No More Glock Butt

[mikegideon]

Yep. Kinda like passing more stupid gun laws because the other stupid gun laws don't work.

[Zeus]

The main reason I own Glocks is simplicity. This is just another thing to mess up in the middle of the night when I need the weapon. I want to just grab the gun, aim and start pulling the trigger.

[Lumber_Jack]

I have seen Gocks at gun shows for sale with this installed, I immediately turned and walked away. Good luck selling any guns with this installed. I carry a 1911, so I am used to a thumb safety but this is just redicluous. I agree "keep your booger hook off the bang switch"

[Guest dubaholic2]

you couldnt pay me to mess up my perfectly good glock with this crap. my $.02

[Guest m&pc9]

Glock Manual Safety Kit by Cominolli Custom | USA Carry

Cominolli Custom come up with an external safety for Glock Pistols

Saving asses one gun at a time!

[East_TN_Patriot]

Well, I looked at that Cop Talk article linked in the original story. That's one of the first times I absolutely have to disagree with Massad Ayoob. I've never known a cop, police department, or police firearms instructor (and I used to be one) who thinks it's a good idea for a cop to carry their handgun with a manual safety engaged. No way would I add one of those to my G22.

[Guest Red5]

Well, I looked at that Cop Talk article linked in the original story. That's one of the first times I absolutely have to disagree with Massad Ayoob. I've never known a cop, police department, or police firearms instructor (and I used to be one) who thinks it's a good idea for a cop to carry their handgun with a manual safety engaged. No way would I add one of those to my G22.

I agree. I have always thought of him as THE authority on these types of things; that one surprised me. Also, is it that common for an officer to loose his weapon to a bad guy? I'm not a LEO and I know situations are different for them but if it gets to that point, wouldn't you be justified in USING your weapon before you loose it?

[Guest Bronker]

Reasonable control and awareness of these two objects suffice as the only weapon safety I wish to employ.

[Guest DanE479]

I agree. I have always thought of him as THE authority on these types of things; that one surprised me. Also, is it that common for an officer to loose his weapon to a bad guy? I'm not a LEO and I know situations are different for them but if it gets to that point, wouldn't you be justified in USING your weapon before you loose it?

As soon as a subject trys to take your weapon away from you, you are in a deadly force scenario and you are allowed to do whatever you have to to resolve the situation up to and including lethal force. The reasoning is that is the subject gets your weapon, it will endager other lives.

Wether or not a pistol has a manual safety is irrelevent to weapon retention. Period. People need to stop trying to use hardware fixes for software problems. Weapon retention is MINDSET based, plain and simple. Ayoob is full of crap on this one. I stopped reading his articles long ago when I realized that his mindset is incorrect. Refer to James Yeager, Pat Rodgers or CLint Smith on weapon retention as they have thier heads bolted on straight.

"Glock Butt" is a result of stupid people with firearms, not the pistol.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I agree. I have always thought of him as THE authority on these types of things; that one surprised me. Also, is it that common for an officer to loose his weapon to a bad guy? I'm not a LEO and I know situations are different for them but if it gets to that point, wouldn't you be justified in USING your weapon before you loose it?

Yes, once it gets to that point, it's game on. As DanE points out, weapon retention is primarily mental. If you exercise proper safety and awareness, chances are very small that a suspect will get the officer's weapon. Also, this is a fairly rare event in today's world where officers are better trained and have better duty holsters. I carried my duty gun in a Safariland 070 that has three retention devices. I was able to draw from it very quickly, but if someone doesn't know how to use it, it would be really hard for them to gain access to the firearm.

[Guest Octo]

If I wanted an external safety, I would use a 1911.

[tnhawk]

My G27 has a manual safety. It's worked my entire life without a failure. If I handle my pistol safely, there are no accidents with it.

Also, if I don't hit anything I don't need a seatbelt.

[Spook]

"Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."

[East_TN_Patriot]

Regarding the argument that LEOs need an external safety to prevent them from being killed by their own handgun, FBI stats on officers killed shows that out of 48 officers who were feloniously killed in 2009:

• Most officers slain in 2009 (45 of the 48) were killed with firearms. Of those killed with firearms, 28 were killed with handguns.
  
