Fondled a Gen 4 Glock 22 today. ...

[Guest HexHead]

Pretty nice feeling without the additional back straps. Felt positively svelte in my hand. Almost too small for me, as I have long fingers. Jury's still out forme on the RTF2 (or is it 3?) finish. The finger grooves felt more comfortable than the G17 I held immediately afterwards. I could see getting my wife a 19 or 26 when they come available for the shorter reach to the trigger.

[Guest jackdm3]

You say "fondle" and I get sick. No matter what you're referring to. Thanks for that.

[Guest Tenngunner]

Darn, HexHead-

I was (almost) hopin' you'd say they told you it was (now) available with a 1911-style safety as an option!

Oh well, dreamin' never hurt anybody.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Tenngunner
Punctuation.

[Guest HexHead]

Darn, HexHead-

I was (almost) hopin' you'd say they told you it was (now) available with a 1911-style safety as an option!

Oh well, dreamin' never hurt anybody.

There was a guy at the Goodman show a few months back that was putting those type safeties on Glocks on site for about $70 IIRC.

Personally, I really don't feel as if they need them.

I was talking to a friend of mine recently about it and he was saying "you want the same manual of arms for all your guns", since I usually carry a 1911. I told him it was no problem, I sweep my thumb regardless, if there's a safety there, it pushes it off, if not, my grip is ready to fire.

Or get a Para LDA. Similar trigger to a Glock (though smoother and lighter) and a 1911 style safety.

[StPatrick]

Darn, HexHead-

I was (almost) hopin' you'd say they told you it was (now) available with a 1911-style safety as an option!

Oh well, dreamin' never hurt anybody.

You can bet your bottom dollar that a frame or slide-mounted safety will never be an option on a Glock. The "Safe Action" design is Gaston's bread and butter, and he would never water it down with another (hence redundant) safety. Doing so would imply that a Glock could be made more "safe", which would be a major marketing no-no. Glock pistols are sold based on price point, ease of use, and safety. To undercut any one of those promises would make their existing models less desireable (sp?), and with their popularity among LEOs, that would be corporate suicide. A frame or slide-mounted safety on a new Glock pistol would allow people all over the US and Europe to demand that Glocks without such a safety device, in the hands of our protectors, be turned in in favor of more "safe" weapons, lest lawsuits follow. Beretta, Smith, and maybe even Springfield then laugh all the way to the bank as police departments and other enforcement agencies migrate to models with more safety features.

For disclosure purposes, I don't own a Glock, but I appreciate them as examples of good engineering. They are perfect point and click devices, so long as they fit your hands. They don't fit mine, but I have no ill will towards them.

[Guest CK1]

You can bet your bottom dollar that a frame or slide-mounted safety will never be an option on a Glock. The "Safe Action" design is Gaston's bread and butter, and he would never water it down with another (hence redundant) safety.

Don't bet that bottom dollar just yet...

Glock w/ factory manual safety.

Glock will supply external safeties when they HAVE to, but the original design is just as safe without one and is why they're designed and most found the way they are.

I don't think they need a safety and could argue that an external safety just makes them more unsafe in that it could get the user shot as they're to disengage it...

JMHO, but wish people could hold back their opinions about them until they've lived with one (goes for all guns w/o an external safety), Sigs don't have a safety either and don't get even near the bad rap Glocks do.

The only real safety is between your ears.

To the OP, how'd the mag release feel? I'm more worried the reversable mag release could be a failure point than excited for the changeable backstraps...

Edited January 15, 2010 by CK1

[DavidD]

You can bet your bottom dollar that a frame or slide-mounted safety will never be an option on a Glock. The "Safe Action" design is Gaston's bread and butter, and he would never water it down with another (hence redundant) safety. Doing so would imply that a Glock could be made more "safe", which would be a major marketing no-no. Glock pistols are sold based on price point, ease of use, and safety. To undercut any one of those promises would make their existing models less desireable (sp?), and with their popularity among LEOs, that would be corporate suicide. A frame or slide-mounted safety on a new Glock pistol would allow people all over the US and Europe to demand that Glocks without such a safety device, in the hands of our protectors, be turned in in favor of more "safe" weapons, lest lawsuits follow. Beretta, Smith, and maybe even Springfield then laugh all the way to the bank as police departments and other enforcement agencies migrate to models with more safety features.

For disclosure purposes, I don't own a Glock, but I appreciate them as examples of good engineering. They are perfect point and click devices, so long as they fit your hands. They don't fit mine, but I have no ill will towards them.

Bad news, there were some Generation I G17's with a frame mounted safety on the side. I believe they were designated G17S.

[DavidD]

Don't bet that bottom dollar just yet...

Glock w/ factory manual safety.

I don't think they need a safety and could argue that an external safety just makes them more unsafe in that it could get the user shot as they're disengaging it...

JMHO, but wish people could hold back their opinions about them until they've lived with one.

Cool, didn't know about those, I was refering to this:

Edited January 15, 2010 by DavidD
Added pic

[THE COOP]

"I don't think they need a safety and could argue that an external safety just makes them more unsafe in that it could get the user shot as they're disengaging it...

JMHO, but wish people could hold back their opinions about them until they've lived with one (goes for all guns w/o an external safety), Sigs don't have a safety either and don't get even near the bad rap Glocks do.

