Glock "manual" safety, opinions?

[spooker609]

Hi in the current issue of "American Handgunner" in the pistolsmithing column theres an article about a Joe Cominolli, Glock manual safety. My question is this, would the addition of a manual safety influence any of you who don't already own or carry a Glock to buy one? This has become the latest "Great Debate" at GT, with most GTers seemingly against, stating that with proper training and keeping your finger off the trigger you can prevent accidental discharges. I think the new safety (which I think has been done by Glock in the past for certain foregin govts. ) will make it more attractive to those who prefer a manual safety pistol, what do you people think?

 

[Fatcat]

No!

The only place for a manual safety is to hold back a hammer, IE cocked & locked. The Glock is essentially a DA weapon, therefore it doesn't need a safety. Keep your finger off the trigger.

 

[Bob Locke]

I guess "less likely" for me since I wouldn't buy one in that configuration.

IMO that's like recommending a manual safety for a revolver: it just don't fit.

 

[denfoote]

Glocks were designed with 3 internal safeties!! The addition of one more ain't gunna make it any more idiot proof!! The only reason for it would be to satisify some states silly regs (read MA) and I understand that Glock told the MASSive People's Republic to suck wind!!!

 

[orlando5]

MA treats their citizens like children. It is the most regulated state in the USA.

 

[notbubba]

I would like a decocker.

First shot if decocked a longer double action type pull followed by the regular Glock safe action pull.

Mainly for reholstering.

 

[notbubba]

No on the manual safety.

I forgot to put that in my first post.