Would you buy a Glock with manual safety?
- Thread starter slaf4u
- Start date
The history of Glock seems to be that the only people Glock worries about offending is Glock.
Anything that goes wrong is automatically the owner's fault and they refuse to make a model with a thumb safety, their pistol is, after all, "Perfection".
Glock didn't even enter the recent trials for a US service handgun. One of the requirements was a thumb safety, and Glock said they could have done it, but chose not to.
"Perfection"
The question was: Would you buy a Glock with a manual safety? Why would someone who will not use the safety buy one with a safety, assuming that one could still buy the same model without one? S&W M&Ps are available with or without manual safeties, depending on your preference.
Are you suggesting that people who use guns with manual safeties don't have ND's? NDs are caused by carelessness, weapon type is irrelevant.
JN01, I agree that NDs are caused by carelessness. Weapon type is certainly not irrelevant though. I believe Glocks have a disproportionately higher rate of negligent discharges than other types of pistols. Why? They are less forgiving of careless handling than other types of pistols.
As I said in an earlier post, I am not a Glock hater. I think they are fine pistols, but I won't carry one concealed. I am not careless in my use of, or carrying of a handgun, but I prefer an extra layer of safety on my carry guns with a short, lightish Glock styled trigger.
Lord knows this opinion will be condemned as heresy by some. I'm good with that.
I answered "no." I honestly don't get the agonizing over Glock triggers by people with extensive experience with pistols. A Glock can be handled safely without a thumb safety. Lots of people do it. I have pistols with no thumb safety (including a Glock), frame mounted safety, and slide-mounted safety. The safeties seem to be appropriate to the triggers on all of them. None have discharged without someone pulling the trigger. The Glock trigger is not a light, short, SA trigger like a 1911, not even as short as Sig 238 and 938 triggers. I have more than once asked why we trust someone to infallibly use a thumb safety when the same person can't be trusted to not pull a trigger at a wrong moment.
Jno1, of course I would buy one with an external safety. Deliberately choosing not to own one more layer of protection baffles me. Don't like it? Don't use it.
Would I use it?, probably not. I don't use the safety on my Smith, but if I felt the need for that extra precaution, I would have it. I don't turn off my air bags, either.
The only thing that bothers me about discussions like this is that nobody seems to realize that there are numerous people who would like to have one, but masses of people say that they shouldn't be made at all just because they don't want one.
Would I use it?, probably not. I don't use the safety on my Smith, but if I felt the need for that extra precaution, I would have it. I don't turn off my air bags, either.
The only thing that bothers me about discussions like this is that nobody seems to realize that there are numerous people who would like to have one, but masses of people say that they shouldn't be made at all just because they don't want one.
With all due respect, your question is made of straw. No one that I know of has ever suggested having a thumb safety guarantees its use, or that having one guarantees the trigger won't be pulled at the wrong time. What having a thumb safety does is prevent the trigger being pulled inadvertently. Denying that happens with Glocks takes us back to 44 Amp's assertion that according to Glock and Glock experts, "it only happens to idiots."
I'm not sure there is hard evidence that the rate of NDs is significantly higher with Glocks and other striker fired pistols as opposed to pistols not of that type. There are certainly more reports, but Glocks make up a disproportionate amount of the market for pistols, especially for certain applications (such as law enforcement). There's also the reality that the "rise of Glock" was followed not long after by the Internet as a whole, which made sharing stories of NDs to larger audiences dramatically easier than it was before.
I've said before and I will say again that I have personally had a ND. It happened with a DA/SA pistol equipped with a safety and a magazine disconnect too. Literally I cannot think of a safety it lacked. So what happened? I assumed the pistol was unloaded when it was not. Now because I thankfully obeyed the other rules of firearms handling no one was hurt.
I'm well aware that my one example is not indicative of all NDs. But in other reports I have read the general theme is that a firearm that was loaded was assumed not to be. In that case I am not convinced a manual safety stops that ND, simple because the user made a conscience decision to press a trigger and as the standard manual of arms for that pistol will disengage the safety to do so. The only way the safety stops the user from making a conscience decision to press a trigger is if the user doesn't know how to work that safety (or in the case of a DA pistol if the trigger press is so hard the user can't manipulate the trigger). In either of those cases the pistol is no longer of much use, imo, to the user.
Now obviously a trigger snagging or being inadvertently pressed is another story, though in those cases I argue for a rigid holster that can't fold into itself and completely covers the triggerguard. But in the stories I have read I believe that is far less prevalent than people deliberately pressing triggers on loaded pistols. But hard data on any of this is hard to find and I am hesitant to even trust newspaper reports as, let's face it, people lie.
