Glock did make one of their pistols with an external safety. I can find out what model it was for you.
Glock would no longer be on my list of guns to buy
I would now consider buying a Glock
It would makd no difference to me
I saw this poll on another board and thought it was interesting. It says Glock but is not necessarily restricted to Glocks. If they made a Glock with a safety, not changing anything else other than just adding a manual safety would it change your mind about buying a Glock? Consider that Glock would design the safety properly and not just an addon.
Glock did make one of their pistols with an external safety. I can find out what model it was for you.
"G17 with factory external safety (G17S)
Glock has manufactured a number of Glock 17 pistols fitted with an external, 1911-style, manual safety. The pistols were made at the request of the Tasmanian Police force. The actual number of pistols produced, date of manufacture and other details are not known."
There are some aftermarket manually operated safeties out there for Glocks. But no, I would not buy a Glock, or any other gun for that matter that was to be one of my carry guns, with a manual safety on it. This is one reason I like DAO designs. I want the least amount of switches, levers, and buttons on the gun as possible since all I want to have to think about in the event I ever have to use it is to pull-and-pull (pull the gun and pull the trigger).
I my opinon, Kahr has the best DAO out there if one wants a DAO and a safe gun to boot. Glocks are hybrid DAO designs (yes, both Glock and the ATF class the Glock design as a DAO) and are excellent for their purpose. However, I would not carry a baby Glock in a jacket pocket as I would, and have, a Kahr pistol.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
The ATF classifies the Glock as double action because they are the government. The government is stupid. Glock calls their guns "double action" because they sell their guns to governments that want a single action gun, but only if it is called a "double action" gun. And all the makers of guns that copy the Glock action and call their guns double action are doing the same thing.
Now a 92D is a true DAO. A Glock may be double action in name, and the firing pin may be partially cocked with the trigger but from the perspective of the user it works exactly like a single action gun and works exactly unlike a double action gun. On a double action gun like a 92D, you could put a snap cap in the chamber and pull the trigger to your hearts content without ejecting that thing. With a Glock "safe action" (which is what they originally called it before trying to get into government trials for a "double action" gun), or with a single action, you gotta eject the round each time because the trigger cannot cock the gun, which was the whole point of a double action.
Glock wouldn't have been able to get away with it if it was a revolver. Imagine this, A revolver that you first have to cock the hammer 90% of the way, and then the trigger cocks it the next 10% and releases it. And then sell it as a competitor to the S&W 642 as a "double action only" gun of the same type. In reality, it would be more of a competitor to single action revolvers.
As for the subject of the thread, I prefer guns without safety levers. I like my guns to be simple in operation.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 04-30-2011 at 10:32 AM.
I wouldn't buy a Glock anyway. They don't feel right in my hand.
Swyped from my LS670 using Tapatalk
"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
I'd take one if, and only if it could be deactivated. Or if if was a grip safety. Otherwise, no, I would not want one.
The most important lesson I have learned from my time in the freedom movement and further studying it is that trying to create an organization without preventing the issues caused by narcissistic sociopaths and democracy is a lot like heading to sea in a sieve. It'll never work.
The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.
Glocks already have a safety, the trigger! Don't pull it and the gun won't fire.
A safety or not does not impact my decision to get a Glock or not.
It falls more to a preference for having a hammer vs. a striker-fired system,and the width of the slide on manly-caliber Glocks. I just find them to be bulkier than they need to be (.45/10mm etc) for my ways of concealment.
Otherwise,no issue with Glocks at all. Fantastic design-one of the most significant advancements of the combat sidearm since John Browning's 1911.
A safety has no difference to me.
I carry 1911's a lot and Glock's a lot to.
I don't even think about it....1911 comes up, flick safety, Bang.
Glock comes up squeeze trigger, Bang.
If you carry enough its all reflex.
Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.
Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6
I have no need for an external safety the one on the trigger is enough. The only other safety you need is your trigger finger. If you need that safety and your not a minor you may need more training
i honestly dont believe i would. i have S&W's for saftied weapons. one of my favorate features about Glocks are the "safe action" safties. and honestly even when i carry my S&W. i carry +1 with the safety off. 8LB trigger is my safety. if you actually test yourself *with a fully cleared , checked and unloaded weapon*. try to draw and dryfire safety off, vs safety on. and youll notice the time difference.
so no i would not buy a glock with a safety.
me personally my hand cant reach that safety without readjusting my grip. I carried mine with the safety off. If i wasnt sneaking my glock in
Last edited by stuckinchico; 05-03-2011 at 02:35 PM.
