Siderlock Safety for Glocks

[DaveTN]

BTW, I see you're a Smith guy--do you use an M&P or a 59 series or what? I believe the M&P is definitely here to stay--have heard nothing but good about it. I haven't fired one yet, but will at first opportunity.

I’m not a cop anymore, so I don’t use anything for a duty weapon. But I own an M&P and have owned probably every S&W and most other popular carry guns at one point or another.

[deerslayer]

That’s a pretty impressive statistic. How many people have you taken at gun point; as compared to the average cop? I mean that is what we are talking about, whether or not you have your finger on the trigger in a deadly force situation.

And that is what I'm talking about--if you have your finger on the trigger in a deadly force situation, how is the Glock any more dangerous? Is it because it doesn't have a 12 pound trigger, like many traditional double actions? And does a 5.5 Glock trigger result in "Glock leg?" If so, why did the guy with "Glock leg" have the Glock pointed at his leg when he pulled the trigger? Would this injury have been prevented if he had used a 1911 or a SIG or an XD? I'm not trying to be smart here, just trying to understand the difference that makes a Glock supposedly so dangerous.

Also, (off topic a little) how does the M&P trigger compare to a Glock's? (regarding safety AND shootability)

[Guest price g]

If you need a safety, you probably don't need the Glock,just my o2

[DaveTN]

And that is what I'm talking about--if you have your finger on the trigger in a deadly force situation, how is the Glock any more dangerous? Is it because it doesn't have a 12 pound trigger, like many traditional double actions?

You are confused. I’m the one saying that if you can’t put your finger on the trigger of a handgun without fear that it will discharge…. It is not safe to be carrying as a defensive handgun. The Glocksters are the ones saying it is not safe to do that and that anyone that does it is either not properly trained or is a cowboy ninja.

And does a 5.5 Glock trigger result in "Glock leg?" If so, why did the guy with "Glock leg" have the Glock pointed at his leg when he pulled the trigger?

If the guy pointed the gun at his leg and pulled the trigger it is not the fault of the weapon or operator error. He obviously was trying to shoot his leg.

If he didn’t pull the trigger and the gun discharged due to being bumped; it is the fault of the weapon.

Would this injury have been prevented if he had used a 1911 or a SIG or an XD? I'm not trying to be smart here, just trying to understand the difference that makes a Glock supposedly so dangerous.

It wouldn’t happen with a 1911 unless his hand was wrapped around the grip, the thumb safety was off and he pulled the trigger. I don’t think there are many PD’s using XD’s so I doubt you will find much data on that. As far as the Sig; what does all the data you have on LEO’s tell you?

Also, (off topic a little) how does the M&P trigger compare to a Glock's? (regarding safety AND shootability)

I have no fear of my M&P discharging without me pulling the trigger. But then I have never had an ND or AD in my life.

Are you denying that Glock had problems and recalled weapons for “upgrades�

I don’t care how many Glock you own. I was just saying that if you have an AD with one you will never convince the Glockers that you are anything more than another untrained goon that doesn’t know how to use a handgun.

[deerslayer]

You are confused. I’m the one saying that if you can’t put your finger on the trigger of a handgun without fear that it will discharge…. It is not safe to be carrying as a defensive handgun. The Glocksters are the ones saying it is not safe to do that and that anyone that does it is either not properly trained or is a cowboy ninja.

If the guy pointed the gun at his leg and pulled the trigger it is not the fault of the weapon or operator error. He obviously was trying to shoot his leg.

If he didn’t pull the trigger and the gun discharged due to being bumped; it is the fault of the weapon.

It is not safe to wave around ANY gun with your finger on the trigger and expect nothing to happen. Obviously, you have to put your finger on the trigger sooner or later if you plan to shoot something, but when drawing from a holster or while walking around is not the time to do it. A grip safety doesn't help here--if you have a firing grip on the gun (which most will upon completing the first step of a draw) the safety in disengaged.

As for the guy who shot himself in the leg, Glocks don't discharge "due to being bumped." He pulled the trigger.

[deerslayer]

I have no fear of my M&P discharging without me pulling the trigger. But then I have never had an ND or AD in my life.

Wow, that was an informative answer.

[deerslayer]

I don’t care how many Glock you own. I was just saying that if you have an AD with one you will never convince the Glockers that you are anything more than another untrained goon that doesn’t know how to use a handgun.