At the end of the day if someone chooses to use a pistol with a safety, DA/SA, both, or neither it's his/her choice and as long as that person makes becoming familiar with that pistol a priority I don't particularly care as someone that has carried all of them. At the same time I think being sure to avoid the trap that a manual safety is a guarantee (not something I see being advocated here but there are those that will) is incorrect.
As for Glock, I don't see them adding a manual safety for the general public, even as an option (and yes they have done it for certain contracts in the past). Their marketing for years has been in part designed around the absence of a safety and in the book, "Glock: The Rise of America's Gun" it was a deliberate decision from when Glock was designing his pistol to not include a manual safety. I don't think the marketshare that Glock would gain from this is frankly worth it to them at this point. Whether that changes as time goes by remains to be seen.
I've said before and I will say again that I have personally had a ND. It happened with a DA/SA pistol equipped with a safety and a magazine disconnect too. Literally I cannot think of a safety it lacked. So what happened? I assumed the pistol was unloaded when it was not. Now because I thankfully obeyed the other rules of firearms handling no one was hurt.
I'm well aware that my one example is not indicative of all NDs. But in other reports I have read the general theme is that a firearm that was loaded was assumed not to be. In that case I am not convinced a manual safety stops that ND, simple because the user made a conscience decision to press a trigger and as the standard manual of arms for that pistol will disengage the safety to do so. The only way the safety stops the user from making a conscience decision to press a trigger is if the user doesn't know how to work that safety (or in the case of a DA pistol if the trigger press is so hard the user can't manipulate the trigger). In either of those cases the pistol is no longer of much use, imo, to the user.
Now obviously a trigger snagging or being inadvertently pressed is another story, though in those cases I argue for a rigid holster that can't fold into itself and completely covers the triggerguard. But in the stories I have read I believe that is far less prevalent than people deliberately pressing triggers on loaded pistols. But hard data on any of this is hard to find and I am hesitant to even trust newspaper reports as, let's face it, people lie.
At the end of the day if someone chooses to use a pistol with a safety, DA/SA, both, or neither it's his/her choice and as long as that person makes becoming familiar with that pistol a priority I don't particularly care as someone that has carried all of them. At the same time I think being sure to avoid the trap that a manual safety is a guarantee (not something I see being advocated here but there are those that will) is incorrect.
As for Glock, I don't see them adding a manual safety for the general public, even as an option (and yes they have done it for certain contracts in the past). Their marketing for years has been in part designed around the absence of a safety and in the book, "Glock: The Rise of America's Gun" it was a deliberate decision from when Glock was designing his pistol to not include a manual safety. I don't think the marketshare that Glock would gain from this is frankly worth it to them at this point. Whether that changes as time goes by remains to be seen.
random guy
New member
For context:
Would you buy a DA revolver with a safety?
and:
Would you buy a 1911 without a manual safety?
IMO, the Glock is somewhere in between the two above and is reasonably safe without a manual safety. At least until users follow the urge to turn it into a target pistol.
I prefer true DA without a safety but the average Glock is tolerable to me from a safety standpoint.
Would you buy a DA revolver with a safety?
and:
Would you buy a 1911 without a manual safety?
IMO, the Glock is somewhere in between the two above and is reasonably safe without a manual safety. At least until users follow the urge to turn it into a target pistol.
I prefer true DA without a safety but the average Glock is tolerable to me from a safety standpoint.
Rangerrich99
New member
Let me start by saying I am not a Glock fan or a Glock hater; it's not that I dislike Glocks, I just don't like Glock aesthetically or ergonomically. In other words, my indifference to Glocks has nothing at all to do with whether it has a thumb safety or not.
However, I do own one Glock (19 gen 4) which I picked up to fill a 'gap in the safe.' But I have no plans at all to buy any more Glocks.
So I voted yes, as I really don't see any difference really between owning my S&W Shield with a thumb safety and not using it, and owning my Glock 19 if it had a safety and not using it.
The only time I use the safety on my Shield is when I'm either loading a round in the chamber or when inserting the loaded weapon into the holster. Once these tasks are accomplished, I flip the safety switch to the fire position and that's that, as they say. If my Glock had a similar safety I'd treat it in exactly the same way and wouldn't think twice about it.
And no, I don't particularly wish my Glock had a safety; I just wouldn't have been upset if that's what was available when I purchased it.