Seeing this is my first post on this site (and I don't want to get off on the wrong foot), so don't shoot me (pun intended ) but..
The thing wrong with glocks is that they place their "safety" in the middle of their "trigger". That's like placing the brake in the middle of the gas pedal!
Why you never pick a fight with a old man.
Seeing they're too old and tired to fight,
they'll just shoot your butt instead.
I'm a "OLD MAN"!
Revolvers don't have safety levers, and that was never a concern during the time period for which most handguns were revolvers.
If a safety lever prevents an accidental discharge, a serious mistake in procedure and safety is already being made.
You can never be too safe, so I don't think poorly of anyone who chooses to use a safety lever, but I don't think anyone should be disparaged for their choice not to use one. To me, a safety lever is just one more thing adding unnecessary complexities.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 05-03-2011 at 07:33 PM.
I have to disagree. I know what he is saying. My finger doesnt go in the trigger guard till im shooting.
I have a G19 and the safety was the reason i went to glock. I want to pull the gun and shoot as quick as possible. Once less thing to think about in the heat of the moment. I was at the range the other day with my dad and he went to shoot his Sig P238 and when he pulled the trigger there was no boom. He forgot to flip the safety. Yeah you can argue that more training helps and yeah it would but....mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. With my glock i am 99.9% sure that all i have to do is pull my gun and pull the trigger till it stops shooting.
So just because the military does it one way doesn't mean that's the best way. Just that its the cheapest, most reliable, and accounts for the lowest common denominator. Or at least that's the goal of how the military does these things.
In regards to the thread, I voted that it wouldn't change anything. Personally I don't like how a glock feels in my hand, but I do like the safety feature. Personally I went one step further and got an XDm which has the trigger and grip safety specifically because I prefer this type of safety over an external safety.
Own a couple glocks myself but i wouldnt if they had external safeties
I voted "no difference" because if they added another external safety I'd leave it disengaged (ready to use) unless the pistol was in storage.
I bought my Glock because I like the way it fits my hand, I like the reliability, and I like that the safety is disengaged by a natural action when I'm ready to shoot so I don't have to remember to do anything more.
If I ever have to defend myself, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be rattled, & several instructors have said that fine muscle control suffers from adrenaline, so I don't want a little lever to move.
Glocks have 3 safeties - 2 internal, 1 external (built into the trigger).Originally Posted by HeroHog
If you want all that plus a grip safety, go to a Springfield XD.
But we all know that with any gun, the most important safety is the attitude of the owner.
I've had exactly ONE time that a gun I was holding fired when I didn't mean for it to fire. It had a very light trigger, so I'm extremely glad I'd followed the other 3 rules & nothing bad happened.
From then on, 'finger off the trigger' is highest priority, even over 'safe direction'. With finger off trigger, safe direction doesn't matter.
+100Originally Posted by kcGlock19
Last edited by MKEgal; 05-04-2011 at 11:07 AM.
Originally Posted by MLK, JrOriginally Posted by MSG LaigaieOriginally Posted by Proverbs 27:12Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
If you train and practice enough, it really IS a non-issue. Thousands of combat troops in action over these last few years.
How many-if any-instances of any of them finding themselves so rattled under duress,and under fire, who found they couldnt get their weapon up and running because of the safety of the weapon they were using? Im doubting very many.
Far more likely is the chance that one's hand is injured or less than functional at the moment.
I am not a fan of glock to begin with, they are reliable but they are ugly as hell and your just paying for the Hollywood name to boot. If I ever did buy one it would not matter to me if it had an external safety or not.
Last edited by zack991; 05-04-2011 at 04:17 PM.
-I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
-Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
Marine General James Mattis,
Truth be told, isn't it mostly a matter of personal preference? I've got nothing against any weapon that goes "bang" when it is supposed to and Glocks have a pretty good record of doing that.
I carry either a Springfield Armory "Champion" model .45 (based on the 1911) or a Ruger P89DC because both of them feel right to me. The Ruger is a decocker and is, to me, just a very nice, reliable, pistol. I carry both of them with a round in the chamber and, in the case of the SA, "cocked and locked".
Practice with both of them at the range feels comfortable and I am confident that, should the stuff hit the fan, I will be able to meet the threat.
Were I to ever get a Glock, I would put in a lot of practice until I felt as confident with it as I do with the two I have.