Would you buy a Glock with manual safety?

Would you buy/use a Glock with manual safety?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 24.6%

  • No

    Votes: 104 75.4%
  • Total voters
    138
  • Poll closed .
S

slaf4u

New member
It's pretty much in the thread name - would you buy/use a Glock pistol equipped with manual safety?

edit: we are considering that the only different thing will be the manual safety - the trigger weight, feel, disconnect and reset are staying the same...

Disclaimer: This thread is not about if the Glock is a good gun or not. The question is set as specific as it gets. If you decide to explain why you would or wouldn't...please.
 
Last edited:
Nope, if its got a safety its gotta have a much lighter trigger.

Then again, if said Glock with safety had a light, short travel, crisp SAO trigger... then maybe.
 
No, I think Glock would sell more if they offered it as an option but for me no.

I have decades of point and click experience with firearms (revolvers/DA/DA/SA etc.) and because of that I don't have the training or muscle memory to reliably click off a safety under stress. I shoot firearms with safeties just fine and always start from safe but they have never been my go to guns and therefore I have nowhere near the skill/muscle memory for a safety and I don't want to develop it.
 
Yes and I don't have more glocks because they do not. There is a market for people that want a manual safety. But that's glocks call. They make enough money without having one and there are tons of guns just as good if not better that do have manual safeties.
 
The Glock trigger has a short amount of take up. After that it is almost exactly like a typical 1911 pistol. I can live with the Glock trigger as is.

I've never felt that a "properly designed" safety would hurt a thing. The operator could choose to use it or not. The key is having a good safety design. S&W offers a safety on some of their M&P series. You can buy them either way and use it or not. No reason Glock couldn't do the same. I bought one of the M&P's with the safety and didn't like the design. It was too easy to engage the safety unintentionally.

I have no issues with the Glock NOT having a safety as long as the gun is carried in a holster that covers the trigger.

But for those situations where the gun is not in as holster I'd like the option of having a safety. Places like inside a car console or glovebox, nightstand duty, etc. Or simply for those times after the gun has been unholstered and firing it is not imminent.
 
No I bought a Glock [be]cause it was point and shoot.
Click to expand...

^^ - That

Carried a double action revolver for many years (and still do) that is the "manual of arms" I prefer.

I've carried autos with a safety, perfectly fine guns and would still trust my life to them, but my personal preference and what I am most proficient with is the DA only / Striker fired mode of operation.

YMMV
 
I dunno. Is it a little dinky safety almost flush to the frame and hard to manipulate?

Given Murphy's activities, if you put it on the gun and I decided to leave it off all the time and never use it, the thing would wind up being 'on safe' if I ever had to use the gun for real.

And, of course, Glock Fan Boys are quick to point out there 67 distinct, separate, unique and thoroughly adequate 'safeties' built into the Glock design already so that a thumb safety is not needed. :D


The thing is Glock kind of made a huge deal out of NOT having a thumb safety on the gun so that it had all advantages of most double action revolvers in that you could just draw and fire it WITHOUT having to remember anything about a safety. And of course you had the capacity and quick reloading capabilities of a magazine fed semi-auto.

So, (although everybody already knows this) NOT having a thumb safety was a Glock peculiarity. It was a Glock schtick. It got Glock a LOT of publicity buzz. It created endless debate (like this one).

If Glock would have put a thumb safety on their original gun I doubt they would have become the successful company they are today.

Personally I have drunk the Kool-Aid and Glock having NO thumb safety is okay with me. Although I guess my favorite handgun would be a 1911 just because that's what I grew up with and have shot the most.

FWIW there are after market thumb safeties you can had added to the Glock and I believe Glock has put thumb safeties on some models as part of government contracts...see Wikipedia about the Glock 17S if you want more info on it.
 
I only have two pistols that have a manual safety on them, and one is a single action revolver!

I'm not opposed to manual safeties, but I can't deny that in the heat of the moment where I might have to pull a gun to defend myself that I could forget to deactivate it. I like the Ruger LC9s with its safety, but that damn magazine disconnect is a total dealbreaker, so if I ever buy an LC9s, it's going to be the Pro model, not because it doesn't have a safety, but because it lacks a mag disconnect.

I like Glock, not because it lacks manual safeties, but because it's just a damn good gun for the money. So, if Glock put a safety on their guns, I wouldn't say no to buying one.
 
I have direct experience with a friend's Gen3 G-17 that had been setup by a previous owner with a Cominolli safety, and although this is a decent quality aftermarket setup for a Glock thumb safety, it just doesnt work on a gun that really doesn't need it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
But it won't be a Glock anymore. Maybe a newbie won't mind but those familiar with the Glock most likely not, me included.
 
Not sure how people can be Glock deny'rs, but I am not. Glocks have more ND's from what I read. We all need more training and more real world experience, but that will only make us better and less likely to ND.

Put a manual safety and those who use it will see results. Polish up the internals and we'll hit something too!

Make mine with a SAFETY!
 
While I hope never to buy another glock again, I'd probably consider one with a safety before I'd go with one without.
 
Nope, wouldn't change the other ergos that I don't care for.

That being said, I've never understood the perception that a Glock is any safer than a 1911 carried in Condition 0, barring the heavier triggers available for the Glocks of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top