extra ammo is significantly more important than using this gadget, but I get where you're going.
 
Your femoral artery and biological endowment might differ. :D

However, I'm glad you get my point. Everyone determines their risk profile and denounces those who have a different viewpoint.

I've followed the gadget story elsewhere. I don't AIWB - body style and I'm not comfortable with it. But I see its point for those who carry that way and it works physically.

I'm more of the risk being stupid finger on the trigger as being more important. But I don't go nuts if someone sees that the gadget mitigates their risk.

I've had and carried Glocks since the 1990's and don't regard the design as bad. If you train and practice - it's fine.

The one time I almost got shot by an ND, it was a guy with a 1911 on holstering. I guess the grip safety didn't help and not putting on the safety before holstering was his problem with his finger on the trigger.
 
Your femoral artery and biological endowment might differ.
Click to expand...

Well I don't carry AIWB, and honestly if I felt that I was bound to shoot myself in either of those areas without this gadget by carrying AIWB I wouldn't carry there to begin with. I've done thousands of presentations from my holster and not had an ND while doing so yet, as I'm sure plenty of folks on this forum can say (especially as we have people here shooting longer than I've been alive). Of course the possibility exists, but so do a lot of possibilities as you mention. We all have to evaluate our own risk and decide.

I don't really have anything "against" this gadget, though I wouldn't choose to own one. From what I've seen here there are people emotionally invested in this on both sides of the argument, which doesn't have to be the case.
 
Last edited:
The one time I almost got shot by an ND, it was a guy with a 1911 on holstering. I guess the grip safety didn't help and not putting on the safety before holstering was his problem with his finger on the trigger.
Click to expand...


That's pretty impressive! That guy had 3 failures at once!
1) Manual safety not applied before holstering
2) Grip safety not engaged by applying thumb to back of slide
3) Finger on trigger while holstering


It is just hard to be this bad. With a Glock, he would look like Swiss cheese!
 
2) Grip safety not engaged by applying thumb to back of slide
Click to expand...

You don't have to put your thumb on the back of the slide to engage the grip safety and with an extended beavertail that can get a bit tricky (unless you pull your hand around to one side of the pistol). I get what you mean in terms of easing off pressure on the grip safety but what you just described is going to be somewhat awkward for certain hand sizes and 1911s (I just tried it on mine but in fairness I'm on the small side of medium gloves with stubby thumbs).

I really don't look at the grip safety on the 1911 as a means to prevent a ND while holstering since I typically maintain a full grip on the pistol into the holster, obviously with the trigger finger along the slide.
 
My point about lawsuits is a perfect example of why Glick absolutely does not have a design defect. In our litigation crazy world the lawyers would be lined up in every courtroom if they thought they had a case. Add to that the number of anti-gun organizations, politicians, and lawyers who would love to run any gun manufacturer out of business.
Maybe your company should join them resulting in Glock being forced to add your do-dad to all their guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top