• 2 officers were killed with their own weapons.
  
• 9 officers attempted to use their weapons; 12 officers fired their weapons.
  
• 19 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.
  

Only 2 (4.2%) were killed using their own handgun. Doesn't sound like much of a reason to install an external safety on the Glock.

[mikegideon]

Seems to me, the relevent percentage would be the number of LEO's killed by their own weapons vs the total number of Glocks in the field.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Seems to me, the relevent percentage would be the number of LEO's killed by their own weapons vs the total number of Glocks in the field.

Ultimately, yes, but considering that only 2 officers were killed using their own firearm, and we know that the Glock has been adopted by the majority of officers/agencies in the US, it only stands to reason that the percentage of killings to Glocks would be lower. Even if both officers were killed with Glocks, that wouldn't change the fact that the number of officers killed with their own gun is so small that it's pretty much a non-issue.

[Guest Ugrey]

Gentlemen, I am an old dinosaur at age 52. My first pistol, at age 21, was a .45 Colt Government model, series '70. So, I have lived with a cocked and locked pistol. I have fired a number of Glocks and I would just rather not live 24 hours a day x 365 days a year, at times when I am half asleep, sick, extremely pre occupied with something else, carrying a pistol with a 5 pound, 1/2 inch travel, trigger. I am much more comfortable with my Smith and Wesson 6906 that has a 12 pound, 7/10s of an inch trigger pull for the first shot and a better, lighter trigger pull, than a Glock, after that. I know many of you will say you cannot handle the double action, single action change after the first shot, but I promise you, after a thousand rounds, or less, it is no big deal. I can also holster this pistol while my thumb is on the bobbed hammer, so that I am SURE that the trigger has not hung up on anything. I don't think you can do that with a striker fired pistol.

Has the AD/ND rate not gone up with departments that have adopted Glocks? I don't think I could sell a Glock to a first time pistol buyer, and be able to sleep at night. It seems to me that the scene in Black Hawk Down, where the Delta operative tells the Ranger Colonel that he does not have to have his safety flipped on, on his AR, because his finger is his safety, has spoiled you young whipper snappers. While I might trust a Delta member that way, I am not so sure about the rest of you monkeys. :-) Someone up above said Glocks have taken the place of revolvers. Well, most revolvers I ever fired were 9 to 12 pound, and had 6 to 8/10s of trigger travel.

I am still a Glock skeptic. I just think there are better, safer trigger systems like the old Walther type system on my S&W 6906, or the Sig DA/SA hammer drop systems.

I have a thick skin, and a flame suit on, so tell me how wrong and old fashioned I am. I will probably just tell you to get off my lawn.

[Guest DanE479]

Ugrey:

THis argument is not about Glocks versus anything else. It's about some idiot marketing an aftermarket part that requires cutting into the frame and marketing it as safer.

THis is about people trying to make a gun into something it was never meant to be. It's about people thinking that the presence of a manual safety can take the place of constant vigilence in keeping your booger hook off the trigger.

You can be a Glock skeptic all you want. Nobody is stopping you.

Glock is here, it's safe when people are trained and follow the commandments of firearms, and it has one of the lowest failure rates of any other pistol make out there.

[Erik88]

Gentlemen, I am an old dinosaur at age 52. My first pistol, at age 21, was a .45 Colt Government model, series '70. So, I have lived with a cocked and locked pistol. I have fired a number of Glocks and I would just rather not live 24 hours a day x 365 days a year, at times when I am half asleep, sick, extremely pre occupied with something else, carrying a pistol with a 5 pound, 1/2 inch travel, trigger. I am much more comfortable with my Smith and Wesson 6906 that has a 12 pound, 7/10s of an inch trigger pull for the first shot and a better, lighter trigger pull, than a Glock, after that. I know many of you will say you cannot handle the double action, single action change after the first shot, but I promise you, after a thousand rounds, or less, it is no big deal. I can also holster this pistol while my thumb is on the bobbed hammer, so that I am SURE that the trigger has not hung up on anything. I don't think you can do that with a striker fired pistol.

