Glock trigger

[LightningJoe]

I'm willing to expose my ignorance if somebody can cure it. The funny little "trigger safety" on a Glock and some other autos, you know, the doo-dad on the trigger. What's the rationale behind this? Is this actually kind of a grip safety as part of the trigger and if it is, what the heck can it actually accomplish? What could pull the trigger without also deactivating such a safety?


Maybe this doo-dad performs some other function that I haven't the imagination to guess. I've always assumed it was some kind of poorly-thought-out safety device.

 

[rsxr22]

it will help against a negligent discharge. You are on the right track about the grip safety. On Springfield XD's and 1911's, their grip safeties must be depressed fully to shoot the gun, and the same goes with glock's trigger safety. It doesn't do much, but it isnt that guns primary safety, their internal

I wont argue to much about the trigger safety, but one reason glock has gained such a following is because of their ease of manual of arms. Glocks are grab and go pistols, with the most important safety being your trigger finger. I have trained many people who were used to shooting 1911's and guns with manual safeties and when they would present their pistol from their holster, they would already have their finger inside of the trigger guard, but with the manual safety engaged. IMO that kind of training or operation is simply unacceptable

 

[jfrey123]

It works in conjunction with the firing pin safety. There is no way for the firing pin to release without the trigger being pulled. This means it won't fire if dropped, etc.

The "doo-dag" on the trigger is to prevent the trigger from accidentally going backward. Say it snags on a shirt, holster, etc. The rationalle is that you actually have to put your finger in there and intentionally pull the trigger to fire the weapon.

To test it, unload your weapon. Unload it again, and check a 3rd time to make sure it's empty. Then, without loading it, attempt to dry fire it in a safe direction without putting your finger all the way in. Use the very tip of your finger to push the trigger without touching the "doo-dad". You will not get it to go 'click'.


Some say it's stupid. They'll say that if something snags it'll just push the doo-dad and pull the trigger anyway. Meh. So will a 1911 with the safety off. So will a XD if you have the grip safety pressed while holstering (which is part of the natural grip anyway). To each their own.

 

[LightningJoe]

Well, given these explanations, I'm forced to conclude the trigger safety is mainly a decoration.

 

[varoadking]

Well, given these explanations, I'm forced to conclude the trigger safety is mainly a decoration.

Did you actually read the responses?

 

[HighValleyRanch]

no comment!

quote:
Well, given these explanations, I'm forced to conclude the trigger safety is mainly a decoration.

You're not going to make me respond in any way by that comment!

 

[madmag]

Well, here it goes.

The problem with the trigger safety on the Glock (and my XD for that matter) is that it is only a safe guard against a side force, or partial force not directly on the trigger. That's better than nothing, but there have been cases where an object gets into the trigger guard and puts pressure directly on the trigger the same as finger pressure and caused a discharge. The XD has a grip safety that helps prevent this situation.

Having said that, I plan to buy a G26 for my next purchase. But I will keep it in a good holster or add one of the after market safeties. We can (and will) argue this forever, but the bottom line is if you get an object into the Glock trigger guard that acts similar to finger pressure then you have a possible discharge.

Excuse me while I exit to my special Glock bomb shelter.

 

[JohnKSa]

The Glock design has two internal safeties that absolutely prevent the gun from discharging. One (the firing pin safety) blocks the firing pin from moving forward far enough to contact the primer unless the trigger is pulled. The second (the drop safety) holds the firing pin immobile from the rear until the trigger is pulled.

Both of those safeties rely on the trigger bar NOT moving unless the user intends to fire the gun.

The trigger safety is what locks the trigger bar into position and allows the other two safeties to do their job in the event the pistol is dropped or otherwise subjected to a sudden severe shock.

In addition to locking the trigger bar, the trigger safety, in conjunction with a wider than typical trigger guard is designed in such a way as to make trigger snags much less likely. The trigger safety takes up about 13% of the trigger face area leaving approximately 87% of the trigger face that can be bumped or pressed without the trigger being activated. A snagging object must contact the lower center portion of the trigger and stay in that position. If the snagging object rides up the trigger curve as is the tendency, it will stop against the frame where the trigger safety can not be disengaged. If the snagging object catches the edges of the trigger it can not disengage the trigger safety.

The trigger guard is also wider than typical, providing more overlap on both sides of the trigger, which means that a snagging object is more likely to be deflected away from the trigger. A comparison between the Glock 17 and the Beretta 92, for example will reveal that the Glock trigger guard overhangs the trigger on each side by about twice the amount that the Beretta 92 trigger guard overhangs the 92 trigger.

The Glock trigger safety is well thought out and works well. Like any other design it has advantages and disadvantages, proponents and opponents. For those who don't care for the philosophy behind it, there is a wide variety of other pistols with different safety design philosophies. One need only avoid the Glock offerings and the ever more numerous designs which have copied the general Glock safety philosophy.

 

[madmag]

For those who don't care for the philosophy behind it, there is a wide variety of other pistols with different safety design philosophies.

I agree with all you said about how the Glock safeties work, but one point I would make is that not all can avoid Glocks if they are not comfortable with the design. Some of the discharges have been by LEO's that did not really have a choice on their service pistol. I like Glock, plan to get one, but I think the mechanical reality is they have more potential for AD than say the XD. If I ran a police department would I ban Glocks?.....no. But I would make sure they were carried in proper holsters and I would caution against objects that can get into the trigger guard like pulls on tactical pants.

 

[21CFA]

Glock triggers

6,000,000 satisfied Glock owners since 1980 can hardly be called a drop-in-the-bucket. To each his/her own.

 

[jfrey123]

Man, anyone who bashes a Glock trigger better not own a revolver.


I like 'em. I carry my other non-Glock handguns locked and loaded with safetys off. Keep your booger hooker off the bang switch.

 

[madmag]

6,000,000 satisfied Glock owners since 1980 can hardly be called a drop-in-the-bucket. To each his/her own.

No argument with that. Nobody, not me anyway, is calling that a drop in the bucket. I am not really talking about satisfied owners. Whether it's 6 milionl or one, the mechanical design is the same. It's just mechanics. If you get an object into the trigger the wrong way you can get a discharge.

Man, anyone who bashes a Glock trigger better not own a revolver.

An old but very inaccurate statement. The triggers are simply not close to being the same....period.

 

[LightningJoe]

Well, given these explanations, I'm forced to conclude the trigger safety is mainly a decoration.

I said mainly, not entirely.

 

[varoadking]

Well, given these explanations, I'm forced to conclude the trigger safety is mainly a decoration.

You're not going to make me respond in any way by that comment!

Try reading them in English...

 

[JohnKSa]

I think the mechanical reality is they have more potential for AD than say the XD. ... But I would make sure they were carried in proper holsters and I would caution against objects that can get into the trigger guard like pulls on tactical pants.

The problem with that reasoning is that if you're relying on the grip safety to make the XD safer then you can't focus on reholstering incidents to prove your point because the XD grip safety will almost certainly be disengaged during reholstering.

It's always kind of ironic that these discussions seem to come down to focusing on trigger snags when trigger snags are pretty much the least likely cause for unintentional discharges. They account for something like 3 incidents out of every 400 unintentional discharges based on an anonymous poll involving hundreds of responses from people who have experienced unintentional discharges. For some reason in NON-anonymous situations a lot more unintentional discharges are blamed on trigger snags...

 

[madmag]

I think the concerns about Glock triggers are legitimate, but not necessarily a reason not to buy a Glock. I mentioned I have an XD service and I intend to purchase a G26. I just like the G26 over the XD sub. My service model seems fine, but the XD sub just seems sawed off and blocky compared to the G26. In fact the only thing standing between me and a G26 is not the trigger safety, it's my wife. And that's a lot more dangerous than any Glock trigger issue.