The only real safety is between your ears"

+100!!!! I own both, I carry both, I like both just the way they are. Now can we please move on from Glock's with a external safety!!!!!! COOP

[Guest Ae-35]

That was and has been there biggest selling point, just like a wheel-gun, they won't go off unless you press the trigger. I don't constantly hear folks holler'n for Smith or Ruger to put manual safeties on their wheel-guns? THE ONLY REAL SAFETY IS YER "BOGGIER HOOKER"

[DavidD]

THE ONLY REAL SAFETY IS YER "BOGGIER HOOKER"

Right on Both of my main EDC's have a manual safeties that I never use.

[Guest Tenngunner]

HexHead:

There was a guy at the Goodman show a few months back that was putting those type safeties on Glocks on site for about $70 IIRC.

Interesting-

Could you give a bit more detail about this, please? How was he able to put them in 'on site' and for only $70? Not doubting your word, but just want a bit more information. Did you get a name/card/number/location?

Yes, I know I'm a pest....

Thanks for mentioning... (Pandora's box?!)

[Guest Tenngunner]

DavidD:

Both of my main EDC's have a manual safeties that I never use.

Yes, I know-I've heard all these arguments 1000x, and still disagree.

Gaston is very old (yes, I have a lot of respect for the man)-and his son Robert is much, much more 'Americanized'...and has been running the Smyrna branch (largely behind the scenes) for a good number of years.

Gaston won't be running Glock much longer, and you'll see a lot of changes, when he retires, or passes on. He already has added new executives, in anticipation of this. I hope he lives to be 99, but change is the one constant in life.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Tenngunner
Spelling.

[Guest Tenngunner]

I own both, I carry both, I like both just the way they are. Now can we please move on from Glock's with a external safety!!!!!!

Good on you, bro-but I don't. I just want the option...what's the deal with that, as long as you 'purists' can still have your 'original'?

Cool, didn't know about those, I was refering to this:

Exactly what I want-good pic! Don't forget they put them on the 21, for the Army trials, a few years back. So the 'never' argument is incorrect. Yes-it was due to the specifications, but they still did it, to be competitive. They will do whatever the market (or new laws-not wishing for any) calls for.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Tenngunner
Fix.

[Metalhead]

I'm at home today, but supposedly we're getting in a GEN4 G22 according to Dennis today. Dunno what the price is.

[DavidD]

Cool, just so happens I'll be there this afternoon. Any idea what time frame?

[Metalhead]

We generally get UPS in before we open. However, depending on how much stuff we get in it could take her a bit to get it logged in and put out.

[fastbs]

daves pawn shop in cookeville has a couple on the way.

[Guest HexHead]

A frame or slide-mounted safety on a new Glock pistol would allow people all over the US and Europe to demand that Glocks without such a safety device, in the hands of our protectors, be turned in in favor of more "safe" weapons, lest lawsuits follow. Beretta, Smith, and maybe even Springfield then laugh all the way to the bank as police departments and other enforcement agencies migrate to models with more safety features.

For disclosure purposes, I don't own a Glock, but I appreciate them as examples of good engineering. They are perfect point and click devices, so long as they fit your hands. They don't fit mine, but I have no ill will towards them.

Not to mention open them up to lawsuits from everyone that ever had a ND with one. I hear the lawyers now claiming "see, by putting this extra safety on now, Glock has admitted there guns weren't safe, so you must find in favor of my client."

[JReedEsq]

Why does every thread about Glocks have to end up with a debate about the merits of an external safety v/s no external safety?

Some of us just want to hear about updates to the ergonomics or performance of the gun. Or in my case, some of just want to know when new 26's will be available and the price etc...

[Guest HexHead]

HexHead:

Interesting-

Could you give a bit more detail about this, please? How was he able to put them in 'on site' and for only $70? Not doubting your word, but just want a bit more information. Did you get a name/card/number/location?

Yes, I know I'm a pest....

Thanks for mentioning... (Pandora's box?!)

Looks like I was wrong on the price, it was a while ago, but this appears to be it...

COMINOLLI : MANUAL SAFETY KIT FOR GLOCK - World's Largest Supplier of Firearm Accessories, Gun Parts and Gunsmithing Tools

No, I didn't pay any attention to his booth, I didn't have a Glock yet and wouldn't have been interested in any event, other than just curiosity.

[JReedEsq]

Not to mention open them up to lawsuits from everyone that ever had a ND with one. I hear the lawyers now claiming "see, by putting this extra safety on now, Glock has admitted there guns weren't safe, so you must find in favor of my client."

That arguement would go nowhere fast. If that were the case all automakers would be sued for previously selling cars w/o airbags etc...

[Guest HexHead]

You say "fondle" and I get sick. No matter what you're referring to. Thanks for that.

I didn't realize you were the sensitive type. :D

[Guest HexHead]

That arguement would go nowhere fast. If that were the case all automakers would be sued for previously selling cars w/o airbags etc...

In the right, err wrong parts of the country, juries might not be quite as lenient with a gun manufacturer.

[Guest Ae-35]

Why does every thread about Glocks have to end up with a debate about the merits of an external safety v/s no external safety?

Some of us just want to hear about updates to the ergonomics or performance of the gun. Or in my case, some of just want to know when new 26's will be available and the price etc...

+1, If ya want a thumb safety buy something else !!!