Has the AD/ND rate not gone up with departments that have adopted Glocks? I don't think I could sell a Glock to a first time pistol buyer, and be able to sleep at night. It seems to me that the scene in Black Hawk Down, where the Delta operative tells the Ranger Colonel that he does not have to have his safety flipped on, on his AR, because his finger is his safety, has spoiled you young whipper snappers. While I might trust a Delta member that way, I am not so sure about the rest of you monkeys. :-) Someone up above said Glocks have taken the place of revolvers. Well, most revolvers I ever fired were 9 to 12 pound, and had 6 to 8/10s of trigger travel.

I am still a Glock skeptic. I just think there are better, safer trigger systems like the old Walther type system on my S&W 6906, or the Sig DA/SA hammer drop systems.

I have a thick skin, and a flame suit on, so tell me how wrong and old fashioned I am. I will probably just tell you to get off my lawn.

And I suppose your still skeptical of fuel injection too?

[Guest Ugrey]

DanE,, I think a safety added to a Glock is perfectly reasonable due to it's light, short trigger. Everybody understands a 5 pound, 2/10s (?) trigger on a Government Model needs a safety, but the Glock guys scream about how extremely competent and foolproof they all are, when a safety is suggested for a Glock.

Again, do departments that adopt Glocks not have an increase in ADs/NDs? As CC permit civilians, do none of you Glock owners EVER stuff your pistol in your waistband without a holster? That would scare me to death with a Glock.

[mikegideon]

Gentlemen, I am an old dinosaur at age 52. My first pistol, at age 21, was a .45 Colt Government model, series '70. So, I have lived with a cocked and locked pistol. I have fired a number of Glocks and I would just rather not live 24 hours a day x 365 days a year, at times when I am half asleep, sick, extremely pre occupied with something else, carrying a pistol with a 5 pound, 1/2 inch travel, trigger. I am much more comfortable with my Smith and Wesson 6906 that has a 12 pound, 7/10s of an inch trigger pull for the first shot and a better, lighter trigger pull, than a Glock, after that. I know many of you will say you cannot handle the double action, single action change after the first shot, but I promise you, after a thousand rounds, or less, it is no big deal. I can also holster this pistol while my thumb is on the bobbed hammer, so that I am SURE that the trigger has not hung up on anything. I don't think you can do that with a striker fired pistol.

Has the AD/ND rate not gone up with departments that have adopted Glocks? I don't think I could sell a Glock to a first time pistol buyer, and be able to sleep at night. It seems to me that the scene in Black Hawk Down, where the Delta operative tells the Ranger Colonel that he does not have to have his safety flipped on, on his AR, because his finger is his safety, has spoiled you young whipper snappers. While I might trust a Delta member that way, I am not so sure about the rest of you monkeys. :-) Someone up above said Glocks have taken the place of revolvers. Well, most revolvers I ever fired were 9 to 12 pound, and had 6 to 8/10s of trigger travel.

I am still a Glock skeptic. I just think there are better, safer trigger systems like the old Walther type system on my S&W 6906, or the Sig DA/SA hammer drop systems.

I have a thick skin, and a flame suit on, so tell me how wrong and old fashioned I am. I will probably just tell you to get off my lawn.

I've owned a Model 59 S&W since the '70's. I have no problem with SA/DA because I've had one for over 30 years. But, when it comes down to it now, I'll carry my M&P or my Glock. It really is pretty simple... don't mash the trigger, and it won't go bang.

[Guest Ugrey]

Erik, As an owner of a 1970 Buick 455 GS, I must admit I much prefer my Rochester Quadrajet carb. to fuel injection. I can fix anything wrong with the old Quadrajet, I am lost on fuel injection.

[mikegideon]

And I suppose your still skeptical of fuel injection too?

I'm not all wiggy about "striker technology". I like striker guns mostly because they're light, and you maybe get a little better ergos with molded plastic.

[Guest Ugrey]

Mike, I looked very hard at S&W MPs, and they have a 5 pound, 3/10s length trigger pull, from memory. That seemed very much like my old .45, without a safety.

[mikegideon]

Erik, As an owner of a 1970 Buick 455 GS, I must admit I much prefer my Rochester Quadrajet carb. to fuel injection. I can fix anything wrong with the old Quadrajet, I am lost on fuel injection.

Fuel injection is easy, and works better (until the computer fails)