Siderlock Safety for Glocks

[The Rabbi]

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.

Sorry. I forgot you were the only one, that you knew of, professional enough to handle a firearm.....

[Marswolf]

Sorry. I forgot you were the only one, that you knew of, professional enough to handle a firearm.....

That's alright sometimes people get forgetful.

[Guest dotsun]

I'm not a huge Glock fan, but I carry one as well as other weapons. My choice of the Glock was based on the information available to me when I purchased my carry weapon and the requirements I placed on it. The only criticism that I've heard that makes me second guess my decision in any way is from Mars regarding the unsupported chamber. I'm not sure if I would buy a Glock if I had to do it all over again but the odds are high that I would. Given Mars' recommendation, I might buy a Lorcin next time.

The only reason I even consider piping in to these threads is when it's alleged that Glocks or any firearm for that matter, just go off by themselves. Are SOME Glock owners negligent or just plain stupid? Yep, apparently moreso per capita than other gun owners. Is that the guns fault? I'm sure the Glock trigger and lack of manual safety contributes to it, but that doesn't change the basic fact that the operator is grossly negligent when it happens.

[Marswolf]

Most Glocks can get by pretty well with the unsupported chamber problem. The cartridge either has lower pressure, like the 45 ACP, or the surface area exposed in that unsupported area is small enough to not be a problem, as in 9mm. The biggest problem is in the 40 S&W, that has fairly high pressure combined with a fairly large surface area in the unsupported part of the chamber. But with normal loads, all you likely will ever get is a bit of a bulge. There just is very little safety factor in the chamber design. Too little for me to feel comfortable.

As to NDs, as molonlabetn pointed out, "the problem is that they are very unforgiving of incompetence". I think that's a pretty good summation. If you do everything right, you won't get a ND in a Glock. But other guns that you can get away with having a brain fart without it becoming a big incident may be a serious problem in a Glock.

My thinking is that while you can't make a gun foolproof, you can make more nearly foolproof with better design.

[deerslayer]

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.

I'm not sure what your background is or what these activities you and your men do, but, with all due respect, whatever works for you and your guys may not be the right thing for everyone else. If you are some Special Ops type, surely you know that several Special Ops Units as well as several SWAT units prefer 1911s--which, by the way, have lighter and shorter trigger pulls than a Glock. They do have grip safeties and manual safeties, but, when handled in the manner that you describe, all these safeties will be disengaged. But I digress. It's interesting that you claim not to bash something if you give a reason for the criticism, because I repeatedly asked you and TNDave what characteristic of the Glock made it so deadly, and all I got was "Glocks are dangerous," or "other designs are safer." Never any answers w/ substance. I asked TNDave a sincere question about the differences between the Glock and the M&P, since he supposedly has experience w/ both, but all I got was, "I don't have to worry about an ND w/ the M&P." When I asked you what guns were safer, you gave a poetry recital. You expressed a hint of rationality when you FINALLY mentioned that the M9 has a heavier, longer trigger pull. You confuse the situation even more when you claim that the Glock is a fine gun for the law enforcement officer, but a lousy choice for CCW. I'm not here to pick a fight or enter into the so-called "pissing contest;" I'm not "trolling" (whatever that means), I'm just curious about what Glock feature it is that critics find different about it, and seek a little clarification. Until the last few posts, I've had a hard time getting any type of explanantion. I don't claim to be a know-it-all, but I do know the Glock, and, so far, nobody here has explained how it is any more unsafe than a 1911, XD, M&P, Sigma, Taurus, High Power, Kahr, some SIGS, or any true double action that has been fired once and is thus a single action for subsequent shots. Anybody want to step up to the plate?

[deerslayer]

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.

This is the most rational post yet, except for the part about better shooters generally seeking more expensive guns. I totally disagree--in my typical shooting enviroment (an IDPA match, more often than not), we have a lot of outstanding, badass shooters who shoot $500 guns (and not just Glocks).

[DaveTN]

because I repeatedly asked you and TNDave what characteristic of the Glock made it so deadly, and all I got was "Glocks are dangerous," or "other designs are safer." Never any answers w/ substance. I asked TNDave a sincere question about the differences between the Glock and the M&P, since he supposedly has experience w/ both, but all I got was, "I don't have to worry about an ND w/ the M&P." When I asked you what guns were safer, you gave a poetry recital.

Most of the people that have concerns about the safety of a Glock have told you that they don’t hate Glocks. Before I made by decision about Glocks (many years ago) I spent hours doing the research, reading the reports of people that said they had Glocks discharge without pulling the trigger or had their Glocks blow up in their hands.

I found some of these reports to be creditable. Enough to make me not want to take the risk of having them around my family. Could I prove any this? I don’t have any desire to.

