View Poll Results: Would a safety on a Glock make a difference for you

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Glock would no longer be on my list of guns to buy

    25 46.30%
  • I would now consider buying a Glock

    2 3.70%
  • It would makd no difference to me

    27 50.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: What if a Glock had a safety, would you buy one

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    What if a Glock had a safety, would you buy one

    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member naroun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    9
    Glock did make one of their pistols with an external safety. I can find out what model it was for you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member naroun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    9
    "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."

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    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.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    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 11:32 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Ma}{imus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    30
    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."

    J.F.K.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    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.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    Glocks already have a safety, the trigger! Don't pull it and the gun won't fire.
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    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.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  11. #11
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    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

  12. #12
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    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 03:35 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member FireStar M40's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    63

    Say What..!!..?

    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by HeroHog View Post
    Glocks already have a safety, the trigger! Don't pull it and the gun won't fire.
    You're kidding.. right After all, I didn't see any emoticon to clue me in otherwise, so I'm guessing that you're quite serious when you said that. If you think a "trigger" is really a "safety" I would be very nervous around you if you were carrying thinking that way.

    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!

    FireStar M40
    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"!

  15. #15
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    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 08:33 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by FireStar M40 View Post
    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..



    You're kidding.. right After all, I didn't see any emoticon to clue me in otherwise, so I'm guessing that you're quite serious when you said that. If you think a "trigger" is really a "safety" I would be very nervous around you if you were carrying thinking that way.

    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!

    FireStar M40
    While practicing engaging targets to the rear, i withdrew my weapon from holster and started shooting well tried, i didnt fully engage trigger safety... I tell you that safety actually works. And no im not trained to turn and shoot u start shooting while you are turning. and it is dificult to do with a weapon upside down and rotating

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Jamestown
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by FireStar M40 View Post
    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..



    You're kidding.. right After all, I didn't see any emoticon to clue me in otherwise, so I'm guessing that you're quite serious when you said that. If you think a "trigger" is really a "safety" I would be very nervous around you if you were carrying thinking that way.

    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!

    FireStar M40

    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Claytron View Post
    tell that to the majority of our armed forces who use weapons with external safeties

    you can also flip it around too... If you cant activate a safety then you need more training.
    You need to remember that the majority of weapons used for the military are rifles and not handguns and the conditions these weapons need to be able to handle. Oh and the fact that military contracts go to the lowest bidder. So between cost, reliability, and ease to repair its no wonder the military uses external safeties. Besides, has anyone even adapted a trigger safety to rifles and would you really trust a nervous private to just a trigger safety? At least with the external safety he can leave it on safe until he's in a position that he's authorized to fire.

    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I like the Glock safety system and an additional, independent safety system, to make it hard for any little hands to make a loud noise. The XD gave me the Glock readiness with the 1911 grip safety. If Glock went to the XD safety feature set I'd get a G27 tomorrow. So yes, if Glock had a "manual" safety I'd get one.

    Just cuz you have to actuate a switch/lever/button does not mean you have to have it engaged while you carry. Laying on the bedside table, in my triple-wide McMansion on wheels, you bet it would be engaged.
    About that. I recently took my 7 and 11 year old brothers to the range and we shot multiple guns. It took a bunch of coaching for them to be able to properly hold the XD so that they could fire it. The 7 year old was almost unable to shoot it due to how hard it was for him to properly hold the gun.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    You need to remember that the majority of weapons used for the military are rifles and not handguns and the conditions these weapons need to be able to handle. Oh and the fact that military contracts go to the lowest bidder. So between cost, reliability, and ease to repair its no wonder the military uses external safeties. Besides, has anyone even adapted a trigger safety to rifles and would you really trust a nervous private to just a trigger safety? At least with the external safety he can leave it on safe until he's in a position that he's authorized to fire.

    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.
    Not everything goes to the lowest bidder, especially for design. The military has always REQUIRED an external safety in its arms. Those safeties did not get there by accident. Also, as far as cheap junk, 1911's and beretta's both are higher quality guns, with a price tags to go with it, than glocks. If price was the only factor the military would be using Glocks before they would use 1911's or the M9 and most likely they would use Hi-Points since those are really cheap. The only firearms I can think of that were chosen for cheapness were the grease guns used in WWII. I would hardly think of an AR platform as cheap or junk for idiots. An AK is cheap and was designed to be used by idiots.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    56
    Own a couple glocks myself but i wouldnt if they had external safeties

  22. #22
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by HeroHog
    Glocks already have a safety, the trigger! Don't pull it and the gun won't fire.
    Glocks have 3 safeties - 2 internal, 1 external (built into the trigger).
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kcGlock19
    ...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... 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.
    +100
    Last edited by MKEgal; 05-04-2011 at 12:07 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    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 05:17 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,

  25. #25
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •