Glock trigger
- Thread starter LightningJoe
- Start date
Let me get this straight...
Glocks have 3 safeties but are somehow inherently unsafe? And following along, that other designs with 3, 2, 1, and even no safeties are inherently safer? Oh, I've heard and read them all... Gotcha.
At least the passive vs. active safety argument makes sense, ignoring the passive's argument and a casual survey of the experience of the vast majority of pistol owners, of course.
If you just don't care for Glocks, however, fine. Just say so. There's no argument to that.
Well... No. Someone else should open up a new thread.
Glocks have 3 safeties but are somehow inherently unsafe? And following along, that other designs with 3, 2, 1, and even no safeties are inherently safer? Oh, I've heard and read them all... Gotcha.
At least the passive vs. active safety argument makes sense, ignoring the passive's argument and a casual survey of the experience of the vast majority of pistol owners, of course.
If you just don't care for Glocks, however, fine. Just say so. There's no argument to that.
Well... No. Someone else should open up a new thread.
It's really not about the number of safeties, it's about how one safety can be operated other than by your trigger finger.
I have no doubt the firing pin block works and is not released until just before final rear movement of the trigger. Also, I have no doubt a Glock will not discharge when dropped......that's two out of three.
Not me. I like Glocks. Just talking about the mechanics of the trigger safety and can a foreign object cause a discharge.
If I shove my XD into a holster with my hand depressing the grip safety and something gets in the trigger guard on the way, then I can also have an AD.
Last edited:
LightningJoe
New member
The impression I have is that Glocks work, but the three safeties thing sounds like marketing. I believe the gun won't go off unless you pull the trigger. I kind of expect that from a gun. I don't call that a safety.
Given the lack of a manual safety and the light trigger pull, I'd say the one safety on a Glock is the holster.
I pocket-carried a Kel-Tec for years, so it's not like I can't live with that. I'm just trying for clarity.
The doo-dad just bugs me. But Glock shouldn't care about that. They've clearly got lots of business.
Given the lack of a manual safety and the light trigger pull, I'd say the one safety on a Glock is the holster.
I pocket-carried a Kel-Tec for years, so it's not like I can't live with that. I'm just trying for clarity.
The doo-dad just bugs me. But Glock shouldn't care about that. They've clearly got lots of business.
Whatever you want to call it, it was convincing enough to convince nearly 3/4 of U.S. LE (at one point in time) to arm their officers with a gun that was to be carried chambered and without a manual safety.
It was enough to convince just about every other major firearms manufacturer that it was acceptable to design semi-auto pistols without manual safeties.
It bugs a lot of people. It bugged S&W so much that they came up with a slightly different trigger safety to perform an identical function. It bugged Ruger so much that they tried to come up with a different solution for their SR9 but failed and had to go back to a design that was essentially identical to Glock's trigger safety.
You're entitled to that opinion but it puts you in a very small minority.
As I mentioned earlier nearly all firearms manufacturers design similar safety features into their firearms and call them safeties.
You're really making up your own vocabulary here. A vocabulary where holsters are safeties and safeties aren't safeties...
I'd say you're not quite making it.
Look, you started by saying it did nothing. That turned out not to be true. Then you changed the argument to saying that you didn't think what it did was anything special. Maybe it's not, but that's another argument.
I think the real issue is that you simply don't like the trigger safety. That's fine. Personal preference is a wonderful thing. But trying to justify personal preference with bogus technical arguments (it does nothing), bankrupt logic (I expect a gun to be safe when the trigger is not pulled, therefore the means by which the designer achieves that end is not a safety) and by redefining commonly used terms (safeties aren't safeties but holsters are) is another thing entirely...
Uncle Malice
New member
+1 JohnKSa
SpectreBlofeld
New member
I don't have a problem with Glocks. Nor do I have a problem with their trigger design. But I will admit to cringing a little bit when I hear the 'trigger's trigger' being referred to as a 'safety'.
'Yo dawg, I heard you liked to shoot, so I put a trigger on your trigger so you can shoot while you shoot...'
I myself prefer a double-action first pull, and feel confident enough to carry a decocked cz p-01 or a kel-tec p11, but I'd never call a double-action trigger a 'safety...'
The light trigger pull of the Glock, in conjunction with no safety, is enough to make me nervous enough that I think I'd go the New York Trigger route if I picked up a Glock, or installed an aftermarket safety (as many others have, so I'm not alone). Or at the very least use of of those Saf-T-Lock things that snap in behind the trigger and can be popped out in an instant (not a terrible idea for carry with anything, IMHO, as long as it plays nice with holsters).
In any case, I think most people's protests to Glocks are a result of the audacity of calling that thing a 'safety'.
'Yo dawg, I heard you liked to shoot, so I put a trigger on your trigger so you can shoot while you shoot...'
I myself prefer a double-action first pull, and feel confident enough to carry a decocked cz p-01 or a kel-tec p11, but I'd never call a double-action trigger a 'safety...'
The light trigger pull of the Glock, in conjunction with no safety, is enough to make me nervous enough that I think I'd go the New York Trigger route if I picked up a Glock, or installed an aftermarket safety (as many others have, so I'm not alone). Or at the very least use of of those Saf-T-Lock things that snap in behind the trigger and can be popped out in an instant (not a terrible idea for carry with anything, IMHO, as long as it plays nice with holsters).
In any case, I think most people's protests to Glocks are a result of the audacity of calling that thing a 'safety'.
LightningJoe
New member
Actually, I started by asking what it did, then I opined that from what people posted it sounded like it didn't do much, then I reiterated that, then I said it bugged me. Which it does. I only started thinking about it because I saw something similar on the new "slim" Taurus 9mm.
This just seems like me-too-ism. Glock's a successful gun and others have copied it. Which seems fine to me (if they can keep it from looking like a 1911 drawn by a five-year-old), but I just don't like that doo-dad on the trigger.