• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Would a safety on a Glock make a difference for you

  • Glock would no longer be on my list of guns to buy

    Votes: 24 45.3%
  • I would now consider buying a Glock

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • It would makd no difference to me

    Votes: 27 50.9%

  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

naroun

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
9
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, United States
"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."
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,835
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
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:

Ma}{imus

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
30
Location
NE
I wouldn't buy a Glock anyway. They don't feel right in my hand.

Swyped from my LS670 using Tapatalk
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
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.
 

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
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.
 

carry for myself

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
546
Location
Maine
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. :p
 

Claytron

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
402
Location
Maine
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

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.
 

FireStar M40

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63
Location
U.S.A.
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..

Glocks already have a safety, the trigger! Don't pull it and the gun won't fire.

You're kidding.. right:question: 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" :uhoh: 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! :eek:

FireStar M40
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
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:

stuckinchico

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
506
Location
Stevenson, Alabama, United States
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:question: 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" :uhoh: 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! :eek:

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
 

kcGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
55
Location
Jamestown
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:question: 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" :uhoh: 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! :eek:

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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 
Top