And if a guy has an AD w/ his M&P, what will that make him?

[Marswolf]

If you run around with your finger on the trigger, how is the Glock any more unsafe than anything else? What does it matter?

Well, I guess some guns are just safer to run around with your finger on the trigger than other guns.

Let's see, more Glocks are sold so more Glockings occur with them? Now think about it. I hear a lot about NDs with Glocks. Occasionally I hear of one with XDs, which are pretty much Glocks with a grip safety. 1911s occasionally have a ND. I haven't heard of any M&Ps having the problem, but since they are also awfully Glock-like, they probably have some NDs of similar nature. But in the aggregate, there are a lot more handguns out there of other brands than Glocks. Sorry, I just don't buy the idea that Glock sales dwarf all other guns on the market and that is why there are so many more NDs with them. You're going to have to come up with sales figures showing Glock sales at five or six times more than any other brand to prove your contention before I'll accept it. Clearly this is not the factor driving the number of Glock NDs.

In my little area, we have seven Glock NDs I know of that actually caused wounding to the shooter. There is one 1911 ND I know of that was caused by drunkenness. I know of one XD ND from firing before field stripping (but unlike the others no injury). H&K, Kel-Tec, S&W, Ruger, Beretta...everything else? None, as far as I've heard. None!

Glocks are fine LE duty weapons. But the fact is they are not as safe as other handguns, even the handguns that are very similar to them in design. Why is that so hard to accept or admit?

People who carry Glocks are not fools. That's not what I am saying, by any means. They carry a highly reliable, accurate and repeatable handgun. I just dispute that it is the best choice for most people to carry. There are equally reliable, as accurate and repeatable - and safer - guns on the market. Many have lower prices. Different guns fit different niches. Glock's niche is as a reasonably priced LE duty weapon. It is very good in that role.

But if the role is as a concealed carry handgun for the public, or if you use cheap factory ammunition or reloads, or if you aren't willing to keep safe handling of your handgun as a top mental priority (which very few packers do), then you should buy something else.

I mentioned above that I have buddies who of necessity sweep me with their loaded and ready to fire firearms. But none of them are carrying Glocks or Glock-like weapons. I would indeed feel very uncomfortable with them sweeping me with a Glock.

[deerslayer]

Glocks are fine LE duty weapons. But the fact is they are not as safe as other handguns, even the handguns that are very similar to them in design. Why is that so hard to accept or admit?

Because I fail to see how they are not as safe. What is the difference?

I mentioned above that I have buddies who of necessity sweep me with their loaded and ready to fire firearms. But none of them are carrying Glocks or Glock-like weapons. I would indeed feel very uncomfortable with them sweeping me with a Glock.

That's comical. Just out of curiosity, what kind of loaded handgun do you feel comfortable being swept with?

[DaveTN]

And if a guy has an AD w/ his M&P, what will that make him?

Well since the M&P is relative new to the market and many PD's have either made the switch to it or are considering doing so; I’m sure an AD will get the attention of many people that want to find out if the weapon malfunctioned or if the operator made a mistake.

But I’m positive that in the internet world there will be pro M&P users that will say that the operator must have been an idiot and needs more training. They will talk about how the M&P is the perfect weapon for everyone including LEO’s and they will continually post that they do not understand how a mechanical device could have failed.

[Marswolf]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of loaded handgun do you feel comfortable being swept with?

Safer handguns than Glocks in the hands of well trained men.

Men as in:

"O for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country? Hardly one." - Thoreau "CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE"

[deerslayer]

Why are you afraid to answer my simple question?

[GhostDog]

Don't know where you worked but I was a cop too. Most departments DO NOT have excellent training, they have the "lowest common denominator" training. Do you contend that the same depts that buy Glocks because they are cheaper then turn around and spend a lot of time/money on training? That makes no sense.

It seems to me that the guys that prefer Glocks ON THIS SITE generally ask sensible questions and make dispassionate arguments whereas the Glock haters are the ones that run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Your prejudice against the pistols is so strong that you argue yourselves in circles and contradict what you yourself said 5 minutes ago. You talk about the "best" guns for CCW carriers in one breath and then start talking about some ninja BS like going through life w/ your finger on the trigger. What does that have to do w/ the average CCW guy?