No one is going to take you by the hand and lead you to the thousands of stories and articles that have been written on this. I’m not going to waste my time posting information that those that care already know and those that don’t need to read and make up their own mind.

Is a Glock a POS? Is a 9mm as good a round as a .45ACP for ending a threat? Is a shotgun the best weapon for home defense? Are all handguns copied from a 1911? Are 10mm shooters really just a cult? Do I really have any 2nd amendment rights? Do cops need a warrant to search my house? Why are cops as a group not trained as well as all of us? Why can’t I carry a gun in a bar?

We could (and have) filled pages with questions like those. Those topics are interesting, informative, and always entertaining. But if you truly want to find the answers to those questions you need to do your own research.

[Guest canynracer]

Sounds like the makers of the product think there is a reason to create such a device...

***************************************************

SIDERLOCK® is a security trigger designed for Glock® pistols, which replaces the original trigger to offer a safer and more secure blockade of the firing action.

Glock® pistols are known for the ease and speed in which the pistol can be fired, and it is those very capabilities that require greater precautions when the pistol is not holstered or not in a position to be safely fired. Glocks® own built-in safety futures combined with the SIDERLOCK® trigger is the perfect combination to provide improved gun handling safety.

The SIDERLOCK® concept is simple: With a push on the safety pin a sliding pin acts to block or release the movement of the central pivot of the trigger, where by avoiding an accidental discharge when the slide is in the block position, and behaves exactly as the original Glock® trigger when in the release position, all the while maintaining the original manufacture specifications.

I am no expert, but I did google search glocks and their "issues" My best friend is a Glack fanatic, but for me, they just seem bulky, like a brick.

*******************************************************

My Sigma 9VE is based off of the glock design, it is narrower, and I like the heavier trigger pull, it is more of a "Saftey" feature....I just am not 100 percent sure about the Glocks yet...

[Marswolf]

I'm going to try to keep myself on topic in this thread but would like to continue one part of this in another topic.

So I created http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41588 that asks Why do you carry a Glock?

I'm interested in the positives in that topic, not why someone shouldn't carry one, if that is your view. I'd like to know why you chose to buy and carry a Glock.

As far as the Siderlock is concerned, I think it takes away one of the better features of Glocks - the lack of a manual safety you have to remember to deal with in a crisis situation.

[molonlabetn]

This is the most rational post yet, except for the part about better shooters generally seeking more expensive guns. I totally disagree--in my typical shooting enviroment (an IDPA match, more often than not), we have a lot of outstanding, badass shooters who shoot $500 guns (and not just Glocks).

Thank you sir.

But I must subjectively disagree, at least partly, with your final statement for this reason: The vast majority of serious 'gamers' that I have personally seen using Glocks, are using tricked-out, customized Glocks which were generally far more than just a $500 investment (simply an observation, not a rule, of course). By the time a Bar-Sto barrel, magwell, guide-rod, springs, trigger package, and sights are added, you're looking at a $1000 gun. IDPA is probably one of the purest forms of gaming, were fewer and less-customized guns are used, for sure, but we both know that when the stakes are higher, the competition is more serious, and the aptitude of the shooter is greater... they use customized or higher-end pistols whenever the rules allow.

[deerslayer]

Ok, ya got me--what I should have said was a lot of great shooters START w/ a $500 gun, and end up w/ something more expensive when they finish modifying it (even I change out the craptastic Glock sights). You would be suprised how many (in IDPA, at least) pretty much leave their guns alone, though. I was thinking along the lines of a Glock or a Smith or something similar being "low end," with the high end being a Wilson or a Nighthawk, instead of a stock Glock being "low end," and a modified Glock being "high end." However, you're not totally correct; in IDPA's SSP class, many of the features you describe are not allowed, and $500-600 guns are the rule and not the exception, but some incredibly talented shooters prefer this class. Even in USPSA production class, the custom options are limited, and some world-class shooters participate in this category. I know where you're coming from, though; we have some gunslingers who started out with a Beretta or a Glock, and now shoot tricked-out Kimbers and STIs. I just feel that the percentage of guys like that is lower than you do. I can't afford a Nighthawk, so I'm stuck w/ these plastic guns for a while.

[molonlabetn]

I'm stuck with the plastic guns, myself... and haven't had any trouble out of them. In some ways, I agree they may even be superior... the first thing that comes to mind is the hypothetical scenario of actually being involved in a self-defense shooting, and afterwards being forced to drop my pistol, perhaps on the pavement, and then let it sit in an evidence room and rust until I can get it back... I tell ya', $500 would hurt alot less than $3000!

To get back on-topic, I think that similar arguments for the Siderlock can be made for the grip-safety on the XD, and vice-versa. And I think the grip safety is a great idea.

