Factory option -- external safeties on Glocks 17, 19, 22, 23 & 25 (link courtesy of Hann
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
Manual safeties on Glock models 17/19/22/23/25
- Thread starter FUD
- Start date
Factory option -- external safeties on Glocks 17, 19, 22, 23 & 25 (link courtesy of Hann
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
Bullwinkle
New member
It would be interesting to see if the Tasmania police force can document a lower AD rate that other LEOs
Since I've never been able to get concrete information about these pistols I've chalked them up as myth. Tasmanian Police Department? Australian police are issued the Glocks 22/23 not the 17/19. I think the Moth Men that live in Apalachicola carry the Tasmanian safety Glocks. 
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
[This message has been edited by Tecolote (edited May 09, 2000).]
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
[This message has been edited by Tecolote (edited May 09, 2000).]
Personally I like manual safties on auto pistols. Yes I know the #1 safety is your brain, but I like thumb safties for their retention value. Isn't is something like 10% of cops shot are shot with their own guns?
I know that the Men in Black who came to talk to me after I saw the space aliens had Tasmanian Safety Glocks.
I know that the Men in Black who came to talk to me after I saw the space aliens had Tasmanian Safety Glocks.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Supposedly, there have been other Glocks with similar gadgets that have be made as samples for Norway and Argentina?
Could be folklore.
Could be folklore.
Kinda looks a little dorky for a Glock.
Anyway, at least in Florida you can't use someone's attempts to make something safer after an accident to show they should have made it safer before. The purpose of this rule is to encourage people to fix problems after accidents by preventing the victims from saying "see, you could have put the safety on that glock years ago".
BranRot, Esq.
Anyway, at least in Florida you can't use someone's attempts to make something safer after an accident to show they should have made it safer before. The purpose of this rule is to encourage people to fix problems after accidents by preventing the victims from saying "see, you could have put the safety on that glock years ago".
BranRot, Esq.
branrot
If Florida's evidentiary rules on based on the federal model, you can sue subsequent remedial measures in certain situations. These include if the defendant alleges that the design modification was impossible, unworkable, or impractical. Further, these aren't subsequent measures, but contemporary ones. Someone will argue that since Glock made some with the safety, they should have made ALL with the safety.
If Florida's evidentiary rules on based on the federal model, you can sue subsequent remedial measures in certain situations. These include if the defendant alleges that the design modification was impossible, unworkable, or impractical. Further, these aren't subsequent measures, but contemporary ones. Someone will argue that since Glock made some with the safety, they should have made ALL with the safety.
Correia, I agree with you. There are things which could fail on a striker-fired pistol that we might not be aware of because it's hidden inside and if I had my way, ALL of MY pistols (even DAO ones) would have manual safeties on them. But, as the saving goes, different strokes for different folks -- just like I don't think that the Glock should be REQUIRED to have a manual safety, I think that it would nice if the people that wanted that option, could have it.
I also agree that having a safety on a pistol makes it more proprietary if someone should grab your gun -- you have an extra second or two while he has to first realize that a safety is in place, where the safety is & how to disable it and then actual do it. Those few seconds could mean all of the difference in the world.
branrot, maybe I'm a little slow or maybe I'm a little tired today because the little munchkin kept me up most of the night wanting to play in our bed or maybe it's because I'm new to Florida (I've been here less than a year), but could you explain what you meant by the following ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by branrot: ... at least in Florida you can't use someone's attempts to make something safer after an accident to show they should have made it safer before ...[/quote]
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited May 10, 2000).]
I also agree that having a safety on a pistol makes it more proprietary if someone should grab your gun -- you have an extra second or two while he has to first realize that a safety is in place, where the safety is & how to disable it and then actual do it. Those few seconds could mean all of the difference in the world.
branrot, maybe I'm a little slow or maybe I'm a little tired today because the little munchkin kept me up most of the night wanting to play in our bed or maybe it's because I'm new to Florida (I've been here less than a year), but could you explain what you meant by the following ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by branrot: ... at least in Florida you can't use someone's attempts to make something safer after an accident to show they should have made it safer before ...[/quote]
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited May 10, 2000).]
FUD
I'm not branrot but I play him on TV! (Pause for silence, then courtesy laugh as people get bad joke). Anyway,if FL law is anything like the Federal Rules of Evidence, you cannot introduce evidence of a subsequent remedial measure (SRM) to prove that the defendant was negligent in whatever action occurred that led to the SRM. For example, if you don't have a handrail on a stairway and someone falls. The next day, you put up a handrail. Plaintiff can't introduce evidence of the later handrail to prove you were negligent for not having a handrail up in the first place. With a Glock, you can't introduce a design change to show that the design was faulty to begin with. The idea is that it's highly beneficial to society for people to investigate and recognize failures/defects/oversights and correct them to prevent future problems. So, we don't want to deter people by allowing their corrective actions from being used against them.
However, SRMs can be introduced to prove issues not related to negligence if those issues are in dispute such as proving that the defendant has control over an item/issue/property (you don't put up a handrail on property you don't own) and showing that prior to the accident, the redesign was possible, practical, effective, etc. (you can't claim a redesign or modification is impossible if you did it after the accident).
By the way, none of the above constitues legal advice nor am I forming an attorney/client relationship with anyone on this board.
I'm not branrot but I play him on TV! (Pause for silence, then courtesy laugh as people get bad joke). Anyway,if FL law is anything like the Federal Rules of Evidence, you cannot introduce evidence of a subsequent remedial measure (SRM) to prove that the defendant was negligent in whatever action occurred that led to the SRM. For example, if you don't have a handrail on a stairway and someone falls. The next day, you put up a handrail. Plaintiff can't introduce evidence of the later handrail to prove you were negligent for not having a handrail up in the first place. With a Glock, you can't introduce a design change to show that the design was faulty to begin with. The idea is that it's highly beneficial to society for people to investigate and recognize failures/defects/oversights and correct them to prevent future problems. So, we don't want to deter people by allowing their corrective actions from being used against them.
However, SRMs can be introduced to prove issues not related to negligence if those issues are in dispute such as proving that the defendant has control over an item/issue/property (you don't put up a handrail on property you don't own) and showing that prior to the accident, the redesign was possible, practical, effective, etc. (you can't claim a redesign or modification is impossible if you did it after the accident).
By the way, none of the above constitues legal advice nor am I forming an attorney/client relationship with anyone on this board.
Rainbow Six
New member
The *ONLY* thing this does is give the anti-gun lawyers and the govt another tool. A thumb safety is useless, period. Damn Glock for doing this. I am going to write to Glock about this. I will obtain as many pre-idiot proof Glocks as I can afford and never buy another new one again if this is ever offered in the US. They will join S&W on my list of "ain't gettin' my money" companies.
Dammit!!!!!
------------------
For Sale: SIG P220 - see handgun classified forum.
***************************
Georgia TFL'ers get together:
May 20, 2000-From 3pm to 6pm
http://www.wolfcreek-gun.com
***************************
R6...aka...Chris
[This message has been edited by Rainbow Six (edited May 10, 2000).]
Dammit!!!!!
------------------
For Sale: SIG P220 - see handgun classified forum.
***************************
Georgia TFL'ers get together:
May 20, 2000-From 3pm to 6pm
http://www.wolfcreek-gun.com
***************************
R6...aka...Chris
[This message has been edited by Rainbow Six (edited May 10, 2000).]
Rainbow Six
New member
I understand that. That's why I added the "if they ever offer it in the US" comment.
R6
R6
The most unnecessary, redundant manual safety that I have ever seen was on a small run of P7M13s that HK made in the early 80s for the (apparently) brain-dead pistoleros of the Mexican Military. A sliding manual safety on the frame of an M13 is a far greater heresy than a thumber on a Glock.
pojim
pojim
It's a hoax. Just like the alligators living in Miami sewers and the Roswell Aliens. Tasmanian police would issue Glocks 22/23 just like the rest of Australia's police force. Why would a police department have Heinie sights on their pistols? Why not the standard Glock night sights? Look closely at the F and S, why are they indented into the frame and not raised like the other markings on a Glock frame? I've tried again and again to get corraboating evidence but thus far all I've gotten from Glock USA is a firm negative. They say that their company has never produced such a model. It's an aftermarket gadget that never made it past the experimental stage.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
i sort of wish you hadn't posted that, you know HCI and its buddies have somebody watching us. and thats what they want next.
Notice something guys the sights aren't normal glock sights. also notice, no rails or finger groves.
i say its sort of rare, and will NEVER own one.
for me i don't like manual safties, for some its needed.
------------------
454Casull when it absolutely Has to be destroyed.
Notice something guys the sights aren't normal glock sights. also notice, no rails or finger groves.
i say its sort of rare, and will NEVER own one.
for me i don't like manual safties, for some its needed.
------------------
454Casull when it absolutely Has to be destroyed.