Are there some circumstances where it would make sense to have one's finger on the trigger? Sure, but those would be the exception rather than the rule.

Just some friendly advice: Don't start believing your own press. No matter who you are (or were), when you start to believe your own BS there's always someone just around the corner ready to eat your lunch.

[Mike.357]

Deerslayer, not to speak for Mars but I think it is obvious he is speaking about people he associates with on a professional basis.

[DaveTN]

Don't know where you worked but I was a cop too. Most departments DO NOT have excellent training, they have the "lowest common denominator" training.

Sorry, you didn’t have good training where you were and were afraid you were going to shoot some kid in the dark. Maybe you should have sought out some better training.

It seems to me that the guys that prefer Glocks ON THIS SITE generally ask sensible questions and make dispassionate arguments whereas the Glock haters are the ones that run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Sure… I can tell from this thread that the Glocksters are pretty dispassionate and making a lot of sense. As I said I don’t hate Glocks; buy all you like.

Your prejudice against the pistols is so strong that you argue yourselves in circles and contradict what you yourself said 5 minutes ago.

Like what?

You talk about the "best" guns for CCW carriers in one breath and then start talking about some ninja BS like going through life w/ your finger on the trigger. What does that have to do w/ the average CCW guy?

Are there some circumstances where it would make sense to have one's finger on the trigger? Sure, but those would be the exception rather than the rule.

You mean like in an armed confrontation?

Just some friendly advice: Don't start believing your own press. No matter who you are (or were), when you start to believe your own BS there's always someone just around the corner ready to eat your lunch.

I don't know what that means either.

[Guest Steelharp]

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC, and away from the usual pi$$ing contest...

The reason for the space and cutout in the Glock back strap is to allow the shooter to reach in and pull a stuck magazine.

Mars was correct, it's there for a rifle stock. That was the design.

[Marswolf]

not to speak for Mars but I think it is obvious he is speaking about people he associates with on a professional basis.

Yeah, I'm talking about being swept by men in situations where you are likely to have to actually fire your firearms. I'm not trying to be dramatic, but we are talking about situations where it is probable you will fire, not just possible. As I said, getting swept is inevitable. I didn't say it is desirable. But with people trained to act under those situations, it is something you get used to - not comfortable with. But to work, you need men with proper training and the firearms can't have too light a trigger pull or a too short a trigger throw. For this application, M9s work fine, Glocks don't.

Internet posting is an interesting thing. One person's posts that he thinks are terrific arguments for his position are viewed by others as trolling.

The Glock debate seems to come down to a couple of armed camps. [Pun intended] Glock lovers think that those who don't agree with them are prejudiced. And Glock non-lovers (I won't agree that "Glock haters" is an accurate term) think that the Glock lovers are irrationally unable to admit the handgun's faults despite pages of explanation.

It's a matter of perception.

But to get back on topic, I agree with the general mood here. One of the things I like about a Glock is that it has no safety to get in the way if the adrenalin starts flowing. If I want a gun with a manual safety, there are plenty of other choices on the market.

[The Rabbi]

Second, this idea of keeping your finger off of the trigger is a bunch of crap in the world I deal in. Yes...I keep my finger off of the trigger on the firing range. But in the field, with a drawn handgun or an M16 or other rifle, you will find my firearm ready to fire and my finger on the trigger. If you are with me and tell me I'm doing it wrong, I will remind you that I've been doing this for a long-long while and am still alive because I know what to do - and that I am not some snotty nose idiot and do not care to hear the opinion of someone who is one. I will then explain to you that you need to go back to base camp, get a dose of reality, and then back to your mama.

The NRA's Four Rules Of Gun Safety:

2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

Found here: http://www.aaof.com/gsr.htm

Yeah, a lot of people in 'Nam kept their fingers on the triggers of the M16. That's why "friendly fire" statistics were so high.

My mother is a terrible driver and when I mention this to her she tells me, "I've been driving since before you were born." Doing something wrong for 5,10, 50 years doesn't make it right.

Glocks are a lot less forgiving of violating the rules than other guns. But that doesn't mean the shooter isn't culpable for basic safety violation.

If you want to go around with your finger on the trigger all the time, go right ahead. But when you have a ND and kill someone go ahead and tell the DA about your superior experience.

Geez, yet another Glock bashing thread. Where's the barf smiley?