[Marswolf]

If I have a problem with the grip safety on the XD, it's that is too easy to disengage. If I want a manual safety, then that's what I want.

When I had the XD, I learned to put my thumb on the slide as I re-holstered the weapon, which makes you take your hand off of the grip safety. That way, if something should hit the trigger, the gun will not fire.

[Guest db99wj]

If I have a problem with the grip safety on the XD, it's that is too easy to disengage. If I want a manual safety, then that's what I want.

When I had the XD, I learned to put my thumb on the slide as I re-holstered the weapon, which makes you take your hand off of the grip safety. That way, if something should hit the trigger, the gun will not fire.

That is how I have taught/trained myself in reholstering my XD, my thumb is on top of the slide.

[Guest TACTICAL45]

Hello, as you can see I am new here, by about 30 seconds. I found this/you by searching for a external safety for my duty weapon which is a G-22. I am a Hk/1911 guy from way back. So, yes I want a safety, been that way from the start. I would say most, not all people stay with what they are first taught on a topic that depends on your life, or some one else's as well. I will be going to the Glock armorer school here very soon. I have already installed the Slider Lock. It makes me feel a little bit safer. Not totally, but safer none the less. I have seen two cases of self shootings personally at the range. Both were competent shooters, and LEO's. Did I mention I am in Home Land Security, and a soon to be reservist for a local PD, taken tactical training for over 15 years? I had never shot a Glock before the beginning of this year. ( pd training for weeks with a Glock since) I have owned and still do own several different makes of weapons. But with out a safety, it's not safe to me.

I will try to break it down to save on writing:

1) You don't need to be touching the trigger with you finger to make it go off:

2) While in a well made holster, I feel as safe as I do with other hand guns, but in condition 1, ( the way I carry ) hands down a Glock is less safe than the others with a safety. (if you leave it cond. 1 while not in a holster, anything that can get into the trigger guard can fire the weapon)

3) I can shoot just as fast/accurate with or without a safety. Range instructor thought I left the safety off of my Tac. the whole coarse. Truth be told, as soon as it left the holster, the safety dropped, and after scanning, it went back on before holstering.

That is the basics for now. I will do my best to answer sensible questions regarding my post.

BTW, there are a few external safeties out there for a Glock. I am doing research right now from a few manufacturers. I have also seen pic's. of factory external safeties on Glocks. I have to get them pinned down to see if I can get my hands on some to test. When I am done I will buy 4 of the one's that I feel are the best for my 17-21-22-27's!

[Guest SUNTZU]

Here you go, Tactical.

http://www.tarnhelm.com/GlockSafety.html

[deerslayer]

So what's up with the bloody clothes?

[DWARREN123]

I do not believe it is needed but to each their own.

I like (not love) my GLOCK's, they are ugly and utility guns but mine have worked with without problems except for one too long of a OAL reloaded round.

They just plain work and are reliable. I have added a grip frame plug to both mine and that is all except for shooting the devil out of them. They run clean or dirty with any usable ammo.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

my finger is my safety on my GLOCK

[PackinMama]

I got a Saf-T-Blok for my G27 and I really like it. Here's a thread I started on it here....has some pictures of it if you're interested in checking it out:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5295

[Guest gunslinger707]

Glocks discharge without pulling the trigger.?. Take a Glock and load a blank round in it ahd see if you can make it discgarge without pulling the trigger. When Glock's first became popular w/ LE they were demonstrated to a local Sheriff Dept.by taking a loaded Gloxk17 and tossing it down the firiig range w/out it discharging !

Edited March 28, 2008 by gunslinger707
to corect spelling and punctuation.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

GLOCK do not go off with out pulling the trigger. that all there is to it show me one report where one did.

[Guest gunslinger707]

Glock Guy I AGREE !!!!!

[strickj]

1) You don't need to be touching the trigger with your finger to make it go off:

.....

[Guest TACTICAL45]

SUNTZU:

Thanks, already been there though.

deerslayer:

Picture shows all information needed.

Glock Guy:

Your finger is not the only thing that can make the gun go off when a safety is not provided and used.

PacknMama:

Seen those as well, not quite what I am looking for, thanks.

Gunslinger-Glock Guy:

Have you ever really looked into the tests? There have been "Frisbee", helicopter drops, and many more. But all it takes is to drop it on the rear end, and yes it has been shown to fire. I do believe that one individual had it fire just from slamming a mag in. And some of us know you can return the slide forward just from inserting a mag. Used to screw up my Tap-Rack-and Re-access drills. I would recommend you do more research , or adjust your reply to a question before make a bold statement as you have. There is plenty of information out there, as long as you can read this, you have the same ability as I did to find it.