The problem with that reasoning is that if you're relying on the grip safety to make the XD safer then you can't focus on re-holstering incidents to prove your point because the grip safety will almost certainly be disengaged during re-holstering.

Maybe my reading, but not sure I understand. I do think my XD is safer in re-holstering because I do keep my hand off the grip safety. The AD's that I have read about for (Glock) LEO's re-holstering might not have happened with a grip safety.

 

[headbangerJD]

JohnKSa

Your first post got me believing that the Glock 'doo-dad' safety was actually more useful than it appeared...

The trigger safety is what locks the trigger bar into position and allows the other two safeties to do their job in the event the pistol is dropped or otherwise subjected to a sudden severe shock. In addition to locking the trigger bar, the trigger safety, in conjunction with a wider than typical trigger guard is designed in such a way as to make trigger snags much less likely. The trigger safety takes up about 13% of the trigger face area leaving approximately 87% of the trigger face that can be bumped or pressed without the trigger being activated. A snagging object must contact the lower center portion of the trigger and stay in that position. If the snagging object rides up the trigger curve as is the tendency, it will stop against the frame where the trigger safety can not be disengaged. If the snagging object catches the edges of the trigger it can not disengage the trigger safety.
The trigger guard is also wider than typical, providing more overlap on both sides of the trigger, which means that a snagging object is more likely to be deflected away from the trigger.

But then your second post...
It's always kind of ironic that these discussions seem to come down to focusing on trigger snags when trigger snags are pretty much the least likely cause for unintentional discharges. They account for something like 3 incidents out of every 400 unintentional discharges based on an anonymous poll involving hundreds of responses from people who have experienced unintentional discharges.

...took me back to believing that the 'doo-dad' is not necessary.

I kind-of get it now, kind of still wonder.....

 

[jgcoastie]

If you get an object into the trigger the wrong way you can get a discharge.

Isn't that kind of the point of having a trigger in the first place? Getting your booger hook "into the trigger" to "get a discharge"??? You can do the same damn thing to an XD or M&P or any other handgun, external safety or not. "But wait, if it has an external safety, snagging the trigger won't do anything." Fair enough, but only if the safety is engaged and only if the safety doesn't fail for whatever reason. Never, ever, ever rely on an external (or internal for that matter) safety to make your weapon safe. The only safety that counts is the one between your ears, etc, etc... How about everyone just be conscious of what's going on in the vicinity of their triggers... That cures the panic over "them unsafe, plastic, Glock doo-hickies..."

If you don't like the design, don't buy it... I don't like 1911's... You know what I do about that problem? I don't spend my money on them, I let others buy and enjoy them, and keep my opinions of them to myself. I recognize that they are an icon (as is Glock) and that many many people use and love them (same as with Glocks) and I leave well enough the hell alone...

 

[HuntAndFish]

Well, I believe you kind of have to understand this in an historical context. Historically, for a gun not to be able to fire unless you pull the trigger is a BIG deal. For example, on some Ruger Police Six revolvers it is possible to cock the hammer when the cylinder is extended. When the user pushes the cylinder back into battery the hammer will drop and the gun will fire without touching the trigger. Bad Juju.

A Glock will absolutely not fire unless the trigger is pulled. The doo-dad on the trigger prevents an accidental trigger pull from the side. It's a very good system if you are paying attention.

If you have a brain-f**t, no gun is safe in your hands.

 

[JohnKSa]

But then your second post...
...took me back to believing that the 'doo-dad' is not necessary.

One could look at the statistics as evidence that it's not really necessary to work to prevent trigger snags, OR one could look at the statistics as evidence that the design efforts to prevent trigger snags have been very effective.

I do think my XD is safer in re-holstering because I do keep my hand off the grip safety.

Assuming that you make sure to keep your hand clear of the grip safety during reholstering then you are correct in saying that the XD system would provide an extra measure of safety against reholstering incidents.