[molonlabetn]

Because I fail to see how they are not as safe. What is the difference?

The fact of the matter is that Glocks are perfectly safe when not handled... the problem is that they are very unforgiving of incompetence, as evidenced by the disproportionate number of NDs involving Glocks.

This phenomenon can be directly attributed to the simplicity of the weapon, and it's ease of activating the firing mechanism, IN CONJUNCTION with carelessness on the part of the user. I agree with those that have stated that the ultimate responsibility for safety lies with the user, but also recognize that the combination of Glock and incompetence is more common than other makes, for varying reasons.

I would not feel uncomfortable carrying a Glock if I had to, since I am aware of it's sensitivity to carelessness... but I would not feel safe in the presence of the persons who carry one because their Glock was the lowest bid, were trained by the lowest bid (if at all), and are themselves the lowest bidder to perform the job which they are equipped with the Glock to perform. That just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, and every few weeks there is another example of why.

The reason why 'idiot proof' is desirable is because some people are idiots.

The rest of the problem lies with the fact that the caliber of professional/gun-owner who is properly competent and trained or safety-conscious enough to be responsible with their weapons generally become more likely to prefer higher end weapons (this is a generalization, not the rule... nor imply anything negative about competent folks who do choose Glocks).

Higher budget for training usually means a higher budget for tools. Simple enough.

So, Glocks are not in and of themselves 'unsafe'... But they are more likely to produce a harmful result if they are treated in a careless manner.

[Guest 0down]

I second what rabbi said. I don't care how experienced and trained you are there is nothing anyone says that is going to convince me that you are not human and thus subject to error. The reason there are 4 rules is so you have to break 2 of them before someone gets hurt.

To put this thread back on topic, this trigger safety is a bad idea because it requires fine motor skills to operate. If you are in fear of your life, and you need to use a gun equipped with this, you will have difficulty disengaging the safety. When humans get scared, your body's fear response kicks in and you will experience among other things, a loss of fine motor skills.

http://www.lwcbooks.com/articles/anatomy.html

[The Rabbi]

So, Glocks are not in and of themselves 'unsafe'... But they are more likely to produce a harmful result if they are treated in a careless manner.

Can we just post this comment the next time a Glock thread comes around? Save us all lots of time and trouble.

[Guest 0down]

Guns do not kill, people do. Guns do not have NDs or ADs, people do, because they broke 2 or more of the four rules. Does anyone have a report of a spontaneous discharge of a GLOCK?

Because it can't be said too often...

RULE I:ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET AND YOU ARE READY TO FIRE.

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT.

[GhostDog]

I did seek out better training, ON MY OWN. I didn't wait for the dept to do it for me. Excellence is always individual, it can't be instituted, it must be worked for.

I was afraid sometimes. It kept me sharp and kept me from doing something stupid that would get me or someone else hurt. It kept me from charging in like the big bad PO-liceman w/ something to prove. Sounds like that might have been a problem for you.

Not all armed encounters are the same. One has to adjust to the situation. Always having your finger on the trigger isn't the answer. Confident officers using good tactics usually have options.

Try this at the range sometimes. From a ready position, start w/ finger on the trigger and then off the trigger. Engage a target on signal using a timer. You may find that there's little or no difference in response time.

[GhostDog]

Not all of my comments about the Glock haters were in reference to you specifically, Dave. Sorry about the confusion.

[Marswolf]

Oh jeez (or Al or Mose or whatever).

It never ceases to amaze me how people who have never been in harms way know exactly how those who do serve should conduct themselves. The NRA rules are fine for average people in average situations. I and the combat veteran men I have served with keep our finger on the trigger - just as we have been taught to do - and I will continue to do so in appropriate situations. Thank you very much for your advice but we prefer to give ourselves every break and stay alive if possible.

BTW, Vietnam had significantly fewer friendly fire deaths by percentage than World War II, or Desert Storm.

And I might suggest that being critical of Glocks, or any other gun related gadget is not bashing them if you give reasons for the criticism. This looks like a repeating theme for some people. We shouldn't be critical of anything but just let the fans of gun-x rant on with their love fest whether justified or not.

OK, Lorcins are wonderful! They never go off unless you pull the trigger - right? Now don't bash them by pointing out other problems they might have....

Sounds like San Francisco in the 60s. Lets all just love each other and ignore reality.