Glock Manual Safety Article.

O

Operator11

Inactive
I'd like to get FiringLiners' opinions regarding my article on the Glock safety. I don't currently have one on my carry G19, but I'm considering it. I'd appreciate any feedback I can get on the short piece I wrote. If my logic is flawed, please let me know where I've gone wrong. The article is at:

http://www.defensereview.com.

Thanks,

David Crane
DefenseReview.com
david@defensereview.com
 
Welcome David. I think your article is well done but I don't like the idea of adding an additional step required to fire the weapon.

Especially a defensive weapon that must be put into play as fast as possible under unusual and trying circumstances.

I think the justification by using the criminal take away is flawed. If the criminal is able to take the officers gun......there is a very good chance the criminal will be able to fire that gun with or without an added safety. If it doesn't go off, you wipe everything down and pull again, half second delay maby. Many officers are so unfamiliar with their own weapons that the safety likely to be more of a hinderance to the ligitimate user than any criminal.

Just my two cents.

Sam
 
I will give you my honest opinions on your article. It is a very well written article but it is also flawed.

Let it be known that I do not like manual safety. I don’t think there is really a place for them in modern handgun. I prefer a decocker then a manual safety.

****************************************************
This situation can also happen to armed civilians, especially after getting into an unarmed scuffle, where the aggressor notices the owner's concealed firearm either by sight or feel, and attempts to gain possession of it. It is a proven fact that a manual safety can give the gun's owner precious seconds(or even longer) in a situation like this, to either disarm his attacker or run to safety, all while the gungrabber is sitting there trying to make the gun fire.
****************************************************

This statement is probably the most use statement in favor of a manual safety in a Glock. It is the most flaws of all the statements that advocated a manual safety in a Glock. It is my firm believes that if someone took my gun in a scuffle, I will probably be dead. It might give me a second but a second too late.

The assumption is that once the bad guy got your gun:
1. The BG will not know how to turn off the manual safety.
2. The gun owner will not be stun for a second or more knowing the mistake he just made.
3. The gun owner has super human strength and reflex to take back his gun with ease.

I don’t buy this for a second. I am a realist. If the BG got my gun I expected to be kill.

If people wanted to buy a handgun with manual safety, go get a 1911, CZ, HS2000, etc. Just leave my Glock alone. BTW one of the main reasons why many others like me bought a Glock because there is no manual safety.

If you do not feel comfortable with a gun that have no manual safety, then by all means get a gun that have one! I do not understand why people keep forcing this issue up. It has been debated for so long. If you like manual safety don’t get a Glock. It’s that simple. Just don’t force it on people that don’t want one.
 
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I appreciate it. For the record, I wasn't trying to push the idea of a manual safety for the Glock on anyone. Glocks are indeed engineered to be as simple to operate as possible. I just think it's an interesting option. Also, for those who like both 1911's and Glocks, it gives those people compatability between the two weapons, so they can carry both, and have them operate in roughly the same fashion, with the same type of safety system.

Hope you enjoyed my site, at least.

Cheers,

David
http://www.defensereview.com
 
Hi David,

Your article provides useful information. I'm sure there are people that are a little uneasy carring "cocked and locked" without an external safety.

I think I would have put a different slant on the article. Instead of focusing on the gun grab scenario I would concentrate on how quickly you could disengage the safety and be prepared to fire.

I hear a lot about Glock owners like the fact that there is no external safety so that they won't give an attacker extra time (just the opposite of scenario you mention).

To me the benefit of an external safety would be increased piece of mind without sacrificing reaction time. (assuming this is true)

Hope that helps.

Squeeze
 
Your's was a very well written article that I found easy to read and understand. Your web site was also well done, but I don't feel that a manual safety would be an asset on a Glock. The senario that was described is more of a weapon retention training or should I say a lack of training than a need for a manual safety on the Glock weapons system.

7th
 
The first flaw in your article is "It is a proven fact that a manual safety can give the gun's owner precious seconds (or even longer) in a situation like this, to either disarm his attacker or run to safety, all while the gun grabber is sitting there trying to make the gun fire."

Who has proven this "fact"? What criteria were used to determine this "fact"? I have heard anecdotal stories of this happening, but that hardly constitutes fact. In your article is assumed that the bad guy won't know how the gun works. This may, or may not, be true, but it is still an unproven assumption.

The second flaw is that no other type of safety, other than the 1911 style frame-mounted-sweep-down lever is considered.

Since the safety you have suggested isn?t ambidextrous, how will it make a Glock handgun safer for left-handed shooters? I use a Safe-T-Block with my Glocks. Being left-handed has the added benefit that a right-handed aggressor would probably never get the Safe-T-Block out of the trigger guard essentially disabling the gun. This would not be true for right-handed users; nothing's perfect, not even Glocks.

I think that a different approach would have been better. Your article seems only to be a justification for the frame-mounted safety. You could have written almost the same article with a leading interrogative statement such as "Have you ever wanted a frame-mounted safety for your Glock?" This would allow Glock users who want a frame-mounted safety to hear more about Mr. Cominolli's aftermarket accessory without trying to convince everyone that it is all that a Glock is missing.
 
Let us not forget that the 1911 manual safety is there because it was written into the Army specs for the gun. Not because Browning wanted it there.

Sam
 
Who carries their M1911 Cocked & UNLOCKED with a round chambered?

Who carries their Glock in Thunderware Cocked & UNLOCKED with a round chambered?

Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona
 
Whoa! Some strong opinions to be sure. Actually, blades67, the reason it is a proven fact that a manual 1911 style safety can give the owner extra time to either fight or get away is that there ar MANY documented cases of this, particularly among LEO's. I don't have the data in front of me, but it is retrievable. The lefty argument against the safety is a valid one. I don't know how fast or easy the safety is to disengage with the index finger, however, it's possible that the safety can be put on the right side of the gun for lefties, if it can't, index finger disengagement would have to be fast and sure under stress.

Squeeze makes a good point. How fast can one disengage the safety under stress. Well, I've carried a Browning Hi-Power before, and the safety is extremely fast to disengage, and can be done during the draw stroke as the gun is brought up to target. Since Cominolli's safety works the same way, it may be just as fast, but this would have to be confirmed through testing.

I guess I am sort of a proponent of an external manual safety, even though I carry a box stock Glock 19 every day. However, there are only two types of safety I like--the P7 style squeeze-cocker, and the 1911 style frame-mounted sweep down safety.

Oh, and the point about the whole thing being a training issue is largely true. You should never put yourself in a position or allow yourself to be duped into a position where you have to fight for your gun. However, that being said, anyone can get ambushed, surprised, or outnumbered--no matter how much training you've had--and it's kind of nice to have that little bit of added security when things do go bad.

By the way, Operator11 and I are one in the same, in case that wasn't clear.
 
Whoa! Some strong opinions to be sure. Actually, blades67, the reason it is a proven fact that a manual 1911 style safety can give the owner extra time to either fight or get away is that there ar MANY documented cases of this, particularly among LEO's. I don't have the data in front of me, but it is retrievable.
Click to expand...

You make this sound like it happen often. Give me proof.

More then ever, LEA are moving away from handguns that have manual safety. These guns have been replace by Glocks and handguns that have a decocker. Apparently gun grab is not a major concern for LEA because of the number of LEO is using handguns without manual safety.
 
If I get the statistics for you, and they back up my point, will the anti-manual safety crowd on this thread acknowledge my point?
 
Well written and easy to follow. While I personally don't think the Glock is anywhere near perfection it is a servicable system as is, a manual safety is fine for people want one. It is a fact that almost one third of all police officers in the US are killed with their own weapon, even a fraction of a second delay could make the difference between life and death. Since the offender will have one hand tied up with the pistol it gives the officer a momentary advantage to react tothe threat. The other side of the coin is there have been a few cases where officers have been killed because they forgot to disengage their safety. One of the reasons we have gone to the Glock in law enforcement is because it requires less training to reach a minimum level of proficiency. One problem I do have with the article, always bothers me, is the way you refered to "civilians" as opposed to the police. Police ARE civillians, they are a part of the civil authority. Small point to some but it has always bothered me. Otherwise, aside from that one small point, the article was well written. Keep it up, I look at your site from time to time and have found some good stuff there.
 
Who carries their Glock in Thunderware Cocked & UNLOCKED with a round chambered?
Click to expand...

I do. A pistol with an empty chamber is nothing more than a heavy boomerang that doesn't come back.

Glock by definition: Pull trigger=BANG . Don't pull trigger=.....0!
 
There is one more important element that is apparently being overlooked, and that is Glock's factory warranty service.

Glock doesn't ADVERTISE a "lifetime" warranty, but that is exactly what they offer (if you doubt this, just go to Glock Talk and ask). I don't expect to have any problems with my Glocks that will require my sending one to the factory, but I KNOW that if I do need to send one, I will get prompt, FREE service.

I don't want or need an additional safety on my Glocks (each already has three of them), and I CERTAINLY don't want to jeopardize the service benefits that I enjoy as a Glock owner.


Dawg23
 
Welcome to TFL. I knew when I saw the thread subject that you'd be having a rough time of it, but be thankful you didn't post this on GlockTalk! It would have been MUCH more brutal. ;)

Personally, I am a "need a safety" convert. I chose the HK USP over Glock because I HAD to have a safety. Now that I've carried for a few years, gained firearms experience, owned several Kahr's and a Kel-Tec, and shot several Glocks, I have seriously considered selling my handguns with manual safeties in favor of ones without.

Anyway, I do not dispute that a manual safety may buy an LEO a second or two if the weapon was snatched. But what I HAVE is video of a store owner who wasn't familiar with his manual safety'ed S&W semi-auto get shot 6 times because he forgot to swipe his safety off!!!! It definitely provided the BG with a revolver precious seconds to shoot him over and over with little fear of being shot himself, when it became obvious that the GG's gun wasn't going to fire. The only reason he didn't die was, the BG had already fired 6 times BEFORE walking up to the storeowner, putting the revolver to his head, and pulling the trigger. *click*
 
I first qualified with a 1911A1 in 1971 and currently own and occasionally shoot two Colt series 70, a Kimber Compact and a seriously customized Springfield. I'm very comfortable with the 1911 manual of arms, but these days I prefer a Glock. Engaging the safety on a 1911 is a simple no stress movement. Disengaging that safety can be simple/no stress, simple/high stress or forgotten. I can't count the number of times my trigger has gone from 3.5# to over 40# on a range by myself shooting groups. Only takes .2 sec to release, but that's the longest .2 sec of your life.

I use a G21 as my primary PD handgun. No manual safety and none desired. The Glock's trigger stages are very clear. I consistently use the short reset for follow-up shots. The only time a Glock has "gone off" against my will was when I transitioned from the 5.5# disconnector to the 3.5# disconnector with my first G21 and was shooting steel plates against the clock. Huge difference in trigger feel, but it hasn't reoccured. My other Glocks have kept their factory triggers and I prefer it that way.

If I have a manual safety, I want a smooth crisp SA trigger as compensation. IMO, anyone who desires a manual safety to lock-up other safeties, would be better served with a 1911 type SA trigger and safety from the start. In all honesty, I'd feel okay using a 1911 with no manual safety. I'd carry it in Condition 3 and it would be safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top