However, I do own one Glock (19 gen 4) which I picked up to fill a 'gap in the safe.' But I have no plans at all to buy any more Glocks.
So I voted yes, as I really don't see any difference really between owning my S&W Shield with a thumb safety and not using it, and owning my Glock 19 if it had a safety and not using it.
The only time I use the safety on my Shield is when I'm either loading a round in the chamber or when inserting the loaded weapon into the holster. Once these tasks are accomplished, I flip the safety switch to the fire position and that's that, as they say. If my Glock had a similar safety I'd treat it in exactly the same way and wouldn't think twice about it.
And no, I don't particularly wish my Glock had a safety; I just wouldn't have been upset if that's what was available when I purchased it.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
I would not buy a Glock w/ or w/o a manual safety.
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
Manual safety, no manual safety, still not interested in Glocks. I know I will be pummeled for this by the Glock squad but I just don't like the way they feel in my hand.
Now that doesn't equate to me telling you not to buy one. In fact, buy the one that I left in the gun case for you!!
Now that doesn't equate to me telling you not to buy one. In fact, buy the one that I left in the gun case for you!!
And this is why I just bought a bodyguard for my every day carry gun. I wanted the safety. It only happens to idiots is a common argument. Unfortunately it happens to experts who messed up one time. I can google search and find tons of examples right away. People are not perfect. It only takes you being tired, sick, stressed, etc to mess it up just one time. No matter how careful you are, you are a person and are prone to small mistakes.
I dont really think anyone argues that NDs don't happen more to guns without safety's and lighter glock like triggers. It happens more to glocks because they are so popular but its striker fired, no safety, guns in general that have these issues.
With as much respect, there is an implication that a thumb safety would make the pistol safer to handle. It has to be activated to work. Therefore I ask, if someone is careless enough to exert enough force on the trigger to fire the pistol, without clearing it first, is that same someone going to be careful enough in reliably activating a thumb safety to eliminate that risk?
I understand what thumb safeties do, and I didn't deny that Glocks can be subject to discharge if the trigger is pulled inadvertently; the latter really is a straw argument. My point is that people who handle guns conscientiously don't pull a Glock trigger, or others. Again, it's not an extremely light or short trigger. It takes more than a little bump to make it go, thanks to a combination of weight, length of pull, and the much-maligned trigger dingus.
The question was, "Would you buy a Glock with a manual safety?" I said no, essentially because I don't think it needs one. I own a Glock, and have carried it for several years without a problem. It has a good holster, and it doesn't go in drawers or boxes with a lot of other junk that could get in the trigger guard; in other words, I exercise reasonable care, aware that it does not have a thumb safety. I am not against thumb safeties - I have several other pistols with safeties, and now that I think of it I believe the Glock is the only pistol without a thumb safety in my modest collection - but I treat my pistols that have thumb safeties with the same care. I still wouldn't buy a Glock with a safety. Other folks are free to buy what they like, including, if Glock someday offers them, Glocks with factory thumb safeties.
Last edited:
We've been chasing this around a bit, and I think a couple of important points are getting lost in the dustcloud.
One is the matter of phrasing. A manual safety (thumb or any other kind) does not prevent the trigger from being inadvertently pulled. What it does prevent (IF USED) is the firing when the trigger is pulled. Inadvertent, accidental, or deliberate, with the safety on, the gun should not fire. IF it does, its broken. Period.
I'm not going to argue personal choice about safety or not for a carry gun. All I'm saying that having a manual safety, one that only goes on when you put it on, and stays on until you take it off, is a choice that I like to have on a semi auto, and one I personally require on a striker fired pistol.
People who make the mistake of thinking the gun is empty when it isn't are still going to have accidents pulling the trigger, and the safety will NOT do anything about that.
For me, the important difference is in those admittedly rare situations where you aren't pulling the trigger on purpose.
One is the matter of phrasing. A manual safety (thumb or any other kind) does not prevent the trigger from being inadvertently pulled. What it does prevent (IF USED) is the firing when the trigger is pulled. Inadvertent, accidental, or deliberate, with the safety on, the gun should not fire. IF it does, its broken. Period.
I'm not going to argue personal choice about safety or not for a carry gun. All I'm saying that having a manual safety, one that only goes on when you put it on, and stays on until you take it off, is a choice that I like to have on a semi auto, and one I personally require on a striker fired pistol.
People who make the mistake of thinking the gun is empty when it isn't are still going to have accidents pulling the trigger, and the safety will NOT do anything about that.
For me, the important difference is in those admittedly rare situations where you aren't pulling the trigger on purpose.